The Bulwark Podcast - Susan Rice: A Cancer in the Body Politic

Episode Date: September 17, 2025

This country has been dealing with an increase in political violence for nearly a decade, and leaders from across the spectrum need to do everything they can to get us off this terrible path. Declaring 'free speech for me and not for thee,' or getting random people fired for not saying nice things about Charlie Kirk isn't helping to tamp things down. Meanwhile, it looks like Trump is sacrificing U.S. national security interests with his corrupt TikTok and UAE deals, and Russia remains one of the only countries in the world Trump hasn't tariffed. Plus, Democrats must not roll over and play dead on the spending bill like they did in the spring. Amb. Susan Rice joins Tim Miller. show notes Bulwark Live in DC (10/8) and NYC (10/11) with Sarah, Tim and JVL are on sale now at TheBulwark.com/events. NEW show added to Toronto schedule: Bulwark Live Q&A Matinee show on Saturday, September 27 —tickets are on sale now, here.

Hello and welcome to the Bullwark podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. Delighted to welcome back, former national security advisor and ambassador to the United Nations during the Obama administration and the chief domestic policy advisor during the Biden administration at Susan Rice. How you doing? Good to be with you, Tim. Good to be back. Oh, man. We were talking to the green room. It's been a week. And we've got so much to go over about what the Trump administration is up to.

But I do just have to cover the latest in the Kirk assassination here off the top. Authorities in Utah released some of the text messages between the assassin and his transgender roommate slash girlfriend, potentially. And the killer said that he confessed and said he killed Charlie Kirk because he had enough. his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. He said he planned it for about a week. He also said that his dad had gone diehard MAGA and that upset him. Obviously, there are other motives here as well. And, you know, these things, you know, when somebody does something like that, they obviously have mental health issues they're dealing with. But it is pretty straightforward as far as as motive is concerned. I'm just wondering what your reaction is to that. Well, Tim, my reaction is that

this is a horrific tragedy. And we have had so much hate-fueled violence and political violence in this country over the years, and in particular in recent years. And first thing, anybody who's a decent human being has got to do is condemn this and acknowledge that, you know, there is no excuse, whether it's speech or thoughts or actions, that in any way, shape, or form justify the use of political violence. And so that's where I start. And then, you know, I think, you know, we have text messages. We'll learn more as this unfolds about the deeper thinking and motives.

But there's no justification. And, you know, we have to look at this and recognize that this is a cancer that has been growing inside our society and inside our body politic. And, Tim, people may not remember or even may not have noticed that this is an issue on which I myself and many others have tried to take a leadership role going back several years. Three years ago to this week in 2022, when I was domestic policy advisor in the Biden White House, I helped organize and convene a White House summit day-long event called United Against Hate. and it was inspired by, you know, what had happened in the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, the horrific shooting of worshippers in the synagogue in Pittsburgh. It was inspired by the horrific hate-fueled shooting of black customers in the top supermarket in Buffalo.

It had come in the wake of the horrific violence that killed so many children in Yuvaldi. And it was an effort to bring together people, of all faiths, of all political backgrounds from all across the country to stand together of all races, all backgrounds, all nationalities, to say an attack on one of us or one group of us is an attack on all of us as Americans. And it was a great success. We had evangelical leaders, we had Muslim leaders, we had Jewish leaders, we had disability leaders, LGBT, across the spectrum. every sector of American society represented. But the sad thing was, Tim, at the time, we tried really hard to get Republican-elected

officials at the federal level, members of Congress, governors, senators, even former presidents to participate in this. And while former presidential centers, the Bush Center, the Ford Center, the Obama Center, and others did support this, we could not get a single Republican-elected officials. even Steve Scalise, to whom we appealed directly, because, of course, he had been a victim of political violence, to be willing to stand side by side in the White House with members of the Biden administration to show unity against hate-fueled violence. Now, I say this just to remind people that this is not a new issue. It is something that has affected people across the political spectrum, going back decades in

this country, but it's been more intense recently. What we need to take away from the assassination of Charlie Kirk is that people of all conscience and good faith from whatever side of political spectrum need to not fan this violence, not to incite hatred against one another, but to recognize that this is a terrible path that we've got to stop going down and we all have a responsibility as leaders to say so and to do our utmost to prevent it. I agree with all that. I just, I want to just add one thing I should have mentioned just about the text messages. I just feel horrible for that roommate, the trans roommate. And I think what is coming for, you know, the hate that's coming for them individually, you know, but also the broader community

and just reading the texts. And, you know, that person didn't see a, she didn't see a coming. And boy, it's, I think what he did to her is really, obviously, what Charlie is fucking horrible and, you know, reprehensible. But what he also did to his roommate slash girlfriend is, is a nightmare. frankly, what he did to the country. I want to just talk about a little bit of a contrast in the reaction from what you talked about the Biden White House did and what we're seeing from the Trump White House. Pam Bondi went out and said on Stephen Miller's girlfriends or wife, excuse me, podcast that they're going to target hate speech.

When they talk about hate speech, they're referring about hate speech against Charlie Kirk. She kind of backtracked that a little bit and said we're going to target people that use hate speech to incite violence. J.D. Vance, the vice president, on a podcast also said that, He thought that people should call the employer of folks that say things about Charlie Kirk that they find inappropriate. Trump yesterday in a press conference said that he endorsed Bondi's effort to go after hate speech and accused John Carl of ABC actually of participating in hate speech because he's mean to Trump. Like the reaction to this from the White House and how they're going to try to use this for a crackdown rather than for unity is pretty alarming to me. It's Orwellian, Tim.

And, you know, this is the kind of thing that's straight out of an authoritarian playbook. Demonize your political opponents, accuse them falsely of violence, turn the power of the state against them. You know, we've seen this coming, and this may be now an effort to turbocharge that assault on anybody who disagrees or speaks in a manner that the president doesn't like. Let me be clear, though, as you know better than others. It has been the right for decades, but especially in recent years, that has championed so-called free speech and insisted that, you know, whether it's college campuses or corporate boardrooms or wherever, that they're bastions of woke ideology and in quotations and, you know, and censorship of conservative views. And so specifically that hate speech is free speech. Charlie Kirk said that. Tucker said that. Hate speech, unfortunately or fortunately in our Constitution is free speech. But where we are now is it's free speech for me, not for thee. That's what this administration is saying. Basically, hate speech is anything they define it to be. Quoting Charlie Kirk's own words now publicly has been deemed hate speech, which is ironic. But the point is in the United States, of America, the First Amendment protects all speech short of direct incitement to violence. And, you know, somebody can call me the N-word. I've been called by many conservatives and

right-wing extremants, everything, but a child of God. They can say all of that. That's protected speech. I may not like it. I find it odious, but that's their right. And we have to stand up for that right across the board and not selectively. And what this administration, appears to be on the cusp of doing is worse than what they have accused their opponents of doing. It's weaponizing protected speech against political opponents. And if we go down that path, and that's in some way, shape, or form upheld by our courts and deemed a viable approach, then we are all but lost as a democracy. And I'd just add, who knows what the Justice Department actually will do and the courts and all of that is yet to play out.

it's pretty alarming what they're what they're discussing but it's already having people i made a searchable database they created of 50,000 people who said something inappropriate about charlie kirk's death i did a big rant on monday about how i don't like a lot of the things that people were saying about charlie kirk's death but like getting random people fired for their jobs is it is exactly what they decried right exactly what the right decried that the left was doing when talking about cancel culture etc and that that's already happening and you had the vice president of the united states and kirk it, which is pretty noxious.

Ezra Klein and Ben Shapiro were kind of discussing what the origins of this were. You just use the word that things have gotten more intense recently in recent years with the polarization in this country and the hate across political sides. And I was pretty struck by something that Ben Shapiro said about what he thought the origins of this were coming from the right. And this is a little bit longer clip than I usually play, but I think it's important to hear it. Ezra is asking about that. And he talks about something that, an era that you saw firsthand,

President Obama's reaction to the Henry Lewis Gates harassment in Cambridge and the death of Trayvon Martin. Let's listen to it. Racial relations in this country got markedly worse in 2013, 2014, 2015. But is that because Barack Obama should have been more positive on what happened to Trayvon Martin or what happened in a very different way to Henry Lewis Gates? It's just, it's hard for me when I look back on that. and the beer summit in particular, to hear, like,

that's what radicalized you all? Yes, and the reason is because the implicit promise of Barack Obama was the worst conflict in the history of America, which is the racial history of the United States, which is truly horrifying, that in his person, he was basically going to be the capstone of the great movement toward Martin Luther King's dream. And when instead, things seem to move in the opposite direction,

which was, well, you know, it turns out that black people in America, they're inherently victimized by a system, by a white supremacist system that puts black people underfoot and my son could have been Trayvon and people on the right saw that as like well but that's not true you are an upper class black man who is living in the white house

and unless your son was mistaken for a prowler going around at night in a neighborhood then no that actually wouldn't happen to your son in fact you have two black daughters and that stuff has never happened to them yikes what do you make about it's so offensive

I don't even want to dignify it. Yeah. It's just trash. A prowler. Mistaken for a prowler. It didn't seem to get a lightball didn't seem to go off about why he was mistaken for a prowler. But anyway. Fortune old kid got to get candy, unarmed.

Yes, it could have happened to Barack Obama's son. It could have happened to my son. It could have happened to many of our sons. But why are we wasting time on Ben Shapira? Well, it's a fair question. Especially that kind of bile. Yeah, it's a fair question. I think part of the reason is because, you know, I don't think that we can bridge this conversation if you don't at least listen to what the arguments are being made from on the other side. And I think that there's a lot of people who make really bad faith bullshit arguments. Benchfiro really believes that. And he's talking to Ezra about it. And they're probably the most prominent representatives of both sides. And I think it's an interesting exchange. But, Tim, look, I'm happy to listen. I'm happy to listen. You know, I have a very conservative son who has been very public about his, you know, leadership on campus, is head of Stanford College Republicans some years ago.

He must like Ben Shapiro, your son. He does in some respects. And he had respect for Charlie Kirk, too. And so I'm happy to listen. But I don't know that, you know, Ben Shapiro's disingenuous rantings. about trying to justify why some on the right dislike Barack Obama is really kind of a bit much for, at least our conversation, I think. All right. For some of you up in the Northeast, cool attempts are rolling in. My husband said he's in D.C. this week said it was 66 or something. Cool temps are not rolling in for me. But for you, if you're dealing with that, if you're already looking at pumpkin spice lattes or whatever, quince is where you've got to turn for false staples that actually laugh.

From cashmere to denim to boots, the quality holds up, and the price is exactly what you're looking for. Super soft, 100% Mongolian cashmere sweater starting at just 60 bucks. Their denim is durable and fits right, and their real leather jackets bring that clean, classic edge without the fancy price tag. What makes quince different? They partner directly with ethical factories and skip the middlemen, so you get top-tier fabrics and craftsmanship at half the price of similar brands. I just added a new Quince item to my wardrobe that maybe you've seen. It's a little black, you know, short sleeve button down, short sleeve. Louisiana's still not ready.

I'm not ready. Don't do it. Don't force me to go into fall already. You might need to get fall items for Quince. You might need cashmere, not me. I had a short sleeve button down. It's black. It fits nice.

It makes my little tricep look okay. Can't beat it really, to be honest. Keep it classic and cool this fall with long lasting staples from Quince. Go to quince.com slash the bulwark for free shipping on your order. and 365-day returns, that's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com slash the bulwark, free shipping, and 365-day returns, quince.com slash the bulwark. I'm going to move to the news. We have a TikTok deal.

It's going to be announced later this week, apparently. I guess we're going to call it a deal now. Scott Bessent announced it and said that, well, we're going to wait for the leaders of the two countries to finalize it. So I guess in this country, the president now finalizes corporate mergers and acquisitions, which is something that's pretty concerning. But here's the stake of it. The Chinese parent company, ByteDance, will retain the single largest ownership stake, 20%. Consortium of U.S. investors, including some mega supporters like Mark Andresen, who runs a Mark

Andreson Horowitz, is set to own 80%. The deputy head of China's powerful cybersecurity regular said that they'd agreed to a framework that includes licensing the algorithm, which means that the CCP gets to continue programming the algorithm, and Trump allies get to capture the financial upside. It's a pretty striking deal to me. I wonder what you make of that and the way that Trump's handling this in China more broadly. Well, on the TikTok, so-called framework agreement, I think we all need to see the fine print, and I don't know when or if we will.

But Trump has acted, frankly, in a lawless way on TikTok since he took office. Congress passed a legislation that required that TikTok be sold or that it be banned back in January. It was upheld by the Supreme Court. of the United States, and Trump, by executive fiat, by waving a pen, has put that off and put that off and put it off again until December. So that it appears he can negotiate a deal that lines the pockets of his cronies that keeps the Chinese, if that report that you read is accurate, in charge of the algorithm, which is exactly what Congress was trying to avoid when it passed this legislation, because if you control the algorithm, you're able to manipulate the views and

the opinions of TikTok users in this country, which the Chinese have already shown a willingness to do, distorting facts, not just about China and Taiwan or Tianmen, but poisoning the minds of Americans and turning them against each other and against our democratic values and institutions. If that is allowed to be the outcome here, then not only has this been, you know, a model, of corruption. But it has skirted very deliberately the intent of Congress, which was to protect U.S. national security against the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese government. There's a lot of reason to be concerned that this may be where it's going, given all the other evidence of corruption we've seen, but also given Donald Trump's bizarre affection for Xi Jinping and seeming

readiness to, you know, have a summit meeting in the fall with all the pomp and circumstance and to, you know, hold hands and, you know, join with the Chinese dictator at a time when, you know, we've gotten very little out of China. China continues to support and fund and assist Russia and its war of aggression against Ukraine. China continues to provoke in the South China see and, you know, engender conflict with our ally, the Philippines. China continues to do so many things internally and globally that are antithetical to U.S. interests. And the Trump administration's approach has been highly erratic, inconsistent, and off weak, and taken many, many steps from, you know, withdrawing from USAID, withdrawing from multilateral organizations,

ending the Voice of America. I could go on, you know, jettisoning, you know, skilled people in the State Department that actually end up benefiting China at the expense of the United States. So I hope this doesn't turn out to be yet another of those things, but it sounds from early indications and early reports that it might be. The other thing the concerns you know at this, if just kind of look at the bigger picture of what's happening in the big tech and Silicon Valley companies and kind of a sea change we've seen over the last 10 years. You know, if this gets finalized, and you have Mark Andreessen, who went big for Trump during the last campaign as one of the key holders here, stakeholders here. You have Elon Musk as big as donor, you know, running Twitter.

You have Zuckerberg, who has pivoted more towards a pro maga posture crazily based on free speech. Given what we discussed earlier running meta, you have the, big platforms, essentially all, with I guess a couple exceptions, run by big donors and supporters of the president, you know, in the context of the free speech conversation we were having earlier, that to me is also pretty alarming. It is. It absolutely is, Tim. Look at CBS.

I mean, that was another, and Paramount, that was another deal, and we're now seeing the indications designed to, you know, put a major media outlet in the hands of president's cronies. So this is an alarming pattern. There seems to be no limit to how this plays out in terms of rewarding the president's supporters with finances and but beyond finances, tools that can be used to manipulate public opinion. All right. I want to talk to you about home security for a minute. Something I'm thinking a little more about these days. I used to think home security was just an alarm that goes off after a break-in, scaring the intruder off.

and giving the neighbor's attention, maybe, if you're lucky. But that's a reactive approach. By the time an intruder is in your home, it's too late. Your feeling of safety is shattered. And that's why real security should stop a crime before it even starts. And that's why I trust Simply Safe. Their system is designed to be proactive, not reactive. Hard to not get macab as a podcaster talking about why somebody might want Simply Safe,

given what we've seen in the last six weeks in Minnesota and in Utah. but everybody deserves to feel safe. Everybody deserves security. It's something that sometimes I've been, I don't know, I'm kind of laissez-faire. It's just by nature. I don't know what it is about me. And so sometimes I've been laissez-faire about security,

but, you know, you get to middle age and things change. And I've been really happy to turn to SimplySafe to help secure my home. They use AI-powered cameras to identify threats looking outside your home and immediately alert SimpliSafe's professional monitoring agents. These agents intervene in real time before the break-in even begins.

They access two-way audio to confront the person, trigger sirens and spotlights to scare them off, and request rapid police dispatch when needed. Join the 4 million Americans who trust SimplySafe with their home security every day. And with a 60-day money-back guarantee and no long-term contract, SimplySafe earns your business by keeping you safe and satisfied every day. Visit simplysafe.com slash the bulwark to claim 50% off a new system. That's simplysafe.com slash the bulwark. There's no safe like SimplySafe.

I'll move on to another example of the corruption here, which I just haven't been able to get to. And I am obsessed with the crypto corruption side of this. I think when we look back on it, it might end up, you know, seeming like one of the most significant things that happens during the Trump administration. I think possibly we're seeing the biggest public corruption in the history of the White House. There's a New York Times story about the UAE, a UAE deal. It's a little complicated. So I just want to read some of it and can get your reaction to what we're seeing. both from a foreign policy standpoint, but also a corruption standpoint.

Steve Whitkoff, Trump's point man on all these negotiations, his son, Zach, announced a deal in Dubai a couple months ago. One of Sheikh Tanoon's investment firms from UAE would deposit $2 billion into the cryptocurrency startup founded by the Whitkoffs and Trump's. Two weeks later, the White House agreed to allow the UAE access to hundreds of thousands is the world's most advanced AI chips, all right? Many of the chips would go to G42, a technology firm controlled by Shake to Noon, despite national security concerns that the chips could be shared with China.

A truly shocking example of corruption without real precedent in the White House, if all that plays out, those in the New York Times. What do you make of all that? Well, it's shocking, even in the context of what we've been discussing and what we know have occurred in terms of other manifestations of corruption. You know, back when the UAE deal was announced, I think many national security experts, including myself, were taken aback, quite frankly, by the decision to give the UAE essentially unlimited access to our most sophisticated chips.

There had been in the Biden administration some very carefully orchestrated arrangements to enable UAE to pursue its interests in artificial intelligence with U.S. partnership, but not without limits and not without constraints. This basically took all the constraints off, and you have to ask yourself why. And at the time, you know, there were a lot of concerns expressed for the very reason that you just mentioned that the article identified concern that given China's closeness to the UAE and given, frankly, that the UAE is rather adept at deception and manipulation and playing adversaries and partners off against one another and being a great friend on Monday and a friend of me on Sunday, it raised a lot of questions. And the clear-cut risk was that China would be a direct

beneficiary. Now we're learning that it wasn't just something that happened in a vacuum or happened because, you know, the president was getting ready to go to the region, it now seems, if the New York Times reporting is accurate, that it, you know, coincidentally coincided with a $2 billion deal that line the pockets of not just Whitkoff and his family, but the Trump family. So, you know, if that's the case, if there is indeed, as the Times article would seem to suggest, if not an explicit, then an implicit quid pro quo, that that would be really. quite extraordinary, to trade off U.S. national security quite directly for financial gain for the president and his advisors. Now, again, we don't know that's not been proven indisputably, but that's certainly what's suggested by the article. If it is proven indisputably, there's really no precedent like in American history to something like that. And the Spiro, I do resignation over, you know, whatever, roads and some construction projects in Maryland. was like tiny potatoes compared to that saying $2 billion and impacting national security.

Indeed. Hey, everybody. You've probably heard me mention that the bulwark is headed back on the road this fall, but we've got some big updates that I want you to hear. First, most importantly, we are adding a show in Toronto. I told you Canadians. I was doing my best to make it happen. I'm so thrilled by the response we've had from our Canadian friends.

and wanted to make sure if you wanted to be able to come, you could. So we added a matinee, a brunch show, whatever you want to call it, maybe a drag brunch. Don't tell J.D. Vance the next day. No promises on drag queens there, but maybe the spirit of a drag brunch. And so that will be Saturday, the 27th. Go to the bulwark.com slash events to get all the details and to get your tickets for that encore show in Toronto. Also, New York, that's going to sell out here any minute. So if you want to see us in New York on October 11th, get your tickets ASAP.

There's still a bunch of tickets left for D.C. on October 8th, but we've got some exciting guest announcements coming soon. So if you're interested in coming to D.C., get on that as well. All of the information available at the bulwark.com slash events. It's me, Sarah, and Sam up in Toronto, me, Sarah, and JVL and some of our other Bullwark friends and a special guest in Washington, D.C. Look forward to seeing you all out on the road. We'll catch you soon. those tickets now. Speaking of Witkoff, he is Trump's point person, despite having no expertise on both,

on the two largest conflicts in the world. So I want to get your take on the latest in both of those, particularly what we've seen with regards to Russia's incursions into NATO territory. There were 19 drones that crossed into Polish airspace last week. There also was a drone on Sunday that crossed through Romania, which is on Ukraine's southwestern border. The Polish leader is now saying maybe NATO needs to consider a no-fly zone over Ukraine, permanent troops in Poland.

Trump has obviously kind of dismissed and downplayed this. We didn't have a deal, a peace deal on day one, which goes without saying, what do you think about kind of the Putin testing NATO here and what we've seen from Trump? Clearly what's happening is that Putin is doing what he has done since 2007, 2008, when he went into Georgia and then into eastern Ukraine and Crimea in 2014 and then trying to take all of Ukraine in 2022. He's probing. He's testing. He's seeing how far he can go. You know, under Donald Trump, who said on day one that he would end the war, we've seen the Russians escalate their attacks on Ukraine to levels that are unprecedented thus far in the war.

You know, days when you have 800 drone attacks over one night. And this coming, you know, right on the heels of Trump's signature summit and diplomacy with Putin where he rolled out the red carpet in Alaska. So the fact that this is Putin probing testing, seeing what the limits are. And the answer that he is getting from the United States from Donald Trump is, well, maybe it was a mistake. Maybe they didn't mean to send the drones into Poland is very, very frightening. because by now, and, you know, I was part of administration in 2014 that didn't successfully deter Putin from going in the next time, like the Bush team didn't deter them in 2007 and eight

from doing it in 2014. But by now, for Christ's sake, we should have learned the lesson, which is, you know, you got to push back. And that's what we started to do and have done effectively since 2022 in arming and supporting and equipping the Ukrainians to fight back against Russia and to put on sanctions and other pressures. But that needs to be sustained and the sanctions need to be ratcheted up. And what Trump has done instead is threaten new measures every couple weeks and then back off and say, oh, you know, another two weeks. Or as he said this past weekend, well, I'll do X when the Europeans do Y. I mean, it's just constant delay and deflection.

You know, Russia is one of the only countries in the world that has no new tariffs under Donald Trump, much less new sanctions, yet, you know, 50% tariffs, excuse me, on India for supporting Russia. So this entirely weak and inconsistent, and if I were, you know, the polls or the Baltic states or any of our European partners, I'd be very, very, very concerned right now. We need the United States and President Trump to say clearly and unequivocally that we will not tolerate any kind of incursion into NATO, air, sea, or land. And if Russia wants to pursue this, then they're coming after NATO as a whole. But you hear nothing like that. And meanwhile, while Ukraine is getting

pummeled, you know, every night. And Putin is given no indication of any willingness to consider a ceasefire or any limitations on the war. And Trump has just given him a free pass. So this is a very dangerous approach that the United States under Trump is taking. And I fear if we don't change course quite dramatically and quickly, it is going to encourage further Russian aggression. Obviously, the context was different because the Polish drone encouragement hadn't happened. but I was asking your former colleague, Jake Sullivan, about this question of whether the Biden administration should have considered a no-fly zone. And now, where we are now, whether NATO should. What do you think about that question? A no-fly zone over maybe parts of Ukraine, maybe more,

and whether that, you know, the escalation risk and how kind of NATO countries should think about that. Well, look, you know, I understand the logic at the time of wanting to avoid anything that could be deemed escalatory. But at a moment when the Russians are clearly and deliberately escalating and testing, I think we have to consider all these options anew. And, you know, I don't have any great hope that the Trump administration will do so. But, you know, it can't be, again, a situation where the Russians can do whatever they want, having started this war, having, you know, invaded a sovereign nation and reap untold destruction on the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian citizens. state, that the response is, you know, well, we can't do X, Y, and Z because it might provoke something worse. The Russians are provoking something, and we need clearly to see it for what it is. One more thing I ask, Jake, since I've never been in these rooms, all my candidates lost,

the red carpet that you mentioned, how does that happen? I knew a national security advisor, and obviously, I guess they're planning meetings for big summit such as this. And you have the troops, if American troops on their knees rolling out the red carpet from Putin. Could you have been national security advisor and Obama was president? Like, could you imagine the reaction on Fox to that? And like, how do you think that even happened? Like, how does that happen? Tim, I can't answer that. I mean, it shouldn't happen. It shouldn't happen. You don't know how it happened. I don't even understand. Like, somebody had to have a meeting, right, where they're like, we're going to send the troops out there. I don't know,

right? It doesn't an accident. The red carpet, the troops, the flyover, was all over the top. And, you know, I think a disgusting, you know, genuflection to a dictator in Putin. But the bigger question is, why were we inviting Putin to a summit on American soil at a time when he had done nothing to indicate, or at least nothing that anybody saw it, to indicate a willingness to end this conflict? And, you know, as subsequent events have borne out, he was playing Trump. And he wanted the visual, he wanted the optics of Trump. greeting him and paying him obeisance, and at the same time, trying to split Trump and the United States from our European partners and from Ukraine. It did not play the way I imagine,

I hope that the president thought it would play. And here we are, you know, in my view, with egg on our face, and we're no closer to a ceasefire. We're no closer, by the way, to strengthening the Ukrainian hand militarily, financially, or through additional economic pressure on Russia. And every day that passes is a day that the U.S. by default is allowing Putin to continue to pulverize Ukraine. I want to close the domestic politics, but just one more thing in foreign policy and Steve Wyckoff's portfolio, very big portfolio for an Outerboro real estate agent. The invasion of Gaza City, the result, there was a statement from J Street that I found pretty striking this week. They say it's become inescapably clear that for the extremists, that the

helm of the Netanyahu government. The goal is not the release of hostages nor the defeat of Hamas, but the destruction and indefinite occupation of Gaza. J. Street is, if you really don't know, is a Jewish advocacy group that has been pretty, frankly, strident, right, for sensibly, about, you know, anti-Semitism in the wake of October 7th. This statement, to me, is, again, just kind of the latest sign that Netanyahu is really losing a lot of allies over this. And I'm just wondering what you think of what we've seen from the latest out of Israel. Well, Tim, we're coming up on two years since the horrific terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel, which was so incredibly devastating. But the response has devolved into something that I think even Israel's closest friends would have to acknowledge is not serving Israel's interests.

the destruction, the devastation, the starvation, there is no strategic objective. Netanyahu has no end gain. It seems that his mission and intent is perpetual pulverization of Gaza and its people. And how that leads to an end state that ultimately makes Israel more secure is a mystery to me and to many who believe that Israel has a right to security and territorial integrity and its people to be safe. How this advances the release of the hostages to go bomb Hamas negotiators in Qatar while they're considering the U.S. latest peace initiative, nobody knows, including the hostage families. It just doesn't. So we're now at a point where, you know, this is really gone to a place where not only is the human cost absolutely intolerable and unconscionable, but the strategic cost to Israel's interests,

to the hostages, to Israel's standing in the international community, it's standing in the United States, and to U.S. interests is really the costs there are astronomical. And, you know, the President Trump, you know, said as much after the, you know, the attack by Israel on Qatar that didn't serve Israel's interests or the United States' interests. But, you know, we seem to say that and then, you know, send Rubio to Israel to sort of Pat and Yahoo on the back and say, you know, nothing clear about our concern about Gaza, if we still have any, or our concern about what's going on in the West Bank, or our concern about how Israel's comporting itself in the region that, you know, runs counter to our interests. So I think this is sort of another case of the

United States not standing up for our interests and meeting action with our rhetoric. I have a specific thing I want to get into you with about the Obamacare subsidy extension in that debate, but just more broadly first, like, what do you think about how the Democrats are kind of fighting in this moment and like, what, is there something you'd like to see more of or less of? I'm just kind of wondering what your big picture thoughts are of whether the Democrats. I guess right now. Well, I think Democrats need to be clear and forceful in their condemnation and articulation of the incredible damage that the Trump administration and the Republicans in Congress

are doing to this country and to the people of this country. I mean, that big, ugly bill will do more to harm regular Americans, including many of whom voted for Donald Trump by taking away their health care, taking away food assistance, undermining decades of research and support for things like cancer, which affects everybody on a nonpartisan basis in this country. It's just they are literally taking steps that will kill ordinary Americans. And you have to ask yourself why. You know, okay, maybe it's ideological when it comes to the ACA, but cancer research, food assistance, Medicaid, which has substantial bipartisan support, this is going to harm and ultimately, in some instances,

sadly, kill ordinary Americans. And that is what I think we need to be extremely vocal about, while at the same time, this big ugly piece of legislation, not only kills and harms Americans, but lines the pockets of the wealthiest Americans who, frankly, need those resources the least. So it's a Robin Hood bill that steals from the poor, gives to the rich, and leaves many, many, millions of Americans much more desperate and poor and sick than they would otherwise be. So I think that has got to be a critical focus, and at the same time, we've got to be clear, cut, and unified in calling out the abuses and excesses of the Trump administration when it comes to violations of the rule of law, going back to where we started this conversation. So I think we can and we must. And I think that the American people need to see clear and strong and principled leadership from Democrats and not just. Democrats, independents, people of conscience who understand that we are a nation of laws,

that we have a constitution that needs to be applied, not just when it's convenient and serves the interests of those in power, but all the time. And I think those messages are the ones that Democrats need to carry very forcefully. And when it comes to the shutdown negotiations. Well, can I just set this up for people who are just on particular on the Obamacare subsidies? Because the last thing I wanted to get your take on. It was so there are these enhanced Obamacare subsidies, essentially, in short, that expire, right? And so some people are already seeing autof-Palkets cost surge, you know, their premium surge, we're already starting to see that this fall because these subsidies are expiring. Chuck Schumer yesterday was out basically

saying if we're going to negotiate over, you know, keeping the government open, you know, one thing the Democrats want is extending those enhanced Obamacare subsidies, you know, maybe for a year, maybe for two years. There's some Democratic commentators out there. who are saying, this is not really a great fight to pick, right? Like, on the one hand, it's good to make sure people know that it's the Republicans that are causing these increases. On the other hand, it's like, well, if we kick the can here down past the midterms, you're kind of doing them a solid, actually, by cutting a deal with the Republicans on something

like this, where people don't have to experience the consequences of all the things you just laid out about the Republicans bill. So what do you think kind of about that whole conversation? Well, I think, first and foremost, you know, our elected officials, are there to serve the interests of the American people. And it is not in the interest of the American people to have their health care stripped away. The estimates are that these ACA subsidies, enhanced premiums are not extended, that health care costs for people, you know, who are utilizing the ACA will go up 75%. 75%. Rural hospitals are already starting to cut back services and announce that they're

going to have to close, which was an anticipated consequence. of this big, ugly bill. So I don't think that elected officials, whether Democratic or Republican, should be saying, you know, we don't care about what happens to the American people. That's essentially the Republican position. We don't care. We pass this bill and to hell with our constituents. Well, you know, as a Democrat, that's not the approach I would take. I think that the big point here also, Tim, is, you know, the Republicans control the House. They control the Senate and they control the White House. It is on them to pass a spending bill. It is on them to push through the appropriations bills, but they cannot do it alone. They need Democratic votes in the Senate. And you don't get

Democratic votes any more than Democrats would get Republican votes without a 60-vote threshold without negotiating with the other side. And for the Republicans to refuse to even sit down with the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate and basically blow them off and expect the Democrats to roll over and play dead? Well, unfortunately, that's what happened in March. I really hope that that doesn't happen again this time because what's the point of serving in Congress

if you don't use your voice in your vote? So there needs to be a negotiation. If the Republicans in the House, the Senate, and the White House want to pass a budget and want to pass their appropriations bills, they need Democratic votes. And to get Democratic votes, there needs to be a compromise. That's the nature of our democratic system.

Is there anything specific you'd ask for in a compromise? Well, I think the health care stuff is really, really important. And so I personally think that that is the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do for the American people. It may not be the most cynical, politically expedient thing to do. But I think the American people will understand that it was the Republicans that took away their health care. and it was the Democrats, if they succeed, that help get it restored. So I think that's to the benefit of the people and to, and ultimately to political benefit.

I also think we have to put an end to this complete crap where, you know, Congress passes a budget or Congress passes appropriations legislation. And Russell vote and Stephen Miller and, you know, the most extreme people in the White House wake up and say, we don't have to abide by the spending levels that Congress passed and that the president signed into law. We will unilaterally make our own decisions about what is spent or not spent, this rescission process. And that needs to be stopped. And appropriators on both sides of the aisle have been clear that they don't believe that the rescission efforts that the Trump administration has pursued in recent months are lawful. I don't think we can keep playing

this rope a dough and sign on to legislation, have it pass, have the president sign it, and then have his aides to throw it into the garbage can. That is not acceptable. So there needs to be some way to prevent that from recurring. All right, Susan Rice, I really appreciate all your time today. So much stuff to get to. We could have done three hours, but we did good. We covered a lot of ground. We covered a lot of ground. Yeah, we'll have you back another time soon, all right? Thanks, Tim. Good to be with you, as always. All right, thanks so much. Everybody else. We'll be back here tomorrow for another edition of the Bullwork podcast. See you all then. Peace.

All you want is Nike's, but the real. Just like you, just like me. I don't play, I don't make time. But if you need dick, I got you, and I am from the line. Go up for ASAP, R-I-P-Py Pimsy, R-IPT, R-I-P-Tribon, that nigger look just like me. Woo, my kid, I see him, I see, woo, that my little cousin, he got a little tray. Girl, keep the scales A little mermaid

We out by the pool Some little mermaids Me and them gel Like twigs with the banks That's a real mermaid You're all your bread With death Moncadre

Mont Padre Pump Papa You don't care for me, but you care's fine. And that's good. We don't talk much or nothing. When we're talking about something. The Bullark podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brow. Thank you.