The Dispatch Podcast - Trump’s Deportations Are ‘Performance Art’ | Interview: John Bolton

Episode Date: March 31, 2025

Jamie Weinstein is joined by John Bolton, former ambassador to the United Nations and Donald Trump’s onetime national security adviser, to discuss the Trump administration’s mass deportation program, the “loss of American prestige,” and the Signal saga. The Agenda: —“Loss of American prestige” on the world stage —How to negotiate with Greenland —The Soviet Union won —“The biggest trade deal in history” —Why does Trump attack our allies? —Groupchat-gate —Trump’s deportations are “performance art” —The "Free World" is gone The Dispatch Podcast is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including members-only newsletters, bonus podcast episodes, and regular livestreams—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When you're with Amex Platinum, you get access to exclusive dining experiences and an annual travel credit. So the best tapas in town might be in a new town altogether. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at Amex.ca. www.ca slash yamex Did you lock the front door?

Check. Close the garage door? Yep. Installed window sensors, smoke sensors, and HD cameras with night vision? No. And you set up credit card transaction alerts at secure VPN for a private connection and continuous monitoring for our personal info on the dark web.

Uh, I'm looking into it. Stress less about security. Choose security solutions from TELUS for peace of mind at home and online. Visit TELUS.com. Total Security to learn more. Conditions apply. Welcome to the Dispatch podcast. I'm Jamie Weinstein.

My guest today is Ambassador John Bolton, a man who needs no introduction to the dispatch and a returning guest for the Monday interview show. This is his first time on since the election of Donald Trump. And we get into what he makes of Trump 2.0, what successes he hopes to see from the administration, what he fears that the administration will do and has done. We also talk about the signal chat controversy, what he thinks of it as someone who has dealt with classified information,

his entire life almost. And finally, we get into what it is like to be a critic in Donald Trump 2.0, what he fears Trump might do more than he's already done, and what he hopes Trump might not do. So without further ado, I give you Ambassador John Bolton. Ambassador John Bolton, welcome to the dispatch podcast. By to be with him. Mr. Ambassador, we've talked many times over the years.

This is an interesting moment to chat. Let's just begin broadly. we're a little over two months into the Trump administration. What do you make of it so far? Well, I think in the national security field, a lot of damage has been done in the political area, in the international military area, in the business and trade area. The steps that Trump has taken in a very short period of time has ripped through decades of effort to build up. It's, None of it is irreversible, but a lot of damage has been caused. And we can go through it kind of detail by detail.

But the net effect here is a substantial loss of American prestige and ability to protect its own interests, drifting far away from Reagan's model of the U.S. role in the world, where we have a strong position that benefits us and benefits our allies. We seem to be determined to lose the allies and try and pick up with our adversaries. And I think, although we haven't seen the full effect of the trade war that's coming, that will simply amplify all of the problems that are now being created. So there's a lot of work to do for the next 46 months to mitigate this damage so that the rebuilding and repair work afterward is as limited as we can make it. But it's going to be a difficult challenge. There's no question about it. Well, I want to get into some of the details as you, as you said, we could. And at the end, ask you, as you said, how it could be reversed some of these things. As we speak, they may have already landed. We're speaking on Friday. J.D. Vans and his wife will be landing in Greenland. Is Greenland important to America's strategically important to America? And if so, is this the right way to go about trying to acquire it?

Well, Greenland is strategically and economically important to the United States. It was in 2019 when Trump was first given this idea by a friend of his. And there are a lot of different ways we could proceed to help make our interests safer, more secure against Russian and Chinese threats that are growing more acute as the polar ice melts and sea routes around Greenland become more feasible and the attractiveness of the mineral wealth on. Greenland becomes more interesting to China and Russia. America has been interested in Greenland for a long time during 2019. We did a lot of research on this to get ready for what Trump might have in mind. The first effort of the United States to purchase Greenland was 1868 by William

Seward, having bought Alaska from Russia the year before. And there's a long history since then. And so, yes, indeed, there's an enormous strategic interest for us here, didn't originate with Trump in 2019 or earlier this year. There's also a way to go about it. And one way not to go about it is to slap your Democratic allies like Denmark in the face, push their elected leaders into a corner where it's hard to make a deal, and treat the Greenlanders as if they're living in an amusement park that Americans go and visit and say, my goodness, look at the natives.

that doesn't facilitate the objectives that Trump says he wants. There are ways to do this. I think it's feasible. I think we can negotiate with Denmark. We can negotiate with the Greenlanders, not in Yankee Stadium under the spotlights, but behind closed doors to achieve the results we want. I'm not sure that Trump cares about any of that. To him, it's just another real estate deal.

It's like a plot of land on Park Avenue in 57. He hasn't ruled out, I don't know if he would, using military force to take Greenland. We had former Prime Minister Boris Johnson on the podcast earlier this year. He didn't think it was likely, but he said that if the U.S. did something like that, they would have to invoke Article 5 of NATO

because that would be an attack on NATO by another NATO member. Is it possible that Trump would use military force to get Greenland if he couldn't come to some sort of deal with Denmark? I think it would be proof he was in. same. It's just incomprehensible to me that we're even talking about this and saying, well, he hasn't ruled the use of force out on Greenland, Panama, and I don't know, how about the Gaza strip? This was the guy who wanted to end endless wars. You know, it shows the utter inconsistency

of his thinking, the lack of any coherent philosophy or national security strategy. This is, as it was in the first term, about the whims of Donald Trump. You warned that you've thought that if Donald Trump was reelected, he would pull out of NATO. Are you any less concerned about that now? Is he laying the groundwork to have a pretext to do that by creating these problems with Denmark, creating the divide between Europe and the United States with Ukraine? Are these pretexts that he could use to pull out of NATO? Well, it's possible that could be used as pretext. I don't think he needs many more reasons. I think in his own mind, he believes that we defend Europe.

We don't get anything out of it, and they don't pay for it. Now, if that's the way NATO worked, I'd probably agree with him, but that's not the way NATO works. It doesn't take into account the advantages we get from the NATO alliance. But I think it's also important here, and I've been trying to say this to our European friends, they need not to overreact to Trump. So when the incoming chancellor, Germany says, Germany wants independence from the United States, one Kayakhalis, the European Union, foreign affairs, a spokesperson says, the West needs a new leader. When Trump hears that, that is practically a permission slip for him to withdraw from NATO to say, well, the Europeans don't want us. That's fine. We'll withdraw. You know, that during the Cold War, that one of the principal objectives of the Soviet Union was to split the Western Alliance. And they failed. And that's one reason they lost the Cold War. We're splitting the alliance ourselves right now. Donald Trump won't take using military force off the table for Greenland, does it weaken or does it, do we have the credibility to make the argument to China not to take Taiwan by force? Does it weaken our argument

against some bad actors, truly bad actors, if we are opening the possibility of taking territory by force? Sure. I mean, I think it justifies what they're saying. Trump said on Thursday night that Greenland was necessary for our national security. Well, that's Putin's argument for Ukraine. It's it's China's argument for Taiwan. And, you know, it's another reflection of Trump's affinity for the authoritarian leaders. That's the way they behave. And so now that's the way he's behaving. It's fun to be a big guy like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. I don't think that's what the American people voted for in 2024. I don't think it's even remotely close to what they thought they were getting. I mean, more particularly on China, I mean, you wrote about Donald Trump's

interactions with she in your in your book. Do you think that he would come to a deal with China over Taiwan? And if so, what would that look like? Well, there are certainly a lot of concerns in Taiwan about that that Trump would like nothing better than at some point to have what he finally called during the first term the biggest trade deal in history between the U.S. and China, where, you know, if we could get China to correct a lot of its behavior in the international economic arena, stealing our intellectual property just as one good example, maybe you could get a big trade deal. But Trump wants a big trade deal because he would be the center of attention. And I think he would give up a lot, maybe including Taiwan, to get it.

He said during the campaign, he thought that Taiwan stole the U.S. semiconductor chip manufacturing industry. And that's not true. He later backed off that. But that's the kind of thing. That's, that's Chinese propaganda. And yet he repeats it as though it's received wisdom. So it's a very, it's a very dangerous time for the United States because we've got a president who not only with respect to China, but with respect to Russia on Ukraine, often trust the leader of our adversary more than he does our intelligence community or our close allies. Well, explain that to us. Explain that to the listener. Why does Trump seem to attack our allies, Canada, Even if he disagrees as, you know, the leader of Canada, more harshly than he attacks, you know, genuinely evil people like Vladimir Putin.

Trump thinks that international affairs are really matters of personal relations. He thinks if he has a friendly relation with Vladimir Putin and the U.S. has good relations with Russia. And the converse is true. If he has bad relations with the Lodomir Zelensky, then we have bad relations with Ukraine, which unfortunately is what things look like at the moment. I can't explain it psychologically, but I think looking at Putin or Xi or Kim Jong-un with whom Trump said in the first term, he said, we fell in love. That's not how they regard it. They think Trump is an easy mark, but they're big guys. And in their country, they do what big guys do, meaning they're not constrained by courts or legislatures.

And I think he's envious, and he wants to be a big guy like them. So, at Panama, Greenland, whatever comes up on the radar screen, is something that he can play with as if he were Vladimir Putin. The way that some people around Trump explain that is that he believes that he has to say these things in order to negotiate with Vladimir Putin. Is Vladimir Putin more likely to give up on something he considers important to him because Donald Trump says nice, flattering words about him? No, I don't think Trump has the slightest awareness that Putin in particular is manipulating him

in the ways of an old-experienced KGB agent. You can see it in operation, but I don't think Trump sees it. So, for example, in the 2024 campaign, Trump said repeatedly there would have been no Russian invasion of Ukraine if he had been president. Now, that may or may not be. It's an unprovable statement one way or the other. But after the inauguration, Putin said in Moscow, you know, I don't disagree with President Trump. If he had been president, there wouldn't have been a war in Ukraine. So Trump was just very happy to hear that because it showed that Putin was validating the point he had made in the campaign.

And what Putin knows for sure is he's now rung Trump's bell and gotten a very happy response. And that was just the beginning of the manipulation. Then they released Mark Foley, a longtime American hostage in Moscow. That pleased Trump. Lukashenko, Belarus, then released another American prisoner. That made Trump happy. This is how Putin plays it. I'm not saying he's always right. I'm not saying Putin doesn't make mistakes too. But by and large, in that relationship, the one who's getting what he wants is Putin. What is the president referring to? He always says that when he said what you said, that Putin never invaded any country on his watch, that he told Vladimir Putin in some meeting that, you know, what the consequences would be if he invaded Ukraine. And Trump never details exactly. what he told him, but he said Putin got the point. Do you know what he's referring to, what

meeting he's referring to? No, and I, you know, I can't obviously say definitively about meetings that occurred, certainly after I left the administration, but I don't think it occurred from the time of his first inauguration, at least until the time I left. I think the more likely explanation is he made the conversation up. He made it up, and he does this from time to time, about exchanges he wish had taken place. And he always wins these conversations. He's always the one who prevails. Funny thing about that. You can tell in many cases when he talks about conversations with other Americans or people who work for him, they always start off by saying, well, Mr. X said to me, sir, we need to do X. That's not the way it works. That's the way Trump likes it to think it works.

but making up things really out of whole cloth that cannot be proven or disproven is something Trump does all the time. The tariffs, do you think these are a negotiate? I mean, this is the constant debate on CNBC these days. Are they a negotiating tool? Do you think that they will remain by and large at very high levels? Well, you know, in a sense, everything Trump does is negotiation. Since he has no philosophy, everything is a potential transaction, which is also another way

of saying he doesn't believe in anything. Everything he's got is for sale. But on some things, and I think tariffs are a good example, these are things he has believed in for a long time, not part of any coherent philosophy, but just he likes them. He can inflict them on foreign states without congressional approval. At least that's his legal argument. We'll see if that gets challenged. He can make them 20 percent one day, 60 percent the next day, 10 percent the next day. He likes that. it shows just how much control he's got. He sees it as a way to raise revenue. He thinks he's taking money away from foreigners, which is a demonstration. He doesn't understand how tariffs work. And I had been in the room where people in the first term did explain how it worked, that it's the

American importer who pays the tariff and then the American consumer who probably bears most of the cost. He just won't take that point on board. He says repeatedly he's going to make the foreigners pay. So this is something he does believe in. He said it's the most beautiful word in the dictionary, and now we're launched, and on April 2nd, when Liberation Day comes, will be launched even further into an experiment that we haven't made since the Smoot-Hawley tariffs right after the crash of 29, which many people believe just exacerbated the economic downturn into the Great Depression. We have no real contemporary experience with the trade war. But this time, Unlike in his first term, the trading partners that were attacking most, two of our three biggest

being Canada and Mexico, China being the other in the top three, and then Europe, they're going to retaliate this time. And my guess is it's a lot easier to get into a trade war than it is to get out of it. So that the economic harm that's going to be caused here is going to have significant consequences. I buy the economic analysis that says in a real trade war, everybody ends up. up Warsaw. In theory, this is at least one issue where Congress could take the power back from Trump the ability to tariff. They have shown the Republicans in the Senate and in the House an unwillingness so far to stand up to very much of anything Donald Trump has proposed. Do you think there is a point

at which they might exercise their power to take back the power of putting tariffs on countries? Well, it's going to be an interesting test. There's certainly, as you say, very little evidence that they're willing to do it. It may be in the wake of the signal chat group debacle that more Republicans are willing to stand up. My sense is a lot of Republicans, House and Senate, don't really agree with Trump on many of these things, but they're intimidated. They don't want to see a primary challenger. They don't want to speak up. They don't want to get slapped around. They don't want to be threatened by Elon Musk. funding a primary opponent. So there's good news and bad news. It's not the case that intellectually Trump now dominates the Republican Party because there's no intellectual content to dominate. But the bad news is people are reluctant to face the potentially negative political consequences. I don't think that's going to last forever. And as I say, I do think there are some signs it's beginning to crack even now. Not long ago, I saw someone go through a sudden loss. And it was a stark reminder of how quickly

life can change and why protecting the people you love is so important. Knowing you can take steps to help protect your loved ones and give them that extra layer of security brings real peace of mind. The truth is the consequences of not having life insurance can be serious. That kind of financial strain on top of everything else is why life insurance indeed matters. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. Ethos keeps it simple. It's 100% online, no medical exam, just a few health question. You can get a quote in as little as 10 minutes, same-day coverage, and policies starting at about two bucks a day, build monthly, with options up to $3 million in coverage. With a 4.8 out of

five-star rating on trust pilot and thousands of families already applying through Ethos. It builds trust. Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash dispatch. That's ETHOS.com slash dispatch. Application times may vary. It may vary. Stop leaving savings behind at the pump. Get up to 7 cents per liter in value every time you fill up at Petro Canada. That's 3 cents per liter in instant savings plus 20% more points when you link an eligible RBC card to your Petro points.

Find out more at RBC.com slash Petro-dash Canada. Conditions apply. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home online. Whether you're building a site for your business, your writing, or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place. With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch a website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new Blueprint AI,

which tailors a site for you based on your goals and style. It's quick, intuitive, and requires zero coding experience. You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site and email campaigns to stay connected with subscribers or clients. And Squarespace goes beyond design. You can offer services, book appointments, and receive payments directly through your site. It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience

without having to piece together a bunch of different tools. All seamlessly integrated. Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch, use offer code dispatch to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. You mentioned the signal chat group. I know you've talked about it elsewhere. So that's just one question for you on it.

I mean, you've been in national security classified information dealing with that for probably almost on your entire career. How serious a breach was this? And how much of a threat was it that foreign adversaries could see in real time what these cabinet members were discussing? Well, I don't, I mean, to me, I just can't even imagine opening a signal chat group or a telegram chat group or anything else. People say, but the communications are encrypted, but that's fine. We have the National Security Agency that has big computers chug, chug, chugging along trying to de-encrypt any system that we want to try and get into, and our adversaries do as well. What's troubling about the signal chat group is that it doesn't look to me like it was the first time

this group had engaged in it. And this one was bad because they were talking about a U.S. military operation before it was launched. So in real time, if anybody had broken into the, that and conveyed that information to the hoodies. It could have jeopardized American pilots. It could have diminished our success in the attack. And it's not an answer to say, well, the attack went off okay, no casualties. The damage that's done is that we've shown weakness in our operational security that our adversaries will try and exploit. And the unanswered question is, how many times was this done before? How much other information went through signal? What did we build the world's most secure telecommunications capability for, if not to use

it, unsensitive matters? And once you're on, you know, a secure telephone, a U.S. government secure telephone, you don't worry what the level of classification is you're discussing. You'd be talking about an article in the morning newspaper or top secret code word items, and you're secure. When you're on signal, did no one in that conversation for days ever say, you know, Maybe we ought to get off this and get back on a classified system. I'm just without words to understand how that could have happened. Do you get the sense they use this for ease of communication because the other system was too difficult? And if that is the answer, is it any different than emails like Hillary Clinton did with classified information?

You know, the email keyboard before the classified computer in my office at the White House looked a lot like the keyboard before the unclassified computer. And in terms of phones, all you have to do is pick up the phone on your desk and press the button. And in my case, it's a secretary of defense. And it's a drop line to the office. None of the people in that group, with the exception of Steve Whitkoff, whom I don't understand why I was on the group, is more than an arm's length away from secure communication at any time in their offices, in their homes, in their transportation. To say it somehow is inconvenient to use the government classified system is another. inexplicable point. We were discussing using military force against a group of terrorists in Yemen. It's something more important on your schedule that day. But what do you think the reason is then if it wasn't ease? Do you think it was, you know, maybe they're afraid of what they termed the deep state listening into their comment? I mean, what would be the other reason that they would use signal as opposed to what you said? I can't understand it. I just can't

understand it. It's just inconceivable to me that you would do this. What do you make of the immigration issue, the illegal roundups of Venezuelans who wouldn't be accepted by their home country being sent to El Salvadoran prisons. And the claims that some of them are not violent gang members as were first originally said to be. To me, this should be a scandal if you're sending nonviolent people, even if they're illegal immigrants to a dungeon in El Salvador. But what do you make them. Well, I think a lot of this is theater for, for political purposes for Trump space. I mean, on the positive side, Trump has largely done what he said he would do in terms of closing the border in a relatively short time because we learned in his first term that deterrence works.

If you tell people in Central America, you can walk from Honduras across Mexico to the Rio Grande. You're not getting in. Sensible people will say, well, I'm not going to pack my bags and walk across Mexico. Biden came in and said, okay, all those Trump policies were over. People said, pack your bags and away they went. Now you're back to saying you're not going to get in so they don't come. That's an achievement. And I think we should recognize that. Deportation of the illegals who are already here, I think is also entirely legitimate. Why they have to rely on, try to rely on things like the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, when there are plenty of existing authorities, why it has to be rushed, why you need the photography, why Christy Noem has to go to

El Salvador and pose with prisoners. This is all performance art. And we'll see how this works out in litigation, but that part of it's not serious. And I don't know what accounts for it, but I think it's destructive to our relations in Latin America. And other parts of it, I don't understand why, why allow or why now revoke the authority to stay in this country, essentially of all Venezuelans and Cubans, which they've done. These are the people who really do need political asylum. If they're gang members, by all means, round them up. It seems to me it's not a burden, shouldn't be a burden to prove in any individual case. The person is, in fact, a gang member, not just on the government say so, but on the basis of evidence, presumably, that they have.

You know, once you've got them in custody, they're not threatening innocent America. Americans anymore. I'd love to get him out of the country quickly, too, but an immigration judge hearing is not a heavy burden. How likely is it, do you think, that Trump will authorize strikes to take out Iran's nuclear program? Well, I don't know that he will authorize American military involvement, but I do think he should authorize the Israelis to do it. I would be stunned if the subject didn't come up when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here some weeks back. I think this is the most opportune moment Israel has ever had to destroy the nuclear program. I think they've got to take steps in advance to protect against retaliation by Hezbollah, which still has the large

arsenal in Lebanon and take steps against the Iranian ballistic missile program, which they've still got a good number of missiles in their arsenal. But this nuclear threat is not just a problem for Israel. It's not just Israel's responsibility. It's ours. It's the world. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is a global threat. I would be perfectly comfortable to strike militarily along with Israel. I'd be perfectly comfortable to give them intelligence and other support. If the nuclear program in Iran can be eliminated, the adding to the work that Israel's already done against Iran's terrorist proxies is a big step toward some kind of resolution of the regime of the Ayatollahs in Tehran. There's already a lot of finger-pointing

and recrimination over the damage that Israel is inflicted, the fall of the Assad regime, and a strike on the nuclear program might be the tipping point that actually brings the regime down. Does Israel have the capacity to take out Iran's nuclear program without the United States? It's got the capacity pretty much to take out the most important parts of it. Some parts are beyond their capability, but they can destroy them for temporarily that have to do preventive maintenance. That's one reason I would say the U.S. should join with Israel. Let us take care of the parts that we can do really permanent damage to. People say, but this would risk a regional war in the Middle East. It absolutely would not if the Iranian retaliatory capacity were eliminated first. Most of the Arab states in the region would be quietly saying, thank God they've finally gotten around to doing it because they see the threat to them, Gulf Arabs in particular. The same way is, Israel sees the threat, the threat of Iran's nuclear program and the threat of Iran's ring of fire strategy, which applies initially to Israel, but could be applied against

the Gulf Arab states too. Mr. Ambassador, my friend Jamie Kirchik, who was on this show recently, recently wrote an op-ed in Politico about how he believes some of the events the last several weeks with regards to Europe will end the American-led free world order. You said earlier that you think it's reversible. But my question to you is, you know, it's easy to point out of things that we don't like that America has to do to uphold the liberal free world order. It's harder sometimes to see the benefits because they're more dispersed. What are the benefits that America has gotten since World War II of being the leading superpower by keeping the sea lanes open? What have

been the benefits to America that sometimes it's not so easy to hold up that that Americans might not understand. Well, let me say first, I think the people on all sides of the political spectrum, liberal Democrats and some Republicans as well, make a mistake by effectively saying we're doing all this for the greater good of mankind, that we're just concerned about conditions all over the world and we're nice people, and that's why we do all this. We are nice people, and we do a lot for friends and allies who don't bear their fair share of the burden. That's clear, and we should work to make friends and allies bear their fair share of the burden. But here's the real point. We're not doing it for them. We're doing it for us. The provision

of order that we've made in the world, we and our allies since 1945, is what has kept what peace there is, and it hasn't been perfect, has allowed the growth of the economic interaction all over the world that's brought the greatest prosperity scene in history, including to us, trade, travel, communications. The revolution is incredible. And it rests fundamentally since 1945 on American power. We're doing it because it's in our interest. If we didn't do it, one of two things would happen. One, there would be spreading chaos around the world as the order collapsed. Or two, our adversaries would move in to take advantage of it. We're doing this because we're looking out for our interest, and nobody else is going to look

out for our interest better than we are. If we don't do it, if we pull back, if we look at the hoodies blocking the Red Sea maritime passage, as J.D. Vance did and say, that's just for the Europeans to take care of. That's a narrow, cramped vision of the world. It's been a, it's been a principle, freedom of the seas has been a principle of U.S. policy since before we were a country. it. And we do it around the world, not because of the specific dollars and cents value of trade in one particular geographic location, but because we insist on it on a worldwide basis. So I would have, I would say we need more argumentation by political leaders on why this world order we have created benefits us. I'm glad other people benefit from it, too, because we are nice people and generous. But we're doing it because on balance, it benefits us more than anybody else. I want to close Mr. Ambassador with the remaining minute or two we have left and just ask you, you for years were at the center of Republican politics, foreign policy, thinking what is this kind of new role now that you're a little bit on the outside because of your relationship with Donald Trump been like for you? What is it like to be kind of on the periphery? Do you still, are you still able to advise senators or people even within the Trump administration or do you feel exiled in some way? Well, I, you know, I do talk to plenty of people whose names I try and keep private so they don't incur the wrath of Trump. But look, when I began my political career, the first campaign I got

involved in was Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign in 1964, which did not end well for Barry Goldwater. So you go through periods of success and periods of failure, and people should remember that four years after Goldwater went down to the worst defeat in history as of that time, Nixon was elected president, surprising everybody. He was then destroyed by the Watergate scandal resigning in 1974. People said the Republican Party and conservatism were dead. And six years later, we elected Ronald Reagan. It comes and it goes, and you just have to accept that that's the nature of politics. One of Trump's first actions was, as you've spoken out on television about taking away your security detail. Are you concerned, as some, I think,

other critics of Trump are, that he could go further in either use the IRS to audit you or come up with a reason to prosecute you? Do you think he might do that? Is he capable of doing something like that? And do you fear that? Sure. Look, I think retribution is clearly part of Trump's game plan for the second term. Look at the law firms he's going after. And some of them have capitulated, which is a terrible signal for the rest of the legal profession. This is not why we elect people president. But like everything else about Trump, it's all about him personally. It's not about America. It's about Donald Trump. That's what the central problem is. And finally, Mr. Ambassador, there are some who fear that Trump will try to run for another term, even though

he's constitutionally ineligible. Do you think that our structure is strong enough to withstand whatever, anti-democratic impulses that Donald Trump tries to impose during his second term in office. Look, he will push against anything because he doesn't have any discipline. He doesn't want to be constrained by any rules. But I do think the Constitution and our civil society are strong enough to stand against that, if that's what he tries to do. We've been through a lot of difficulties over 200-plus years. The framers of the Constitution knew they weren't writing for perfect people. knew that there would be times of stress. We're in one of those now. But if we just remember what our what our ideals are, we will, we will prevail over Trump because his only ideal is himself.

Mr. Ambassador, thank you for joining the dispatch podcast. Glad to be with you. You know,