The Megyn Kelly Show - Marco Rubio and Tulsi Gabbard - Megyn Kelly's "Double Feature" of Fascinating Interviews

Episode Date: June 21, 2026

Megyn Kelly brings you two of the most fascinating interviews from the Megyn Kelly Show archives in this Sunday "Double Feature" episode - with Trump administration officials Secretary of State Marco Rubio and DNI Tulsi Gabbard.     Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to The Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show in today's Sunday double feature mega episode. Today we are looking back to two deep dive conversations we had with members of the Trump administration on the week where we just had another one with Vice President J.D. Vance, who we sat with on Tuesday. You can go and find that on YouTube and all podcast platforms. But today I'll look back at past conversations with Secretary of, of state and national security advisor, Marco Rubio, and DNI Tulsi Gabbard from the beginning of the

Trump admin in 2025. In fact, when we did this one, Marco had not yet become national security advisor. He was just the Secretary of State. So before he'd been asked to do every other job in the admin. And it still holds. It's such a good overview of the Trump foreign policy vision and the Rubio foreign policy vision. And we covered all, you know, Greenland, Panama Canal, like, you listen and you will hear a comprehensive vision for Trump 2.0 that you might find very fascinating. And Tulsi, too, who sadly will not be DNI any longer, thanks to her husband's cancer, unfortunately, but came in, loaded for bear and ready to really shake things up in the intel field. And now we're just arguing over who will be her successor on whether we can get

that person confirmed. There's been some drama around that this week. In the meantime, enjoy the following interviews, and we'll see you Monday. Today, our exclusive interview with the 72nd Secretary of State Marco Rubio. This is his first long-form sit-down. He said it was his first interview since taking on the new role just over one week ago. Of all the Trump, 2.0 nominees, he's the only one so far who gained, I mean, entirely bipartisan support, passing unanimously by the Senate with a 99 to zero vote and as the only nominee to receive a vote on day one of the second Trump administration. On the eve of his first foreign trip as Secretary of State, interestingly to Panama, we get into everything.

We go to Greenland. We talk China. We talk Iran, Israel. And we do get into the deep state. Enjoy. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for doing this. Thank you. It still feels weird to hear that. It does, right? So you're a week in now? Eight days, but I'm not counting. I'm just saying it's been eight days. Eight, nine days. There's so much I want to go over, like, the change between the Senate and here, how you're, you know, what's it like to be at the heart of the deep state?

But let me start with the plane crash. Yeah. It's so awful. It is. It's horrible. I mean, just from the human standpoint of it, to think these are people that were, I mean, they were landing. I mean, we've all been on these planes. You're getting ready to land.

You're excited. you're getting ready to go. Maybe your phone's already connecting because you're ready to get on the ground, and then something like this comes out of the blue. And it's a horrible tragedy, and we don't forget that there were service members involved in this as well who lost their lives in this terrible accident. Obviously, it's not a State Department function, but the key to these is first to honor those who have passed and understand the pain of these families.

The second is to figure out why this happened so that it never happens again. That's a very busy airport, and there's a lot of traffic going in and out through this city. So, but it's just heartbreaking. And I'm sure as we hear the individual stories of the people involved will be even sadder. Does it underscore at all why President Trump needs his nominees confirmed quickly? Yeah, especially on the response part of it, right? I mean, so ultimately there was a failure here at some point. Like helicopters and airplanes are not supposed to crash into each other in the capital of the United States at one of the busiest airports in the country.

This isn't supposed to happen. So it happened for a reason. And someone needs to lead a process that figures out why. And then you need to lead a process to make sure it doesn't happen again. could happen here. It could have happened in some other city, too. And so you need to have someone at the head of these departments that are in charge of this. And it may be multiple departments because it's going to involve DOD. It's going to involve the Department of Transportation. But it may involve other elements of the U.S. government. And you need to have somebody running the agencies

or they will not be, you're just not going to get the same responsiveness. Yeah, God forbid we had something happen on an international basis. You're installed, but Tulsi's, you know, that one could take a while. And there's been a little foot dragging. All right. So you've been in the job now for eight days, what's the biggest difference between being a U.S. Senator and being the Secretary of State? Well, two things. First of all, my boss is President Trump is a person that moves very quickly. I'll give you a perfect example. This weekend, we had a disagreement. Not with Columbia, with the President of Columbia, who at 4-something in the morning decided to turn around flights that he had agreed to. We have it in writing. They agreed. These are Colombian nationals, illegally in the United States,

and they have, I mean, under international agreements, they have to take back their nationals, and they agreed to it. At 4.30 in the morning, he, for whatever reason, was either awake or about to go to bed, and he decided to go on X and write that he had ordered that one plane was halfway there and the other had just taken off and ordered them turned around. And so in a traditional administration, I would have taken about two and a half years to react to it. It would have gone through all this and all these policy options. With President Trump, it happened within a matter of hours. It was very quick, and so the ability to execute on action, on directive,

is a big difference between being in the Senate. The Senate, the House, play a very important role, but it doesn't have the executive role. And the executive part of it is the one that I think is the biggest difference, the ability to see a problem and under our authorities address it. And when you're working for someone like President Trump, it's going to happen very quickly. There's not going to be a lot of debate going on. You know, in the wake of that plane crash, I had to wonder last night whether, you know, their predecessors from the prior administration were calling Pete Hegseth. We're calling Sean Duffy. Have you spoken with Anthony Blinken at all?

Was there any sort of good tidings sent your way? Well, it's not at the State Department. It's possible because when we're in our offices, we don't have our phones here in this building because for security reasons. So it's possible they've reached out as of this morning. But the truth of the matter is, you know, this is, well, there may be a state component

if there were internationals on the flights, a citizen of another country. You know, we obviously would notify their embassy or consulate because they're families and loved ones for that notification. But I would expect that at DOD, because obviously that was the Department of Defense. That was a military helicopter, three service members have lost their lives. And then most certainly in Department of Transportation,

because they have the primary jurisdiction over the FAA and the broader, you know, airplane safety challenges. But what about just since you took the job? Is there, is like, does he give you a letter in the way that Biden left like for drop? He left a very nice note and, you know, basically said, welcome to the best job in the world. And I'm here to help anything you need. And it's, like I said, it's a really important job.

It needs to become even more important. The State Department, in my view, over the years, has become less and less relevant in the making of foreign policy for a variety of reasons, not because there aren't talented people in the State Department there are. And I've known that from the past interacting with them, but because it moved too slowly, because it took too long to action, because you gave a directive and it took so long for the State Department to do something, because of internal processes or whatever, that largely administrations would start to work around the State Department. And I want the State Department to be relevant again. I want it to be at the center of foreign policymaking.

And so that's by providing advice to the president who ultimately makes the decision about what we're going to do. So it's a great job. And I tell you, it's not just the position, but to be Secretary of State for Donald Trump is a great job because you know you're not going to be wasting a lot of time. Once a decisions made, you're going to get to act. It's such a tricky time to be Secretary of State, especially as a real. Republican because you look at the Republican Party and it's fractured internally about where we should be on foreign policy. It's not like during the Bush years where it was, you know, we were

much more neocani on the right. And now there's a real division within the right, within MAGA, even on how, what should we do about Ukraine? There's most of the party, I think, wants nothing to do with that anymore. How, what kind of saber rattling should we be doing about Iran? You know, there's a large strain that believes none. We should be focused on China and we should be should stop demonizing Iran and Russia and keep our eye on our biggest threat. I know you think they're our biggest threat as well. So how, just give me the 30,000 foot level view of how you're going to navigate that fraction. Well, I think we spend a lot of time in American politics debating tactics, like what we're going to do, who we're going to sanction, what letter we're going to send or whatever.

I think it really has to start with strategy. What is the strategic objective? What's the purpose, the mission? And I think the mission of American foreign policy, and this may sound sort of obvious, but I think it's been lost. the interest of American foreign policy is to further the national interest of the United States of America, right? America first. Well, and that's the way the world has always worked. The way the world has always worked is that the Chinese will do what's in the best interest of China,

the Russians will do what's in the best interest of Russia, you know, the Chileans are going to do what's in the best interest of Chile, and the United States needs to do what's in the best interest of the United States. Where our interests align, that's where you have partnerships and alliances. Where our differences are not aligned, that is where the job of diplomacy is to prevent conflict. while still furthering our national interest and understanding they're going to further theirs. And that's been lost.

And I think that was lost at the end of the Cold War because we were the only power in the world. And so we assume this responsibility of sort of becoming the global government in many cases, trying to solve every problem. And there are terrible things happening in the world. There are. And then there are things that are terrible

that impact our national interest directly. And we need to prioritize those again. So it's not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power that was an anomaly. It was the product of the end of the Cold War. But eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world,

multi-great powers in different parts of the planet. We face that now with China. And to some extent, you know, Russia. And then you have rogue states like Iran in North Korea you have to deal with. So now more than ever, we need to remember that foreign policy should always be about furthering the national interest of the United States and doing so to the extent possible

avoiding war and armed conflict, which we have seen two times in the last century be very costly. You know, they're celebrating the 80th anniversary this year of the end of the Second World War. You know, I think if you look at the scale and scope of destruction and loss of life that occurred, it would be far worse if we had a global conflict now. It may end life on the planet. I mean, it sounds like hyperbole, but you have multiple countries now who have the capability to end life on Earth.

and so we need to really work hard to avoid armed conflict as much as possible, but never at the expense of our national interest. So that's the tricky balance. So I think returning us to that, now you can have a framework by which you analyze, not just diplomacy, but foreign aid and who we line up with, and the return of pragmatism. And that's not an abandonment of our principles. I'm not a fan or a giddy supporter of some horrifying human rights violator somewhere in the world.

by the same token, diplomacy has always required us, and foreign policy has always required us to work in the national interest, sometimes in cooperation with people who we wouldn't invite over for dinner, or people who we wouldn't necessarily ever want to be led by. And so that's a balance, but it's the sort of pragmatic and mature balance we have to have in foreign policy. How do you think we did in the last administration?

Because Jake Sullivan, former National Security Advisor, now former, under Joe Biden, said, Our alliances are now stronger as they left office. Our adversaries and our competitors are weaker, Russia is weaker, Iran's weaker, China's weaker, and all the while we kept America out of wars. What's your response to that? Well, a couple points. The first is, and we're looking forward and moving forward, but we have to analyze where we stand

and the world that we inherited, and I would disagree with that assessment. I think it really begins because the Biden administration, from my view, had internal fractures between State Department and the National Security Council, between different elements of their party. You saw that come to fruition, for example. with our position on Israel, where you had a group that wanted to head in a different direction. That's really a fracture within the Democratic Party as well. If you look around the world, I would say that in many cases, our adversaries are stronger than they've ever been and became stronger over the last four years.

Certainly, Russia does not consider itself weaker than it were four years ago. They now control territory they didn't have when Donald Trump left office. I think if you look at the Middle East, we had the outbreak of a war that's been incredibly costly indivisive. It started on October 7th when these savages came across and committed these atrocities. They have a war in Europe as well in Ukraine, as I mentioned a moment ago. So we had the, and I think really one of the linchpins that sort of triggered all of that was that chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. I think that sent a very clear signal to someone like Vladimir Putin that America was actually in decline or distracted, we can move. And he did. I think you see it in the Indo-Pacific.

where every day, it's not just Taiwan, it's the Philippines, are being aggressively challenged by the Chinese militarily where coercion is spreading throughout the world. The Chinese are using coercive tactics, not just in their near abroad, but in other parts of the world as well. So I don't agree with that assessment. I think we have a lot of work to do. And I'm going to tell you, and this is something

that's not often appreciated enough, countries will openly complain about the U.S. being very firm and being engaged in these things in a very firm way. But privately, in many cases, they welcome it. They welcome U.S. engagement. They want to know where they want clarity in our foreign policy. And then they want us to take action to be reliable. And I know of no president, certainly in modern American history,

who's more clear than Donald Trump. And I know of no one who's more action-oriented than President Trump. And so that's what the State Department's going to reflect in how we proceed. I'm just wondering, as I listen to you, whether you think Joe Biden's mental infirmity, which we all witnessed, especially during his last year in office, cost us anything with these adversaries? Yeah, look, both adversaries and allies analyze everything, just as we do, right? We would watch foreign leaders and how they behave and make decisions upon that.

And there's no doubt that foreign adversaries are going to look at how our leaders, not just presidents, but anybody else react and make assumptions on the basis of it. And sometimes, you know, look, China's perception of America, this is China's perception of the world. China's perception of the world is that they are inevitably going to be the world's greatest power. By 2035, 2050, whatever date they've said in their mind, they believe that they're on an irreversible rise, and we are an inevitable decline, that the West at large, but the U.S. in specific, is a tired, spent, former great power in inevitable decline. And they believe that foreign policy is about managing our decline in their rise, and they want nothing to interrupt it.

that's how they view the West writ large in the United States in particular. And so anytime our leaders sort of personify their vision of our problems, it only further cements that belief that they have. And frankly, invites them to do things that perhaps they wouldn't do if they have a different calculus of us. And by that logic, we got safer the day Trump was inaugurated. There's no doubt. I've seen it. I mean, I'm telling you that if you look at what happened with Columbia, you know, generally speaking, if a leader had said,

to turn back to these planes, I'm not going to take him. We would have sent a note of demarch to call it, you know, complaining about it. And we would have then had a high-level outreach back and forth. And we had to figure this out and it would have taken six weeks or what have you. In this particular case, we presented President Trump with options. He immediately took action. And the black channels existed. There was a lot of conversation with other figures in the Colombian government who had agreed to this. And we're trying to figure out a path to get us right. But it didn't take six weeks or six months. It took six hours. Were they shocked?

When Trump sent out his tweet? Shocked. No, I don't think they were shocked. I think it reaffirmed what they believe about him, and that is that this is not a traditional sort of orthodox American president who is going to be tangled up by interagency impediments in our government. This is someone who's action-oriented and is actually going to do what he says. So, yeah, I mean, I don't think they were shocked.

I think it was a good reminder. And look, I want to be clear, most of the people in the Colombian government are friendly to the United States. They were horrified by what was happening. I mean, there were leaders of their congressional branch over there that were putting messages on X like, this is crazy. Our president's a nutcase. I mean, they were writing that. That's their internal politics. But I think it reaffirms what a lot of leaders believe about America under Donald Trump.

And that is we are led by someone who is not very mysterious. He's going to tell you what he's going to do and he'll actually do it. And I think foreign policy works a lot better when you're led by someone like that. Now, does that make your job easier then? Easier, no doubt. So you can just say, hey, look, the boss has said exactly how he feels. Believe him.

I mean, I think oftentimes people think there's posturing going on. Well, they don't really mean this or they're not really going to do it. I think in my particular case, I don't have to make that argument, right? I mean, I think they understand it. I think it's also a lot of pragmat. Every conversation I've had with foreign leaders to the extent it's been conflictive or that we've had areas of conflict to talk about. I've been very clear in that is, look,

I expect you to do what you're doing because you're acting in your national interests. And I know you've gotten used to a foreign policy in which you act in the national interest of your country. And we sort of act in the interest of the globe or the global order. But we're led by a different kind of person now. And under President Trump, we're going to do what you do. And one of the terms that President Trump's like loves is reciprocity. And it's very simple, but I think people would understand it. if you charge us a 50% tariff for an American product to enter your country,

we should charge you a 50% tariff here. Maybe 55, you know, President Trump likes to have leverage too. And who would not argue that that's not fair? And how can you argue against it? But that's been our policy in many cases. In country after country around the world, we have no access to their markets, but their products have open and free access to ours. How can that continue?

That's absurd. I think anybody will have common sense would argue that. Frankly, I think a lot of these leaders have been wondering why it took us so long to figure that out. But under President Trump, they know we have. The New York Times said, okay, you guys got away with this with Colombia. But you're not going to be able to pull that trick with Russia, with China, with Iran. If you try to sort of bully these stronger nations in this way, it's not going to go very well. Is that a fair point?

Well, we're not interested in bullying anybody. And we don't feel like we bullied Colombia. We feel like we had a deal. Colombia signed a deal. They signed a piece of paper that said, yes, send us these airplanes. And then halfway into the flight, they broke it. And so our answer was, well, now we flew these planes. We had to bring them back to the United States.

So now you're going to come pick them up. Why are we going to pay for those flights? Because you canceled them. It's not bullying. They broke a contract that we had made with them. Obviously, China has nuclear weapons. They're tough people. There's no doubt about it.

They're tough people that have nuclear weapons. They're a great power with a large economy. They're going to be a global power. But it can't come at our expense. And so ultimately when you're dealing with great powers like China, it's going to be at the highest levels of their president and ours, their premier in ours, and our president. And that interaction will happen in the case of Russia, the same. Obviously, there's going to be whatever happens where Russia will be a Putin-Trump dynamic. But I think most certainly, sure, I mean, the world is the way you treat, not the way you treat countries, but the way you approach a nation has to be based on the strategic balance.

But I don't view that we bullied Colombia, nor do I think these articles about all they're going to turn to China. That's absurd. That's an absurd argument. I think the overwhelming majority of people in Colombia, a country I know very well, don't even like their president. I mean, this guy had an election today. He would lose. Well, he'd lose. I mean, he's unpopular in Colombia.

I mean, that's not up to us. People there will get to vote and they'll decide who they want to lead them. But I think a lot of their people in their business class are like, what's this guy doing? This is absurd. I mean, it's normal that you would, we were deporting people to Colombia. just like we deport people to every country in the world. And by the way, if there are illegal American immigrants in another country, we would have to accept them coming this way.

Right. So I don't pay a lot of it. Most of the people, unfortunately, that opine on the more I have been delved into foreign policy, and the more I read people who claim to know about foreign policy, the more I realize that a lot of the people we believe are experts have no idea what they're talking about. There's a large delta. You mentioned China.

Did you recently have a call with the foreign men? minister and there was a report that you were you received a sort of warning that you needed to basically watch somebody told me that and that's so two things that the game that they play number one is they put out an english translation and they put out a chinese translation and they don't always overlap the call was very straightforward and i basically said you're acting in the best interest of china we're going to act in the best interest of america we're two great powers and in areas where we can work together there's probably no problem in the world we couldn't solve working together in areas where we have disagreements we have a responsibility to manage

it so it doesn't escalate into something catastrophic, but be clear that we're going to do these things. I did not, at least the translator that was on the call, did not say anything to me that I felt was over the top. But then they put out these games, they like to play these games, they put out these translations where it says one thing in English and then it's translated in a different, they use a different term and Mandarin.

He was warned not to overstep himself. They never said that, and if they had, I would have told them, well, I would say the same to you. Don't overstep either. But that didn't happen, at least not on the call, Maybe their interpreter didn't want to interpret it that way. But that was not the readout we got. But it's silly and irrespect and irrelevant.

What really matters is the decisions we make moving forward. And you know, China wants to be the most powerful country in the world, and they want to do so at our expense. And that's not in our national interest. And we're going to address it. We don't want a war over it, but we're going to address it. Well, that brings us, we have more on China, but that brings us to Panama, where you're about to go.

And China's obviously playing a role down there and is one of the reasons why Trump has been saying President Trump, have been saying, we want the canal back. We never intended to give it to the Chinese. That was never the game plan. They don't technically control the Panama Canal, but they do have interest down there. Can you explain it?

Yeah, so people can understand it? A few years ago, Panama made a decision that they were going to de-recognize Taiwan and align with Beijing, and with that came all sorts of money that was provided to the then-President's administration for projects and things of that nature, but also Chinese investment.

and one of the main investments they have is in these two port facilities on both sides of the canal and all kinds of other infrastructure, cranes and the like. And so people will argue, well, that's not China. That's a company based in Hong Kong. Well, a company based on Hong Kong

is the government of China. You are not a company in China if the Chinese government doesn't control you. It's similar to the argument about bite dance and TikTok, which is every company that operates from China or Hong Kong, which is

controlled by China, more than ever controlled by China, it's no longer autonomous, they have to do whatever the government tells them. And if the government in China in a conflict tells them shut down the Panama Canal, they will have to. And in fact, I have zero doubt that they have contingency planning to do so. That is a direct threat. So it's a technicality, but in reality, if China wanted to obstruct traffic in the Panama Canal, they could. That's a fact. And it's my view, that's a violation of the treaty agreement. And that's what President Trump is raising. And we're going to address that topic. It's one of deep concern. That dynamic cannot continue, not simply because we built it at great cost and lives and treasure, but because it is contrary to our national

interest. It is not in the national interest of the United States to have a canal we paid for and we built used as a leverage and a weapon against us. That can't happen. So what's a solution? Well, that's what we're going to have to talk about. And I think the president's pretty clear he wants to administer the canal again. Obviously, the Panamanians are not big fans of that idea. But that message has been brought very clear. And there are a lot of other areas we can work very closely with Panama on. I mean, their government generally is pro-American on a number of fronts. But this is a core national interest for us.

We can work together on a lot of things, and there are a lot of things we can work with them on that are very positive on migration, and they can be very helpful on all sorts of things. And I hope we'll get resolution to those very soon. But that does not in any way replace the core reality that the Panama Canal, we cannot allow any foreign power, particularly China, to hold that kind of potential control over that they do. That just can't continue.

What could they do? I mean, are these Chinese control or Chinese businesses along the canal, very large ones that could easily be turned into military facilities? Do they have to get rid of them? Do they have to, like what are the kinds of things we could ask for that would satisfy us? Hong Kong-based companies having control over the entry and exit points of the canal is completely unacceptable. That cannot continue because of the China. And if there is a conflict and China tells them, do every,

everything you can to obstruct the canal so that the U.S. can't engage in trade and commerce so that the U.S. military and naval fleet cannot get to the Indo-Pacific fast enough, they would have to do it. They would have to do it, and they would do it. And now we have a major problem on our hands. That's number one. Number two, we have to talk about the fact that we built this thing, we paid for it. Thousands of people died doing this, Americans.

And somehow our naval vessels who go through there, an American shipping that goes through there pays rates. some cases higher than other countries are paying, for example, a vessel from China. That's also not acceptable. It was a terrible deal when it was made. It should never have been allowed. They're going to tell you that it's set by an independent administrative entity and not the government. That's their internal problem.

They'll have to figure that out. But we should not be in a position of having to pay more than other countries. In fact, we should be getting a discount or maybe for free because we paid for the thing. There, too, like you mentioned with Columbia, is there a risk if we play too hardball? we drive them into the arms of the Chinese. Well, I would argue that the canals already in the arms of the Chinese. So, I mean, that's one aspect, I would say. And we can't operate that way.

Like, we can't operate in the world saying, well, we can't defend our national interest because if not, these countries will turn to China against us. I mean, we wouldn't allow that to happen. It would be against our national interest. So, but that said, I hope we don't get to that point, right? We have a, on so many topics, have a very good working relationship with Panama

and with their government. And I want that to continue. But we have a core national interest that's at stake. They should understand that. And I think that they will understand that. And it needs to be addressed. And we'll do that. We'll do it in the right form.

We'll do it appropriately. I'm not here to embarrass anyone or cause internal friction or problems for them. But I can assure you if it was the other way around, and that was a canal that the Chinese had built, they would be very forceful about it. So we can no longer operate in the world with two hands tied behind our back.

People need to understand that Panama's not exactly about Panama. It's about the Chinese, which you've been jumping up and down about for a while, warning that people may not realize just how grave the threat is. And you said something, I think it was at your confirmation hearing to the effect of, if China gets what it wants in 10 years or so, life could look very different. Maybe even faster. For us, for America. Yeah, so, I mean, today, control.

I mean, we love our technology and we need it for all kinds of advances. All of that depends on critical minerals at the end of the day, ranging aluminum, cobalt, you name it. They have gone around the world buying up mining rights, and they control, not just the mining of it, but the refining and the production of it and the use of it for industrial purposes. So I remember during COVID, everybody was freaking out because we couldn't get the masks because they were all made in China. And then we couldn't get this because they were all made in China. We had lost and given away our industrial capacity. This is even graver.

This is the rare earth minerals. This is the raw materials necessary for some of the things that go into our most advanced technologies in the defense. realm and in medicine, 80-something percent of the active ingredients and generic pharmaceuticals in the United States are made in China. We can't make them. So if they decide we're going to cut you off from these things, we'd be in a lot of trouble because we gave away our industrial capacity on those things. That can't continue. That's a vulnerability that we face. And they will use it as leverage. In fact, they are already using it as leverage. For the first time ever, they have actually imposed export controls on critical minerals to damage our national security, but ultimately

our technological capacity as well. So it ranges topics, but ultimately, if China controls the means of production for both raw material and industry, then they have total leverage on us economically. And that's the world we're headed to. And I was wrong, maybe not in 10 years, maybe in 5. So, I mean, it's a dicey situation. President Trump knows all this. Yes.

And yet one of the top Chinese leaders attended his inauguration. He understands that it has to be played very carefully. We don't want to make an open hot war enemy out of them, but we've been passive for too long. Yeah. First of all, one of the interesting things about President Trump is incredibly accessible. People don't believe this, but I mean, if you're a rank and file, I'm not even leadership, member of Congress, and you call the President of the United States, the chances are you're going to get a call back and you're going to get a call back,

and you're going to get a call back from him, and you might get a call back that very day, maybe within an hour or two. He's incredibly accessible to both Americans and also to foreign leaders. His policies generally have been, I'll meet with any world leader. You know, I'll engage with any world leader.

That doesn't mean just because you're meeting with him, you're giving anything away, but he's willing to engage. In the case of China, there's two things. I've just described one, which is the grave threat that they pose to our national interests, and the other is the mature realization

that no matter what happens, China is going to be a rich and powerful country. We are going to have to deal with them. In fact, and I said this in my call with their foreign minister, but I've said this publicly, the future of the history of the 21st century will largely be about what happened between the U.S. and China. So for us to pretend that somehow we're not going to engage with them is absurd.

Now, we should engage on our national interests. That is, engagement and concessions are two different things. What's been horrifying is that for 25 or 30 years, we've treated China as a developing country, and we allowed them to continue. to do things that were unfair. We said, go ahead, let them cheat on trade, let them steal our technology,

because when they get rich, they'll become just like us. They became rich, they did not become like us, and now they want to continue to have these unfair benefits. That has to stop. And they built up their military. Their military, their industrial capacity, but all over the world, their control of critical minerals.

Again, I go back to them because people don't think about it. Buying up farming land in the United States, in particular as well, because they need to produce food and they want to be able to control that. They're doing it because it's in their national interest. They are doing, frankly, what I would do, maybe not the human rights violations,

but they are doing what anyone would do if they were the leader of China. They are acting in China's best interests. What's been missing is American policy that acts in our best interest, and that needs to return. How does Greenland fit into all of this? Well, the Arctic, which has gotten very little attention,

but the Arctic Circle and the Arctic region is going to become critical for shipping lanes. How do you get some of this energy that's going to be produced under President Trump? these energies rely on shipping lanes. The Arctic is some of the most valuable shipping lanes in the world. As some of the ice is melting, it's become more and more navigable. We need to be able to defend that.

So if you project what the Chinese have done, it is just a matter of time because they are not an Arctic power. They do not have an Arctic presence. So they need to be able to have somewhere that they can stage from. And it is completely realistic to believe that the Chinese will eventually, maybe in the short term, try to do in Greenland, what they have done at the Panama Canal. in other places, and that is install facilities that give them access to the Arctic with the cover of a Chinese company, but that in reality serve a dual purpose, that in a moment of conflict, they could send naval vessels to that facility and operate from there.

And that is completely unacceptable to the national security of the world and to the security of the world and the national security of the United States. So the question becomes if the Chinese begin to threaten Greenland, do we really trust that that is not a place where those deals are going to be made? Do we really trust that that is not a place where they would not intervene? You don't think Denmark would stop them? I think that's been the president's point. And that is that Denmark can't stop them.

They would rely on the United States to do so. And so his point is if the United States is on the hook to provide, as we are now, we have a defense agreement with them to protect Greenland if it comes under assault. If we're already on the hook for having to do that, then we might as well have more control over what happens there. And so I know it's a delicate topic for Denmark, but it's, again, a national interest item for the United States. So there was a conference call between President Trump and the Danish Prime Minister.

Apparently didn't go very well. Reportedly involved some sort of a meltdown on the prime minister's part. They don't want to give it up. So what options does that leave us? Because President Trump did not rule out economic or potentially military use. Well, I think President Trump's, what he has said, publicly is he wants to buy it. He wants to pay for it. And how we worked on something like that, how something like that is approached. Obviously, he's probably done better in the appropriate forms.

A lot of the stuff is done publicly and it's not helpful because it puts the other side in a tough spot domestically. So those conversations are going to happen. But this is not a joke. Like what he is saying is pretty accurate. People don't talk about it for years. We do have, this is not about acquiring land for the purpose of acquiring land. This is in our national interest and it needs to be solved. President Trump's put out there what he intends to do, which is to purchase it. I wasn't privy to that phone call, but I imagine the phone call went the way a lot of these phone calls go, and that is he just speaks bluntly and frankly with people. And ultimately, I think diplomacy in many cases works better when you're straightforward as opposed to using platitudes and language that translates

to nothing. So when President Trump said he might use economic or military coercion, what does that mean? Well, I don't remember him saying military coercion. He was asked, you know, what would you rule out? Would you rule it out? Right. I don't think he's in the, he, listen, he also brings to this. He said, no, I won't rule it out. Because he brings to this, this is a businessman who's involved in politics, not a politician involved in politics. So he approaches these issues from a transactional business point of view. So he is not going to begin what he views as a negotiation or a conversation by taking leverage off the table.

Okay. And that's a tactic that's used all the way. the time in business it's being applied to foreign policy and i think to great effect in the first term you look at the abraham accords and the democrats mocked the abraham accords when they were made and then by the end of the biden administration they became the linchpin of a lot of what we're hoping to build on that never would have happened had there not been a transactional approach you look at what his envoy to the middle east steve woodcoff has achieved that the biden administration asked woodcoff they asked for him to be involved in these conversations. He has brought a businessman's approach to a very delicate and intractable foreign

policy challenge and delivered a ceasefire that obviously is tenuous and has long-term challenges to it. But there are hostages being released every day. That didn't happen for over a year and a half until he became involved. And that's the president's envoy and a very close friend who's brought the same kind of business approach to some of these challenges. So let's look forward four years. Does the U.S. own Greenland? We'll see. I mean, obviously that's the president's priority has made that point. I think that what I can tell you about four years without getting into specifics because I don't, you know, I'm not, we're not in a position yet to discuss exactly how we'll proceed tactically. What I think you can rest assured of is that four years from

now, our interest in the Arctic will be more secure, our interest in the Panama Canal will be more secure, our partnerships in the Western Hemisphere will be stronger, will be stronger. We need to understand a lot of these countries in Central America. They're not destination sites. They are countries that migrants come through and that these human trafficking rings run people through. It creates tremendous instability for these countries at a tremendous cost as well. They would welcome help in stopping that migration corridor

from continuing because it's destabilizing their countries. So I think we're going to have a Western Hemisphere that's more secure in our national interest in all parts of the world. That's the goal, are going to be more secure from the Arctic to Central America to even Africa and certainly the Indo-Pacific. We talked about Colombia.

that's part of President Trump's effort to shore up our borders and get rid of the illegal aliens who came under Joe Biden. Part of that's going to include, yes, Canada, he's said that as well, but also obviously Mexico. And President Trump is threatening to slap tariffs on both of them if they don't get in line and start doing some of the things that we want them to do as soon as this Saturday. They're jumping up and down saying,

we want to cooperate, let's work diplomatically, before you slap tariffs on us. Where do you stand on that? Well, we've had conversations with Mexican government officials. I met yesterday with the Foreign Minister of Canada. I think there are two topics, and they have to be separated, but they're interrelated. The first is the migration, particularly with Mexico. There are parts of Mexico, many parts of Mexico, in which the government doesn't control those areas.

They're controlled by drug cartels. They are the most powerful force on the ground. And they are plowing into the United States. They're facilitating illegal migration, but they are also bringing in fentanyl and deadly drugs to our country. that's a national security threat and that needs to stop. So we expect their cooperation on that because they should. If it was the other way around, they would expect that as well. And that needs to be addressed.

Secondarily to that is the president feels that we have a trade and balance and unfairness with Mexico on a number of products, including agricultural products that are dumped on our markets, but also the Chinese. What the Chinese are now doing is they're creating these front companies. They're investing in Mexican manufacturing and then backdooring using the USMCA, the free trade agreement to get Chinese goods into America. And so it creates this trade imbalance, and that needs to be confronted. So when the president talks about tariffs, he talks about it on two fronts,

as obviously a leverage and pressure point when it comes to cooperation on migration. But separate from that, it's also related to unfairness in our trade relationship. With the Canadians, obviously, the border is one of the biggest, if not the biggest border, land border in the world. We share common interest there. I think they don't want to see their country filled with fentanyl either. I think if I were them, I'd be concerned that with the crackdown on illegal immigration in the United States, people would flee north into Canada.

So you would think we'd be able to work with them very cooperatively on border security. And then there's a broader trade imbalance with them that the president wants to address as well. And so that's why those conversations are important. These are not hostile moves. Are these terrorists going to kick in on Saturday? Well, we'll see. I mean, that's the president's decision to make. And, you know, we'll be prepared to address it from a foreign policy.

perspective, whatever decision he makes on those things. That's his decision to make. Whether he makes it this weekend or a week from now or a month from now, he clearly wants to address both illegal migration, but ultimately also our economic interests. Who is more likely to be the 51st state, Canada or Greenland? Well, again, look, I think that, you know, we're a long ways from that point. I think the president's made his view on this very clear, and that is our interests in Greenland are endangered, and that needs to be addressed, and he's willing to buy it. and our interest with Canada particularly, you know, I think if you go back and I think he said this publicly,

he had a conversation with Trudeau, and he asked Trudeau, well, what would happen if I impose these tariffs on you? And he said, well, we would be done as a country. We would be finished. And his whole point is, well, if the only way you can survive as a country is by having a trade imbalance with the United States, then maybe you should just become a state. Right. And that was the genesis of that conversation. So we have issues that we need to address with Canada. They're good friends. I mean, we work with them on a lot of things. We have a deep partnership with them.

But there are some issues we're going to need to address. But what are the risks to us? Because you've got the Premier of Ontario saying, we can't bring a knife to a gunfight here. If they're going to do this to us with these terrorists, we've got to fight back the same way. We supply them with a bunch of electricity. Let's shut it down.

So can Canada shut our lights off? Well, then who would they be selling it to? Where else would they send that electricity? I mean, it would hurt them as well. They would have no market to sell it to. And I would also argue that the United States, And look, I don't think Canada is a strategic threat to the United States. I'm not comparing them to China or what have you.

But it brings to mind the point of energy independence and how critical that is. We don't want to be in a situation. You mentioned that about Canada. Imagine if in the future the argument is not Canada's threatening that. Who's threatening that is China. Who's threatening that is Russia. I mean, one of the great mistakes that were made is by unilaterally disarming when it comes to energy production. by not fully utilizing our energy resources in this country.

Other countries didn't follow the same line. For example, China today has the largest capacity of unused... They are able to process more oil than any country in the world right now. And they build more coal plants than anybody in the world right now. They'll talk about green energy and batteries and cars, but they are using all of the above strategy on their energy. We've unilaterally disarmed on energy. All they've done is continue to increase their capabilities on energy because they know you need energy to fuel all this.

AI alone was going to require an extraordinary amount of energy that the world right now can't produce to fuel it. Whatever country has energy resources that are cost-effective is going to dominate AI, which is going to dominate many, many fields. So I think at the end of day, it's a reminder when you talk about Canada of why energy is a national security matter and why the U.S. must be able to have a reliable and consistent source of energy, or we are in a lot of trouble. Our planes won't fly, our ships won't be able to sail, and our economy will not function without energy. One of those issues that's become dicey within the Republican Party is NATO,

we've talked a lot about these other countries doing their fair share and doing their part, and this is why NATO's become controversial, because there are many people who believe, what are we doing this for? It made sense right after World War II, but does it make sense today? In the United States, tends to be the dominant player, the Europeans can support themselves.

They don't need the United States to be the big babysitter of the world, and it creates more opportunities for us to get involved in foreign conflicts that we shouldn't be involved in. To that, you say what? Well, the president's position on NATO

is the same every other president has had, and that is that our allies, many of our allies in NATO do not do enough to provide for their own security. Every other president's made the same complaint. He's just actually been serious about it, and that's what he's pointing to. And look, it's interesting.

And in fairness, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, the closer you are to Russia, the more they're spending as a percentage of their GDP on national defense. But then you have countries like France, or you have countries like Germany. These are big economies, powerful economies. And they don't spend as much on national security.

Now, why? Because they rely on NATO. They say, well, we don't need to spend that much on... Us? Yeah, we don't need to spend as much on defense because America has soldiers here and they get attacked. They'll be our national defense. So we can instead spend all that money on this enormous social safety net. When you ask those kids, why can't you spend more on national security? Their argument is because it would require us to make cuts to welfare programs,

to unemployment benefits, to being able retire at 59 and all these other things. That's a choice they made. But we're subsidizing that. So I think if we articulate at the president's point on NATO's, number one, they need to do more. And I do think long term, there's a conversation to be had about whether the United States needs to be, at the front end of securing the continent or as a backstop to securing the continent. And if you talk to countries on the eastern periphery, the ones closest to Russia, all of them are building the capability to be at the front end, the polls, the checks, you know, all of these

different places. And if you move further west to the richest economies, Germany, France, they don't, Spain, they don't spend enough on national security. They're relying on us to be the front stop. And that's not an alliance. That's a dependence. And we don't want that. We want NATO.

We want a NATO in which we have strong and capable allies. Finland's a very capable ally. They make weapons. They bring something to the table. We need more countries like that to behave in that manner in the alliance. And then it'll be a stronger alliance. And it'll be able to work cooperatively, not just in Europe, but in other challenges we face around the world,

hopefully even the Indo-Pacific potentially. Ukraine's another issue that's got the party divided. You know, you've got a lot. I'm sticking with the Republicans now because there's a whole other debate with the other side of the aisle, but who say, no, you know, Putin's a bad actor, Russia's a growing threat, and we're doing the right thing by backing Ukraine.

And I would say the majority of Republicans now are against that viewpoint and think we've lost, we've spent too much, it's any place from $105 billion to $187 billion, and they've lost, we just have to be realistic about the fact that Ukraine has lost. It's not going to gain back any of this ground, and we need a negotiated settlement now before we keep throwing good money after bad,

and we can't afford it. We've got Americans who are suffering now. I think that's the majority of you, even on the Republican side now. It also happens to be the reality on the ground. First, let me say this. We think what Putin did was terrible. Invading a country, the atrocities he's committed. He did horrible things.

But what the dishonesty that has existed is that we somehow led people to believe that Ukraine would be able not just to defeat Russia, but destroy them, push them all the way back to what the world looked like in 2012 or 2014 before the Russians took Crimea and the like. And in the result, what they've been asking for the last year and a half is to fund a stalemate, a protracted stalemate in which human suffering continues. Meanwhile, Ukraine is being set back 100 years. Their energy grid is being wiped out.

I mean, someone's going to have to pay for all this reconstruction after the fact. And how many Ukrainians have left Ukraine living in other countries now? They may never return. I mean, that's their future and it's endangered in that regard. So the president's point of view is this is a protracted conflict and it needs to end. Now, it needs to end to a negotiation. In any negotiation, both sides are going to have to give something up. I'm not going to pre-negotiate that.

I mean, that's going to be the work of hard diplomacy, which is what we used to do in the world in the past, and we were realistic about it. But both sides in a negotiation have to give something, and that's going to take time. But at least we have a president that recognizes that our objective is this. Conflict needs to end, and it needs to end in a way that's enduring because it's an unsustainable. On all sides, it's ultimately unsustainable. For Russia's paying a big price for this. In their own economy, they're influxing.

rate and the like. But at the end, that's the president's position. And it's the truth. And I think even a growing number of Democrats would now acknowledge that what we have been funding is a stalemate, a protracted conflict, and maybe even worse than a stalemate, one in which incrementally Ukraine is being destroyed and losing more and more territory. So this conflict needs to end. Who's the bigger problem in reaching a final negotiated settlement there, right? Is it Putin or is it Zelensky? There's a report out that the... that the Ukrainians are just banking on Putin, digging his heels in, and becoming annoying to President Trump on this because he won't give an inch.

And they're hoping that President Trump will come back over closer to their worldview about Putin, about Russia, about this conflict. So who do you see as the bigger obstacle into getting a negotiated peace there? Well, I think there's the public and then there's the private, right? So in what you see portrayed publicly in conversations and what leaders say, a lot of it is speaking, they have domestic political considerations. Even Vladimir Putin, who controls media, still has to care about what public opinion is in Russia and his image and what his entire personality is built around the guy. Why do he does the shirtless pictures?

He didn't do those anymore. I think there's been a while. I asked him. I asked him, why do you do it when I interviewed him and he said, I give the people what they want? Well, you know, the point is that he has got his own domestic considerations, and so does Zelenskyy, right? I mean, at the end of the day, he's got, if you imagine, if you're Ukrainian, the Russians have made you serious. suffer so much and now you're going to let them keep land. I mean, people would be upset about that in Ukraine and you would understand it. And then there's the mature realities of life on this planet.

And that's where this work is going to have to be defined. Both sides are paying a heavy price for this. Both sides have incentive for this conflict to end. Both sides are in a, it's not going to end with the maximalist goals of either side. And there's going to have to be a lot of hard work done. And I think only the United States under the leadership of President Trump can make that possible. It won't be easy and it'll take some time, but it's certainly something I know he's strongly committed to seeing happen. And then there's Israel and the return of the hostages, which still include Americans.

Supposedly we're going to get three Americans back in the first tranche, the first phase of this hostage deal. Do you believe we will? And what are we going to do if we don't? Well, I expect we will because that's the agreement that was made. But the core problem here remains, And that is ultimately, as long as there is an entity like Hamas, which has expressed purposes, the destruction of the Jewish state,

who is willing to commit horrifying atrocities, against civilians, against teenage girls at a concert, and do the things that they've done, and take hostage for a year and a half babies and elderly and murder and all the things that they did, that's a threat to Israel's national security. What country in the war can be expected to live alongside an enemy, armed, capable, and willing of committing horrifying atrocities. You can't.

It's awful. So I think that the ceasefire is important because it brought an end to some of the destruction and certainly allowed hostages to be freed at an extraordinary cost. I mean, we're talking about a ratio of one that, you know, you get a teenage hostage in exchange for 250 killers, Hamas killers that are released from prison. So just think about how unfair that trade is. But it tells you how much, you know, we value life compared to what the other side, Hamas animals view this.

Now that said, the real challenge here is going to be what happens when the ceasefire period expires? Who's going to govern Gaza? Who's going to rebuild Gaza? Who's going to be in charge of Gaza? Because if the people who are in charge of Gaza are the same guys that created October 7th, then we still have the same problem. Pastest prologue.

It is. Now, the good news in the region is in Lebanon, we have a government that hopefully will become more powerful than Hezbollah in the Lebanese government. and there's a ceasefire that was extended there that ultimately will lead to that. In Syria, a group has taken over. These are not guys that would necessarily pass an FBI background check per se.

No, would not be coming over for Sunday dinner. But if there's an opportunity in Syria, if there is an opportunity in Syria to create a more stable place than what we've had historically, especially under Assad, where Iran and Russia dominated and where ISIS operated with impunity,

we need to pursue that opportunity and see where that leads. And if you have a region in which you have a more stable Syria a more stable Lebanon where Hezbollah is not able to do the things it does on behalf of Iran, a week in Iran, who's now lost all of these proxies. It now opens the door to things like a deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel, which would change the dynamic of the region.

And then ultimately, not make easy, but make easier resolving some of these challenges that we face with the Palestinian question, and in particular with the Gaza question. So there's a lot of work to be done there. None of it is certain. All of it is hard. but real opportunities that we couldn't have even imagined 90 days ago. Domestically, Trump pulled the security around Mike Pompeo, who was his Secretary of State.

And I wonder if that, what your reaction was to that, because his defenders are saying it's an outrage and that, you know, he's exposed now. Look, the president has the authority to make those decisions and to execute those orders. I can tell you they're all were run through the process that exists for assessing threat versus cost. That process was executed on. There was agreement that this was something that could be done.

I've never taken lightly. And if circumstances change and new threats emerge or additional threats emerge, that will always be an option to address. But if you look at some of it is also not sustainable. I mean, theoretically, Iran decided or things got out to that Iran wanted to continue to kill people, we would have to provide everybody a security detail.

So there's a balance there. We don't want to see any Americans harmed, but those decisions about who we provide security for have to be based on a risk assessment. And those risk assessments were done. And it led to that outcome and that conclusion. On the subject of risk assessment, we pulled U.S. foreign aid.

We paused U.S. foreign aid with humanitarian exceptions. And then there was a bunch of negative blowback on how this was stopping critical medications and other humanitarian aid that was being provided to our, you know, third world allies. Now we've loosened that spigot again. So the criticism is that we got too far ahead of our skis

by pulling too much too soon in which response to what you say well. I mean, we didn't issue a pullback. We issued a clarification. We always said from the very beginning, with the exception of, you know, Israel and Egypt, because that security assistance is a cornerstone of that Camp David Accords

and the deals that were made there and are critical to that region. With the exception of that, we said all four and eight is paused for 90 days, except for things that save lives. And what was mentioned in the executive order were things like food and the like. We went back, people saying, well, people, we have medicines that we've paid for and that are deployed, and it's sitting on a shelf somewhere, and we are not authorized to give it to people. So it makes no sense for us if we already paid for the medicine, not to distribute it and give it to people.

We don't want to see people die and the like. But this, I think what's important is to talk about the purpose of this pause. Okay, if I went to these foreign entities, $60 billion a year, if I went to these and said, okay, show me your foreign aid programs on what they do. Historically, we've gotten very little cooperation. But if you go to them and say, okay, your money is stopped until you tell us what you do, now you get a lot more cooperation. So now a process exists, and that process is you apply for a waiver. And everybody knows how to apply for a waiver. They know how to come forward and say, this is what our program does.

This is why it's important. This is why it makes America safer, stronger, or more prosperous. this is why it's in our national interest. Now we get details about these programs, and we may say, okay, the program gets a waiver. Or we may say, well, the program gets a partial waiver. You do five things, three of them are critical. Two of them remain under pause.

That's what it gives us the opportunity to do now. Thinking of it almost as an audit, but not an audit in which we're voluntarily asking for cooperation. I think we're now getting a lot more cooperation because otherwise you don't get your money. And so I think as the weeks go on, you will see more and more programs come back online. because we've had a chance to review what they actually are.

Some will be partial, some will be full. But we've got to get control of this. We have this thing that I've called the foreign aid industrial complex. All these entities around the world that are getting millions and millions of dollars from the United States. We have to make sure that it's aligned with our national interest, that we are prioritizing that, and that we're spending it on things that really matter and are really producing. Like we don't want 50 million in condoms to the Palestinians? They deny that that's true.

The Biden administration denied that. Well, okay, but part of it was they may deny the number, but they can't deny that there are things that we were doing in Gaza that had nothing to do with saving lives on the short term or even helping with a ceasefire. Here's the broader point. And I don't know, I'm rounding numbers here, but on USAID, about 11, less than 12%, let's be fair.

Let's say 12.5% of every dollar, so 12 cents of every dollar, ultimately reached the end recipient. That means the rest of the money was going to fund some NGOs somewhere, or some organization. Maybe there's a justification for it. But before I stand before a congressional committee or the American people and say,

we sent a dollar to help this cause, but only 12 cents of it really got to the people were trying to help the rest of it, went into the hands of an organization. How do we justify that? I can't justify that. I need to know answers to that. And so these are the kinds of things

that we have to go through. And ultimately, our foreign aid has to be a tool that we used to advance the national interest. The U.S. government is not a charity. It spends money on behalf of our national interest. There are a lot of great causes in the world and the private sector can raise as much money as they want for those. We, taxpayers, are going to invest in the things that further our national

interest. And that's the process we're going through right now. And the pause has helped accelerate it. I'm going to wrap it up, but I do want to ask you about just a couple more things. Number one, eight years ago, you and I were crossing each other on a debate stage. Donald Trump was center stage and he was insulting both of us. and things have really changed in eight years. Yeah, I mean, first... Can you talk about that evolution for you? Yeah, I mean, so I love like mixed martial arts and boxing, right?

And I see people go in the ring, and I've never heard anyone ask a boxer, why did you punch him in the face in the third round? And the boxer would say, well, because it was a boxing match. And so, you know, campaigns are a competitive environment, and, you know, President Trump's a tough guy, and so these things were going to get rough and tumble. But there's another difference. I didn't know Donald Trump when he ran for president.

I mean, I knew who he was, but I didn't know him as a person. Then he became president. I was in the Senate. Those were the four best years I've ever had in the Senate because we got a lot of things done working with him. I got to work around him. I got to know him as a person not as the characterature on television, but as a person about the way he works, the way he makes decisions. You learn from being around someone like that as well, the things he does on an interpersonal basis with people. The acts of kindness that are never going to be reported, that things he does for people that you're never going to hear. And over time, there's a big difference between the way you know. someone and when you don't know them and I would also say this you know I worked in the senate 99 of my colleagues with 98 of my colleagues with 98 of my colleagues these are people I strongly disagree with these are people that have accused people who hold some of my policy positions of being some of the worst human beings on the planet and yet on a personal level I had to figure out a way to work with them and get along with them and they're in the other party so I don't understand this idea where if I'm if a Democrat and a Republican run against each other you lose the election you're expected to now

okay, the election's over, you guys need to work together in the interest of our country. If that's expected among people that are in opposite parties, what should be expected of people that are in the same party? They should be expected to also work together. In the end, I'm in this because I want to serve my country, not because I want to be an enemy of anybody else is on a personal level. In the case of President Trump, I've worked alongside him and I've gotten to know him over the years, and I hope that we've gained a mutual respect for one another as well. And so much so that I was honored to be his nominee for Secretary of State, and now I am. Yeah.

And it's an exciting time to be here. You gave it back to him just as good, and I gave him a few punches, too, so it was fair game. We were both fair game back when that was happening. It was almost 10 years ago now, that debate, that August 15 debate. I mentioned at the top of the interview flippantly the deep state thing. You know, it is a real concern for a lot of people that there's like a group of people at state and elsewhere who will actively work to undermine your agenda in President Trump's. Well, I think that's going to be true in any large organization.

You're going to have people that are not aligned with a mission or not align with carrying things out. And I think I always am careful about it, not because I'm resistant to the idea per se, but because I also think there are very talented people who may not agree with me on policy, but will do what the mission is. They will carry out the mission. And I think we expect that of people all the time. I mean, if you think about it, I don't know who the pilot on, maybe it's a terrible analogy on a day like this, but we don't know when we get on a commercial aircraft who the pilots voted for. you know, or who they're, but I don't think they're going to harm us. I don't, you go to a doctor, I don't necessarily check their voter registration, and we expect doctors to treat us well.

And I think the same is true for people that work. There are a lot of professionals that work in the State Department who will carry out the mission, but they need to have a clear mission, and they want the State Department to be relevant again and have deep expertise on topics that we need their support. Now, look, if someone is going to actively undermine the work of the elected administration, that's a problem. And I think any agency would argue that,

And I think any president would argue that. In the end, the State Department and foreign policy is not separate from our republic. In our republic, the American people elect the president. And that president is the executive officer of our country and is in charge with executing our foreign policy. And our agency's job is to execute the president's foreign policy. We don't have an independent foreign policy, independent from our republic, independent from our people, independent from the outcome of elections. And so our expectations is that no matter how people may feel about political leaders, or me or the president or anybody else,

their job is to execute on the policies. The American people have chosen through their elected representatives, and that's what we're going to do at the State Department. And I think the overwhelming majority of our workforce will comply with that. It's pretty cool. Your parents were from Cuba.

They immigrated here in the late 1950s, I think. Your dad was a janitor. May 27, 1956. Your mom works in a hotel as a maid, and here you are, Secretary of State. Final thought on what that says about the United States of America. that it remains the only place where anyone from anywhere can achieve anything.

And I think from our example is what other countries we hope will try to emulate in their own nations. And so it's a testament not just to the country, but to the people of this country. And the greatest gift my parents ever left me is they never discouraged. Never did my parents ever say, you can't be that. People like us can never be that. They've always encouraged us to have big dreams and pursue them, whatever they may lead. And if we work hard, you can achieve what they are. For some people that dream is, I just want to have a really good job and raise a family and be able to leave my kids better off than themselves.

And for others, it's professional dreams as well. And I am blessed to be a citizen of the only place in human history where that's happened for so many. Those dreams have led you to this position and soon to Panama where we need you. You got an important job. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you so much. Great to see you again. A lot of fun.

Thank you. We have a very special program for you this morning, all about Tulsi Gabbard. When I first met Tulsi, she was still a Democrat. And it was early on in her career. When she first came on this show, we didn't even have audio. We didn't even have video. It was an audio-only podcast. And you could hear her with the birds tweeting in the background from her home state of Hawaii. And the two of us were wondering what our next move was in life. This podcast was fledgling. She had been ostracized by the... the Democrats and the Democrat Party, and here we are five years later, both in very different

places. She's now running at the top of 18 intelligence agencies, and I'm down here interviewing her at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. So many did not want her to get this post, because while Hillary Clinton and others accused her of being Putin's puppet, etc. What crushes them about Tulsi Gabbard is she's no one's puppet. She won't be bought, she won't be bullied, and she won't be cowed in saying how she really feels by the military industrial complex or anyone else. So we just completed a fascinating hour-long talk about so many different things. It's Tulsi, like you've seen her a bit before, you know, still straightforward and moving and honest in her commentary, but in a brand new, really big role. Enjoy.

I'm so excited to be here with you. There's significance to where we are. Why? Yes. So we're sitting here in the lobby of the buildings known as Liberty Crossing, the Office of Director of National Intelligence. This organization was formed because of the disaster of the intelligence community that led, that could have prevented. the attack on 9-11, had there been an integration of intelligence, had the CIA been talking to the FBI and all of these different people who had different pieces of information but weren't talking to and sharing that information and intelligence with each other, followed by the intelligence failure of the Iraq War, that ultimately led to the creation of this organization.

So we're sitting here in the lobby. This is the very first interview that's ever been done in this lobby and potentially in this building anywhere. I'm honored. It's a special day. And this is the 20th anniversary of the founding of this organization. Wow. Yeah, your role was created after 9-11. Yes.

As a result of all that, now you oversee 18 intelligence agencies. Can I just ask you as a practical matter? You come in, you had a background in intelligence when you were in the house. It's not like you'd never touched it. I was on the Armed Services and the Foreign Affairs Committee. So it was interesting as a member of Congress there for eight years on those subject matter committees, I was a customer of intelligence very frequently, some of the highest levels of intelligence as well as kind of the broader intelligence briefings that we had. And so I at that time

experienced a level of frustration that's common if you were to ask most members of Congress in that the briefings that we received then more often than not were things that we had already read about in the newspaper or seen on the news the night before and just didn't get much value from it to better inform the decisions that we had to make related to our military or military operations or foreign policy decisions. And that was, you know, I left Congress in, my last day was January 3rd of 2021. And as I was going through the confirmation process for this job, and I was meeting with the different senators, it was interesting that they expressed that same frustration to me. And many of these senators were members of the Intelligence Committee, which,

which really spoke to how much work there is to do. So you show up here, you get confirmed. I mean, what's the first thing that happened? As a practical matter, do you say, like, let me see the JFK files? Like, what do you do? I have a long list of things I'm working through. But honestly, the first thing that I did was actually send out an email to all the people who work here and said,

I'll be down here in this lobby where we are right now. I think it was at 12 o'clock, and if you're free, I'd love to come and introduce myself and say hello. It was standing room only here. I was grateful to be able to have the opportunity to just immediately address those who work here, intelligence professionals, analysts, people who are subject matter experts in different areas, some of the support staff who are here and kind of keep the lights on. And they gave me a very warm welcome, and I laid out who I am, my background and the mandate that the American people delivered by electing Donald Trump and why I'm here, the purpose that we all are here for, to serve the American people to ensure their

safety, security, and freedom, first and foremost. And let me just tell you this. I got a number of notes. I told them, let me know what you think is going right. Let me know what you think needs fixing. You can find my email address. You can find my number. And I started to get notes from people one of which came from a guy who has worked here since its founding. And it really, I'll never forget it because he said, not once has any other director ever come and done anything like this. Wow. And second, he said, I'm so happy that you're here

and the changes that you seek to make, now I can finally breathe. Oh, wow. So a simple gesture of coming and saying, This is who I am. I look forward to working with you to serve our country, to refocus the intelligence community back on its core mission, to get rid of the distractions, the weaponization, and all of the other noise that has undermined the trust that the American people may have had long ago in the intelligence community. It just speaks to the vacuum of that leadership that unfortunately has existed for so long. So how do you, I have no doubt that the people in this building like you as a person, but you have to fight the deep state's loathing of your boss, right?

I mean, there's no question. There's a fair amount of loathing by Democrat, you know, lifers that work in these buildings for him. Yes. And that's why I think we see leaks, you know, whether it's at the Pentagon or from here, and you've had a couple, and you've handled them very well and very firmly. But how do you battle that? I mean, it's like they have an agenda. Yeah.

Well, I'm sure there are people who work here and within the intelligence community who probably don't think or speak very kindly of me either, specifically because, again, through the president's leadership and the mandate of the American people, I know exactly what I need to do here and how deep the rot is within the intelligence community that has to be rooted out. So, yes, bringing about transnational.

transparency and accountability, shining a light in areas that haven't seen the light in a very long time, if ever, really pushing for the declassification of documents that the president has listed in several of his executive orders and reminding people here, especially in the area of declassification, there's so much protection. We've got to hold on to all the secrets instead of really thinking about what is in the best public interest. And so obviously starting with the assassination documents related to President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., is the starting point. But there are many other areas where we have to bring about transparency. We have, in order to achieve accountability and deliver that to the American people, reminding people here every single day that the American taxpayers pay for this building. Yeah, there are secrets. Exactly.

they keep the lights on. They are the ones who are funding your paycheck that's paying for your rent, your mortgage, your ability to feed your family. The American people are who we work for. So any other level of protectionism of like, well, we don't want this agency to be embarrassed by what we are going to expose in the truth to the American people, it's a wrongheaded mindset and speaks to the huge culture shift, the mindset shift, that has to have to be a wrongheaded mindset, that has to take place here. And this is the bigger thing that we are tackling here and that the president is tackling

and we're tackling across the entire federal government. Did we learn something new in the RFK and JFK documents in particular? I didn't follow it that closely, to be honest. But my takeaway was most people thought it didn't add that much. Am I wrong? I got to say, I'm not someone who has studied these over the years,

so I'm probably about where you are. There were new people. pieces of information. Did you get a briefing from somebody who said, holy God, it really was the CIA? No. Okay. And those who are experts on this, who've studied this for a long time, did not find what they were looking for.

So yes, there was new intelligence and information that was declassified that had not ever been seen by the public before. There were new revelations that came through. But in both of those cases, and in a few days we're releasing another, I think, 50 or 60,000 pages related to Senator Robert F. Kennedy's assassination because we had to go out and hunt and find those files stuck in other warehouses. But whether or not it delivers the quote-unquote smoking gun, the important thing is that the transparency is there. Well, it's even more reason to release it. If it doesn't have anything, you know, it's like you must have looked at some

of this and said, why was this kept a secret for so long? Exactly. It just sends people spinning. Exactly. on the subject of documents that we'd like to see but have in COVID and its origins. I'm sure you saw that just before we sat down tonight, the Chinese State Council Information Office. I don't even want to know what that is, but it sounds bad. They have determined that COVID came from us. That it's more likely than not that COVID originated in the United States and not in China. I'm wondering whether you have any dispute with that based on what you've seen over here.

the intelligence community has been responsible for trying to figure out in part how this thing started. So I created kind of a special teams group, the director's initiative group, that is focused on investigating a number of the president's top priorities and the things that the American people really deserve and want to know the truth about. The origins of COVID-19 is one of them. So they're actively working on that. A lot of the work that's been done is on COVID.gov. Have you had a chance to look? Oh, Trump changed it. It's quite a transformation of the website.

For anybody watching, if you haven't seen it, check it out. It's the annoying website to which YouTube and all social media used to refer people with Fauci talking points, and now it's been completely being out. Completely reversed. So a lot of what's been found is already there. But the thing that we are working with Jay Bottacharya, the new NIH director on,

with as well as Secretary Kennedy is looking at the gain of function research that in the case of the Wuhan lab, as well as many other bio labs around the world, was actually U.S. funded and leads to this dangerous kind of research that in many examples has resulted in either a pandemic or some other major health crisis.

Well, let me ask you specifically, because we already need. know that EcoHealth Alliance was partnering with this Wuhan lab to do gain of function research. We just have never been able to have somebody say, and it was that exact experiment that led to this COVID bug. But have we gotten there? What's the new thing that you're digging in on? We are working on that with Jay Batacharya and look forward to being able to share that. Hopefully very soon. Okay.

That specific link. Correct. Between the gain of function research and what we saw with COVID-19. I mean, that would be extraordinary because just so the audience knows, if that's true, if it was Peter Dazick's research with the Wuhan so-called Bat Lady that caused this pandemic, then we did fund it. Then Anthony Fauci helped fund the pandemic. The thing that he denied over and over and over to Senator Rand Paul's questioning. That's right.

Under oath. It's under oath, exactly. So is it any wonder that he sought a preemptive pardon for anything during a certain period of time? by President Biden before he left office. And then strong-armed and smeared people like Dr. J. Badacharya, anybody who came out and said, I don't know if that's natural. This actually smacks of lab. And the reason why this is so important is not just what happened in the past.

It's because this gain-of-function research is happening in biolabs around the world. I got attacked, and I think you saw this. We've probably talked about on your show before. when I warned against U.S.-funded bio labs in Ukraine, when the Russia-Ukraine war kicked off for this very reason. Who knows what kinds of pathogens are in these labs and if release could create another COVID-like pandemic? And for that, I was called a Russian asset. You're, you know, trumpeting Putin's talking points. All of this nonsense simply for speaking the truth and stating facts that, by the way, are still on U.S. Embassy Ukraine's website today.

about how the U.S. has funded these biolabs in Ukraine. But in order to, my point is, in order to prevent another COVID-like pandemic or another major health incident that could affect us in the world, we have to end this gain of function research and provide the evidence that shows exactly why and how it's in our best interest,

the American people's best interest, to bring about an end to it. Can I just ask you one of the question on that? Why did the intelligence community, why were they so reluctant to just say that. Under Joe Biden, it was split. The FBI eventually said, well, we kind of think it was the lab. And Department of Energy said lab. But then the other agencies were like, no, we think more natural origin long past the point when it did not look like natural origin. They tested 80 or 90,000

animals. They never found this version of the virus. So what was going on with the Intel community? You know, it's a good question. And I don't have a specific answer to it. But I want to point to the contrast of how, in some cases, they are very unwilling to come to express a view or a certain opinion on something. And in other cases, even if they don't have decisive or conclusive evidence per se, they're very quickly to come to an assumption. And this gets to the real heart of the challenge here and the problems that we've seen is the politicization of intelligence to meet a certain objective or to influence a certain policy. And that is what has been the problem. This goes all the way back to why this organization was founded. When you look at the

so-called intelligence that really was used to spur the Iraq regime change war, and look at what that has cost our country in lives, in treasure, look at what it's cost the world, look at what what Iraq is today now essentially a proxy of Iran when Iraq, that would not have happened had that regime change war not occurred. So again, this is really what is at the heart of needs, of what needs to be addressed within the intelligence community and why leadership matters so much. Just as a reminder to our audience, you were a young 21-year-old state assembly person in Hawaii and two years after that you signed up, you enlisted in the National Guard, and you were deployed to Iraq, so you know firsthand about the blood and treasure.

And I served in a medical unit, and it was with a unit out of Hawaii, infantry brigade combat team, and my first task every single day was to go through a list of all of those who had been casualties a day before those who were injured. the first one notified when there was someone who was killed in action. And ultimately to make sure that those who were injured, either got the medical care they needed, that they were evacuated as quickly as possible, and then making sure that they were getting that care all the way until they got home or getting them back out into the field. But every day, going through this list of names and thinking about those at home who I knew, because I heard from my parents,

were worrying and terrified of their phone ringing and the most terrible outcome of their loved one, their husband or wife or son or daughter, brother or sister, being in a position where they have paid the ultimate price and service to our country. And this is such an important thing because too often, as you know, very well covering all of these issues for so long, that you have politicians who debate whether, do we go to war here or there, do we go topple this government or that government?

And too often it is so detached from the real consequences that come from those decisions. And we see the same reflected here at times. Again, when we have people who are working within the intelligence community who perhaps in some cases have become too far, too detached from the impact of their work on those who are making life and death decisions for our country and the potential to either go to war or to prevent war, as President Trump is trying to do on many fronts. And you have those who are co-opted by the military industrial complex abusing their position to feed or manipulate intelligence as we saw with the Iraq war,

to start a new war. This is, this intelligence community, the work that gets done in places like this every single day, has that power to be the fodder, the fuel, the seed that can lead to yet another unnecessary year. You're overseeing the group that could cause it. Yes. Heat Hexas overseeing the group that would have to do it.

Right. And both of you are in very powerful positions in advising President Trump about the risks and risk and rewards. There was a New York Times article within the past month saying you, he, J.D. Vance, and his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, were all together in urging him to not go too far on our actions against Iran, that we should not give Netanyahu what he wanted by either participating in or boldly and robustly supporting Israel bombing Iran, that that's a proxy for us. And there's no way we wouldn't be heavily involved.

and that is not a position the United States wants to be in. And President Trump did not do it. He did not give Netanyahu the answer he wanted. I know you're not going to get into the specifics of what you advise the president, but can you explain your view of the dangers of barreling toward a potential conflict with Iran? Yeah. The New York Times article was a result of an unfortunate, unauthorized, and illegal leak of a very private conversation between the president and his advisors.

I won't get into the details, but it was a very robust discussion that really speaks to President Trump's care and thoughtfulness as he makes his decisions around these very serious issues of war and peace. Ultimately, what we are doing is providing the president with the facts, the intelligence. Here is what the intelligence is telling us as the Secretary of Defense. Here are the options that are on the table and the likely outcomes that could occur if you go with course of action, A, B, or C. And ultimately, it's the president who makes the decision, and he has made it clear time and time again that his goal with Iran, first of all, they cannot be in a position where they can develop or have a nuclear weapon, and that he believes

and is confident in the opportunity that this moment provides to be able to achieve that outcome through peaceful means, through diplomacy, and through negotiations. And he knows that that's within the best interest for the American people and for the world. On the Iran front, here's the argument that the more neocon crew makes. All right, this is from Mark Dubowitz of Defense of Democracies,

one of these think tanks in Washington that wants a hard line toward them. He recently tweeted, quote, The Islamic Republic is weaker than ever, hated by most Iranians, hammered by the IDF and Mossad, its terror armies, meaning Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah, air defense, missile production capability are in ruins, never a better time to dismantle its new program and finish off the regime. Will another president blink?

How is he wrong? First of all, the military option is always on the table. The president often talks about peace through strength. And he means what he says when he talks about his objective, which is also Prime Minister Netanyahu's objective. And I think many countries in the world would agree that Iran cannot be in a position to have a nuclear weapon or to develop a nuclear weapon.

That is unequivocal. How we get there is really the question. The president is of the mind, as he has been consistently through his first term in office, as he is now. if there is a way to achieve what is in our best national security interests through peaceful means, through negotiations, not blind trust, like, okay, we're just going to believe whatever they say, not at all. Any deal that is potentially made with Iran will have to

come with a very, very rigorous set of verification means. Nothing like the failure that was the JCPOA that President Obama negotiated, the deal that President Obama negotiated, the deal that President Trump, through his very talented and exceptional ambassador in Steve Whitkoff, is negotiating, is a deal that will best serve the security interests of the American people. Do you feel the push, Tulsi, the push of this strong neocon strain that's still within the Republican Party and probably in these agencies, that's much more hawkish on an issue, including war in the Middle East, which we've just done for 20 years. Yeah, of course. The pressure's there. The debate is happening in the public, which I think is a good thing.

It's a positive thing that we're hearing from different elements. Yes, even within the Republican Party. Even if they're leaking? I mean, because we're hearing from them that way. Well, the leaks should not. The leaks have to end. If the president can't have the confidence that he can sit in a room with his closest advisors without it leaking to the public, then that is something that really undermines his being best served with the best possible information, with debate, robust debate around the table, which you look at the team of people he's assembled, he likes that debate because he sees the value in hearing different perspectives so that he can make that best informed decision. But when we look at this debate that's happening kind of in the public town square,

whether it be digital or TV or whatever the platform, is there, I think it's important for the American people to see the contrast and the difference between the neocons who are very ready to rush into war without allowing what President Kennedy spoke about in his historic speech at American University, which was to choose peace, to do the hard work of diplomacy, to recognize the true cost and the serious cost of war, and that it requires strong leadership to do the hard work of diplomacy in order to achieve peace however and wherever possible and that it's not something that you just go okay good we got peace and then you walk away no it requires consistent engagement and that strong leadership that once again strikes that balance

and recognizes that we cannot be prosperous unless we are at peace as a nation and ensuring our nation's security. We have the strongest and most capable military in the world. And I can say as someone who still serves in the Army Reserve and has now for 22 years. You're too busy for that. A little bit. But those who I've had the privilege of serving alongside, I had the chance to go and do some PT with Pete Hegseth and some Marines the other day. You still got it? Are you still there? You know, I'm giving the kids a run for their money. And I'm good with that. But it's recognizing, again, yes, we have the capability to defend our safety, security, and freedom anywhere, any time. But it takes a strong leader and a strong president to choose peace and diplomacy, recognizing that war and the use of our military because of the sacrifices of these young men and women from all across the country that is required when you go to war.

President Trump takes that very seriously. And I mean, I appreciate it. As a mother of an 11, 14, and 15-year-old. I appreciate that. I do not want somebody with their foot on the gas pedal, recklessly pushing us into yet another war. And I think I speak for most people in the country on that. The leaks, we touched on it. It must be very disconcerting to be in a private meeting with the president with only top-top people, and then a day later see it on the pages of the New York Times. clearly, I assume you trust your fellow cabinet members and so on implicitly, but everyone has to

speak to a staff about what happened and what needs to happen. And I wonder how rattling that is, because you're in the same position in a way that Pete Hegstaff is in, where people underneath you appear to be leaking, even top secret information that you can go to jail for leaking. But they clearly have such an agenda, it's worth it to them. Yeah. So how has that affected you? And you're dealing with it with a firm hand, but how has it affected you when this happens? You know, you mentioned that example of that New York Times article. There were a number of things in that article that were completely inaccurate, which speaks to, again, and there is an investigation that's underway to try to figure out the source of this leak or sources of this leak around that specific incident. But the effect is, I mean, it makes things much harder in, in constant. constantly questioning and looking over your shoulder, okay, who's in the room? I have to be careful about everything that I say because ultimately we're in a situation

where these things being leaked, either by people who are just trying to show a reporter that they're important or chasing clout of some sort, or the most dangerous of which is those who are trying to ultimately undermine the president's policies. and this is not just like, okay, we don't like Trump or someone who has a problem with President Trump and his policies. Really what is happening when they do that is they're undermining our democracy because what they're doing in whatever tactic they use

is saying, well, I'm doing what's best for the country and I know what's better for the country than the majority, the vast majority of the American people who chose this duly elected president, Donald Trump. And that's where you can agree or disagree with his policies. But when people cross that line who are in these positions of power and influence, they are actually undermining our democracy and our security in doing so. You've referred three people now to DOJ for criminal prosecution.

Do you think they will be prosecuted? That's the goal. That's the goal. The only way we bring about accountability is by doing the work of conducting these investigations, The Department of Justice and the FBI obviously have different tools that they can use in order to find the truth and to seek out that evidence so that we can actually prosecute. Do the people know they've been referred? Do they still work here?

In some cases they know, in other cases they are likely not aware. We have another 11 cases that we are still conducting our own internal investigations around. Some will be sent to the Department of Justice for further investigation. investigation and prosecution for criminal charges, because it is a crime, it's a federal crime, and others, depending on the situation, will be dealt with internally where people will be fired and have their security clearance revoked. One of the leaks was, it spoke to what Trump is trying to do with the deportations, not the securing of the southern border, but the deportations.

And he has declared under the Alien Enemies Act an invasion or incursion, in part saying that the Venezuelan government has dispatched. Trenda Aragwa, this gang, to come into the United States and commit mayhem. And one of the things that was leaked from someone in the intel community was that didn't happen. There is no official link between the Venezuelan government and Trenda, Aragua. Therefore, it's not an incursion. It's not an invasion. It's very clear why somebody would leak that to try to undermine the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act.

Is that one of the leaks being investigated? It is being investigated. There's a few things to add to that. to kind of color out the picture. One of the most often tactics that these leakers use is they will take, let's say it's a six-page top-secret classified document, and they will pull a line from page one and a line from page two and a line from page three that when put together supports the narrative

that they are trying to push, but is not at all reflective of the kind of conclusive analysis in that report. And that's exactly what happened in this case. So they very selectively and intentionally left out what was really the most important thing, which was that the FBI very clearly is the intelligence element that is responsible for domestic security.

So it shouldn't be a surprise then that they are the element that said yes. The Maduro Venezuelan government is supporting Trend de Aragua and their criminal activities here, enabled by President Biden's four years of open borders, where they very freely came in and out of our country and were able to begin to control territory here in the United States. The CIA doesn't collect intelligence here in the United States

because that is not within their writ or their authorities. So, again, this is where we look at the ways that intelligence leaks are politicized, is by the selective picking and choosing and very clearly leaving out the thing that actually supports what the president is doing here. I'm listening to you.

I'm rolling my eyes at the thought of a judge trying to overrule effectively you and President Trump on whether it's been an incursion, on whether the intel supports this link without having any access

to any of these materials. I mean, when you see the courts really trying to get involved in this and seeming to be on a road towards saying, we are allowed to declare whether there is an incursion or they're not, what's your reaction? I mean, it's such a dangerous thing. And again, it's preposterous in my view that these judges, the judicial branch obviously plays an important role

in our three, you know, co-equal branches of government, but they should understand what their role is. and these activist judges who now somehow believe that they're in the position of making policy by undermining the president's legal authorities and orders bestowed upon him by the American people. He did the hard work and put his name on the ballot and ran for office.

If these judges want to run for office and be president, go ahead and do that. Go make your policies. Go state your views and your opinions. But they are politicizing the bench and showing how through their activists, they are undermining really frankly their own credibility in doing this. And again, another thing that undermines the American people's faith and trust

that these institutions, that the judicial branch in some of these cases is actually doing their job. You do a presidential daily brief every day. You don't do a judicial daily brief every day. You don't sit with Judge Bowsberg or the U.S. Supreme Court and tell them all the things that he hears. That's what's so absurd about it. It's crazy.

One more thing I'll have. on that because you mentioned of leakers within the intelligence community. Unfortunately, we have them, and they have been there for far too long, and we are trying to root them out. But there's also another source of leaks in coming from Congress, where certain staffers and members of Congress have access to this very same intelligence. And as you can imagine, some may find it in their interest to selectively leak intelligence. Once again, to support the talking points that they are delivering that are undermining the president's actions

to root out these cartels and these gangs to keep the American people safe. And we just take a step back and look at the arguments that many of these Democrats in Congress are making and how hard they are fighting and these judges, it makes zero sense in really President Trump's mission is very clear. We are trying to make our country safe.

we're getting rid of the most dangerous of gangs and criminals and cartels. How is this not the most bipartisan issue that exists in that country? They need more due process. Right. But not when they illegally came across the border. We didn't get any. You guys have been helping with that. I want to ask you about this.

This is the National Counterterrorism Center's border security has actually helped President Trump quite a bit in nabbing a bunch of these gang members. from what I can see, leads on approximately, what, 750 individuals in the U.S. who have ties to some of these gangs, like Trenda, Aragua, MS-13, and also the Sinaloa cartel. Can we spend some time? Let's first speak about that. Sure. And then let's spend some time on the cartels, which I saw you recently listed as your number one security concern, above Iran, above China, above Russia, the cartel.

So let's do it in that order. Sure. the winds at the border and how you guys are helping. So as we started the conversation, we talked about why this organization exists. The OD&I exists to be that integrating element, pulling together information, in this case, from the DEA who's been focused on these cartels for a very long time because of their counter-narcotics trade. The intelligence that the FBI has collected is they're looking at the criminal activities that these cartels are conducting right here in communities all across the country. you look at the databases that we already have in place and have had in place for a very long time

in being able to keep track of known and suspected Islamist terrorists from different parts of the world who may be trying to come into our country. Or did come in under Biden? Well, that's exactly the point. And so this is kind of the nucleus for all of the intelligence and information that's being collected about all these different individuals. and it allows us our National Counterterrorism Center, great people who work there,

they deliver almost every day on keeping the American people safe in some of the examples that you mentioned of providing information on these over 750 individuals who we know are members of these three major cartels, just yesterday identifying almost 600 people who are known or suspected terrorists, who illegally came into our country, who applied for asylum under Joe Biden's administration,

and who were then released out into our country. And so being able to get their names and work with the FBI, work with Department of Homeland Security, for the cartels working with the DEA, so that we can find them and either prosecute them or immediately deport them and get them out of our country and to stop them from entering into our country in the first place, either by legal or illegal means.

Before we get to the cartels, what's your level of confidence? You can't speak for DHS, but within the intel community, the ones that you guys are identifying, what's your level of confidence that they actually are gang members or cartel members? Because some in the public have been led to believe it's very willy-nilly. You're picking up random hairdressers and deporting them. How high is the bar before you communicate to the Tom Hohman's of the world? It's this one, and that one is. And the other one. When it's, by the time it comes to us here at our National Counterterrorism Center,

extensive work has already been done by the DEA, by the FBI, in order for their names to even be entered into our system. So my level of confidence is high because it's high, it's high because of the work that I know that these DEA agents are doing, that these FBI agents are doing. my office as the Director of National Intelligence, we have 12 regional representatives all across the country, and I've been spending time getting out to them and having conversations not only with them, and it's usually the FBI Special Agent in Charge of that FBI office,

but we have people from every element of the intelligence community, every element of Department of Homeland Security, DEA, all of the domestic law enforcement agencies, and they are working together as a team, sharing that information, working together on these cases, to be able to identify who these people are, and ultimately to track them down and deport them, or arrest and prosecute them. On the subject of the cartels, the fentanyl remains the number one killer of Americans. I think it's 18 to 44 now.

I mean, it's not just the super young. It's like, those are the main years of your life. That's when you're totally thriving. taking a family. Number one killer. And we just did a long special on this the other day, because yesterday was National Fentanyl Aware Awareness Day. And we were talking with these documentary makers about how they'll flood the border on one side so that the border agents will go over here, and then they'll send the fentanyl over on screen right, where nobody's covering it. Because that's their main goal is to get the fentanyl into a country that's desperate for

where we have some, we're 4.5% of the world and we're 40% of the fentanyl consumers. So it's crazy. Sounds good, taking on the cartels, evil, very dangerous. Also sounds like a nightmare of a never-ending war that could turn into some sort of homegrown terrorism problem here in the United States. So how do you calculate the risks here? Well, first of all, it's, I mean, it's already happening. These cartels are already finding their emplacements here, having their own version of a headquarters in different cities and towns across the country. The capabilities of these cartels, we are not underestimating at all.

It is quite an eye-opening thing when we look at how their operations are running and their capabilities. And I won't go into detail here, but it really speaks to why President Trump recognize this as this greatest domestic threat, which goes back to the annual threat assessment and where I detailed this and why. And also how the Department of Defense

is now working with Department of Homeland Security really to secure our border and will play an integral role in going after and defeating these cars. cartels working very closely with Mexico and their government and their officials. Can you just speak to, it's not just coming from the southern border? Right now, now they're going around, they're using the northern border. They're sending, they're shipping things in from the west coast, the east, I mean, it's, we like to think of ourselves as isolated,

but we're really not that isolated from these cartels. That's right. And that's where taking this very expansive approach all at one. is so essential. No one is naive at all in thinking that this is just going to be like, oh, we'll conduct a few operations and then just knock this all out. But also thinking through very carefully kind of the lessons learned from, you know, the last like war on drugs that ultimately ended up just being a prolonged war that we never really saw much progress on. Big news today, as President Trump announces that he has struck this deal with the Ukrainians for a minerals deal, where we're going to have access to

some of their rare earth materials. And it's not necessarily a repayment for all of the aid that we've given them, but it gives us a reason to be involved in Ukraine, to look out for Ukraine, and President Trump thinks it'll be a deterrent to Putin in starting things back up again if he's able to put this to bed. The critics say, these are former Biden people, There's nothing to be gained in Ukraine. They don't have the rare minerals that we need. That's why we're all buying the stuff from China to begin with. So we've bought a pig and a poke.

What do you say? I don't know why they can't find a single thing that they can agree with the president on. Not a single thing. You know, this deal was very important to the president to get done. And today was a big day. A lot of work went into getting this deal signed today. because he values the fact that, as he talked about earlier in the cabinet meeting today, about how the American taxpayer has provided overall,

when you look at all of the aid that's been given to Ukraine, since the Russia-Ukraine war started $350 billion. And when you look at some of the deals that some of the other European countries made with the aid they provided with Ukraine, A, either they used frozen Russian money so they weren't using their taxpayers, dollars. They found a way to give them frozen money from Russian funds

and in other areas. They said, okay, we'll loan you this money and we'll figure out a payback plan for the future. But not us, not the Biden administration. This money was just given and that's it. So President Trump

understood that, was very, very, very bothered by it, that the American people are just out of pocket on this without any means. of any kind of repayment whatsoever. And so this Minerals deal is a way for the American people to get some form of, not return, but some kind of a repayment based on the taxpayer dollars that have been expended

and used to pay for someone else's government to be run, to pay for someone else's infrastructure, even outside of all of the weapons system, while we still have communities here who have failing infrastructure, who have, poisonous water, who have people still in Western North Carolina who are homeless and don't have the basic needs that they have. And so this deal, yes, of course, he wouldn't have made the deal if they don't have these rare earth and minerals that still need to be mined. But of course,

we checked. He's not going to go and make a blind deal based on just a handshake. And so this is a win for the American people, and it's a win for the Ukrainian people, because this joint partnership is something that is mutually beneficial for the people of both of our countries. You think about the things we could have used some of that money for, with all due respect to the Ukrainians. I mean, we're talking about the southern border, how porous it is, more agents, maybe at the northern border, more agents, maybe to inspect some of the cargo that gets shipped in, maybe some treatment programs for people who get addicted to this poison, and will be dead if you play the odds within 18 months. Maybe. Maybe.

more immigration judges so we can give all that due process the Democrats want us to give. You know, like there's so many other ways we could have spent that money. So I want to go back on, you remember the tragic wildfire that hit my home community of Lahaina. I didn't live there, but it was within my district when I was in Congress. And how many lives were lost and an entire town just raised to the ground. and when I went there just a couple of days after that fire happened and went out and talked to the people there on West Maui and the fact that so many of them,

not connected to each other, completely different conversations, different households, different locations, said, gosh, if only we were Ukraine, maybe somebody would pay attention to us. And that just speaks to what we're talking about here. And so this is this community of Lahaina now, who is only now, by the way,

way, just starting to rebuild homes in communities and places where they have lived for generations. We talk about Western North Carolina and the very, very, very slow rebuild process that's going on there, that people who lost their homes are still paying property taxes and mortgages for the land and the home that they are not able to live on in any way at all. You look at... I don't think I'd do it. I don't think I'd be doing it. That's the thing, is those are two of many examples.

You have a level of poverty in West Virginia that I think many Americans would not see if but going to a third world country on the other side of the planet. The needs that we have here are very real, and part of the dissatisfaction that the American people have had for so long in our government is that the government, by and large, FEMA is a great example, you take all of this money, so much of this money, and it feeds into this bureaucracy,

and you have all these officials going to places like Western North Carolina. I went there, and you hear the angst in people's voices when they say, no, FEMA hasn't been here, and they're hoarding supplies here or there. They're saying, hey, here you go, here's 500 bucks. Like, what a freaking insult that is. And then they see what's going on with, oh, we sent another $50 billion to Ukraine today, and then next, oh, we sent another $100 billion. and how people are celebrating that

when they're not even looking at what's happening in our own backyard. And this is what I saw an experience when I was helping President Trump during his election campaign was that there was a spark of hope in people's hearts when they saw that he was addressing

the very things that they were most concerned about, their health and well-being, securing our borders, not allowing boys to play in girls' sports or allowing them into girls, bathrooms, things that are common sense and address the everyday needs of the American people, our security, him being the president of peace and trying to prevent war. This is a shift. This is the beginning of a shift to what we are all seeking to bring about, which is in this 250th anniversary

of the founding of our country, how about let's have a government that actually serves the people, a government that is of by and for the people? We were talking about Russia brief. We were talking about Russia briefly. You and I have talked before about how Hillary Clinton labeled you a puppet of Putin, a Russian asset. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, shamefully, said the same. And I saw recently President Trump withdrew Hillary Clinton's security clearance, which you had to do. Yes. That must have been a little fun. Right? Just a little fun. I smiled. Of course he did. You're only human. Yeah, I am. So, yeah, that's over for her.

And a number of other people, by the way, when you look at the 51 former intelligence officials who signed that Hunter Biden disinformation letter and never apologized for it, never held themselves accountable for it. Yes, Mark Zaid, you had Letitia James and others. Why did she even have one? Well, some of them didn't have clearances, but they had access to classified information. And so we took away that access for those. Yeah, Alvin Bragg.

We didn't have clearances, yes. Okay. And there are more to come, and this is part of what we're doing in our investigative work as we go back and look, for example, at Crossfire Hurricane and how there were assistant U.S. attorneys who were knowingly using manufactured testimony, that they would interview a witness, for example, and know that the witness was lying to them, either because they set up the lie or they knew that the witness was lying, took that lie and took that lie and used it as evidence to get a warrant under FISA to go and surveil on Americans, which is

completely illegal. And so these are the kinds of things, those types of people, those assistant U.S. attorneys or those FBI agents that were involved in this kind of stuff, these are crimes that need to be prosecuted and these people need to be held accountable. Will that happen? That will happen. Wow. I mean, it's called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That's right. That's what it's supposed to be used for. Yeah. It's a good reminder. Yeah. On the subject of saving money, you're doing some of that right here. Yes. And in part, it relates to enacting President Trump's DEI directives and pulling back on some of the nonsense that I know you and all the other agencies were spending money on, not you, you, but the intel community. Can you speak to a little bit of like what you found? Because you're doing your own doge. You're doing dig.

Yes. So that's under you. You didn't out. This is not one of the areas that Elon and Doge came into. You did it on your own, and I understand why. There's a lot of them. They are helping us. They have incredible tools and a lot of lessons learned through the work that they've done.

Okay. And so they are helping us and allowing us the opportunity to be able to apply those here. So we're not trying to reinvent the machine at all, and we're able to get after the things we're looking for. So how much was going out the door on the DEI programs and hires and so on? So there was a DEI office that was immediate. shut down and that alone was a savings of around $20 million. But the thing that we just announced today, in fact, was the closure of this office of human capital, completely different part of the

organization and one that sounds like, okay, well, maybe this is like talent management. You're trying to go out and see, well, where is the best talent and where are the gaps we need to fill, which is what I thought. But it turns out that it was an office where the previous administration kind of hid a bunch of their DEI people knowing that this action was going to be taken by President Trump. And there was a slush fund there that they would use to fund people millions of dollars to go to DEI conferences and talk to other DEI people. And so we shut that down at a savings of $150 million today. But the thing that I think a lot of people would be surprised by, when people talk about DEI and you hear, you know, whether it's CNN, MSNBC, they talk about DEI and they

criticize the president for his action and the actions that we are all taking to get rid of this, claiming that we're against diversity and all of this other crap. When I came in here, I was able to talk with some of the people who work here. DEI was such a priority that it was baked into the incentive structure for people to advance professionally here. And I would imagine it was very similar across the federal government, where some employees told me that they were put in a position where they had to spend half of their time working on DEI initiatives in order for them to be able to put it on their annual evaluation and therefore be noted as, oh, well, you are more likely to get promoted

if you are spending this significant amount of time on this diversity, equity, inclusion initiatives. And for me, I'm like, how in the world would you spend half of your time on that? Right. What were you creating? And I don't really know the answer to that, but I do know the answer to our national security on that question because what that means is in the office of the director of national intelligence and we have people here who work from all across of these 18 intelligence elements

being put in a position where they're told if you want to get promoted if you know if you want to advance in your career the priority is not are you delivering the best quality intelligence assessments and analysis to best inform the president's most critical decisions no you will advance professionally if you show that you're dedicating half of your day towards these DEI initiatives. Your implicit bias. Exactly, exactly. And so when we look at why this was a priority for the president, this is not some superficial thing. There are national security implications to what the Biden administration was doing and centering almost their entire administration around DEI initiatives. You can take this

towards any domestic agency. Look at the Department of Education. Shouldn't they be focused on educating our kids. Well, wasn't there a group? Which Entile agency was it that had the people talking about transgender surgeries and non-binary this? And there's the National Security Agency. Yeah, there's sex groups, polyamory. I mean, on and on. This is a great example. So there was a someone who snuck into that chat that was not a part of, that was not an employee there. And they screenshoted what they saw and leaked it. out on X. And again, this is a chat group that was created and administered by the NSA, one of the premier intelligence collection entities that we have. And it was obscene. It was obscene.

Yes, it was about all of those things. It was talking about sex toys and sex tricks for people who had gone through, you know, some kind of transgender surgery or... During the workday. This is during the workday on an intelligent... hosted work chat group and the supervisors, obviously as soon as I found out about it, I said anybody who's involved with this is getting fired and getting their security clearance revoked, which there were some movies like, oh gosh, aren't you? That seems extreme. Like, no. Imagine you're in any office and you're having these kinds of sexually explicit conversations in the workplace.

It is how, I don't care what's your sexual orientation or whatever your private choice. are. This cannot be happening in the workplace, and it must not be happening in our premier intelligence agency that has people who have the highest clearances that anyone can hold. The plot thickens, as many of the leaders feigned shock and surprise at this revelation. Well, this chat group had existed for over two years that this kind of stuff was happening in. And again, this is where transparency and accountability matters so much. much. As soon as I made that announcement that we will be investigating and holding these people accountable, I started hearing from people who are within the workforce saying, I work at the NSA.

I filed a written report with evidence of what was going on in these chat groups a year ago, two years ago when this thing first kicked up. And basically, because of President Biden's DEI initiatives, they were essentially told, shut up, it's none of your business. Wow. And then there was the cover up. And then there was the leak. So this is one example of many how we can see what the ramifications have been. When we have, in the last administration, one that is seemingly focused on everything but the most important things. Speaking of the last administration, one question for you on Signalgate. As I heard you say this recently, is this the first administration to use Signal for confidential chats?

Absolutely not. I mean, you actually saw something that told you this was, in fact, being used by the Biden administration, who are out there all over X and other social media ripping everyone who was on that signal gate thread to shreds. That is correct. So there's no question in your mind this was used during the Biden administration by officials. I know for certain that it was to include national security officials. Is there another way to communicate? Are we stuck with signals?

So the main means of communication for all of us, like this. in this building, this entire building is a secure facility. That means that if you go outside of this lobby, there's a bunch of lock boxes over there where you've got to lock your phone in, you've got to lock your Apple Watch or your aura ring. Anything that transmits a signal gets locked up by everyone who works here and everyone who visits here before you leave this lobby. How are you supposed to count your steps? Good luck. Take the stairs. It's a little-fashioned way. Exactly.

But so the vast majority of the communication that happens is through secure telephones and secure computers and things that are built in to our work environments. However, I do have to leave the building at times and things have to keep moving and rolling. Same goes for those who work in the White House and those who work across the administration. So at times for practical purposes, you have to be able to communicate on the go. signal has been recognized by the federal government during the Biden administration, by the way, in December of 2024, as the preferred messaging app because it provides that end-to-end encryption that makes it, you know, nothing is completely secure, but it is the most secure option if you

need to use it. You feel like it was unfair to Pete and Mike Walls? I mean, they took the brunt of it. Yeah, I mean, you know, it shouldn't have happened. there are sensitive conversations that occur in these signal chats, but ultimately it was not at all what those who are opposing the president's policies and those in the media made it out to be. And I can tell you that there are some of the most vocal critics of that whole situation who also use signal and communicate things that they would not want released publicly as well. Not surprised.

Exactly. As I've listened to you over this hour, I've had one thought recurred to me over and over and over, and it is first female president. That is what I, like, I look at you and I see it. And I know they put you through the meat grinder the last time, but that was the other side. Now you've crossed over. And so I just wonder. Thank you for not saying transition. People use that word. It's like, okay, that's one of those words that's like for a certain thing. It's no. But notwithstanding how rough that was when you ran for president the first time, have you ruled out ever doing it again? Could we potentially see a Tulsi 2028 try? I will never rule out any opportunity to serve my country. I would not have, if we had talked a year ago,

the thought would not have crossed my mind that I would be here and that we would be having this conversation. My decisions in my life have always been made around how can I best be of service to God, how can I best be of service to our country, and that is what has led me here. I'm grateful for this opportunity, and I will continue to chase those opportunities where I can make the most positive impact and be of service. And now you and I sit here, having done something the two of us back in 2016, never would have thought we would have done, which was stood up on a stage and endorsed Donald Trump. Now you're working for him. I endorsed him too. Yeah.

And it was so great. I was there. I remember. It was such a powerful moment and speech that you delivered because of your history with him. You are very generous to even mention that. What you did for President Trump was huge. and seeing you up there and announcing, like, your partisan change, you know, with Trump,

it was this, that was like the team of rivals or the Marvel universe coming together. The Avengers. Yeah, the Avengers. You're one of them. You're one of the most, and the grace greek is part of it. It just works.

But I wonder if you do decide to do something, you know, in the future, running for president or individual executive leadership, what have you learned from him? What would you want to take away from, the kind of leader Trump is. He's a very bold leader. And as we see, he's making decisions

without care for what the media chirps about him or what his so-called critics may say about him. And he's quite masterful at it, by the way. You know, he's been so effective at connecting with the American people in ways that I think a lot of the politicians or the so-called political pundits here in Washington, D.C., never really understood, and maybe a lot of them still don't,

but it really comes from a place of care, his care for the American people. He doesn't need to do this. He didn't need to put himself through all this. He didn't need to put himself in a position where there were two assassination attempts on his life. And the kind of bold change that we're seeing happening now across the government, it's never happened like this under any other president.

So I really respect his boldness and his courage in doing things that sometimes people don't understand or see how it's going to turn out. Those are things we see in you too. Boldness, courage, and you share something else with him, which is fearlessly independent. That's what's going to take you forward. Thank you so much. It's so good to see you. Thank you very much. Good luck with everything.

Thank you. I mean, all of you are going to get in this environment. Yeah, my money's on you. I appreciate that. Thank you, Megan. That's a love.