The President's Daily Brief - PDB Situation Report | June 1st, 2024: Ukraine's Weapons Debate & Border Patrol Crisis

Episode Date: June 1, 2024

In this episode of The PDB Situation Report: The latest on the ongoing international debate over whether Ukraine should be allowed to use western weapons to strike inside Russian territory. An interview with Karolina Hird, the Russia deputy team lead at the Institute for the Study of War, for insight on the Ukraine weapons debate. A discussion with Chris Cabrera, the Vice President of the National Border Patrol Council, about the difficult realities faced by America's border patrol agents and the troubling toll it's having on their mental health. To listen to the show ad-free, become a premium member of The President’s Daily Brief by visiting PDBPremium.com. Please remember to subscribe if you enjoyed this episode of The President's Daily Brief. Email: [e-mail]. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Wireless can feel like a world of traps, but not with Visible. It's one-line wireless with unlimited data and hotspot, powered by Verizon for $25 a month, taxes and fees included. Plus, for a limited time, new members pay just $20 a month for one year on the Visible plan, using the code Fresh Start. Refresh your wireless with Visible. Tap the banner to switch today. Terms apply, limited time offer subject to change. See Visible.com for plan features and network management details. Welcome to the PDB Situation Report.

I'm Mike Baker, your eyes and ears on the world stage. Let's get briefed. We'll start today's show with the latest on the ongoing international debate over whether Ukraine should be allowed to use Western weapons to strike inside Russian territory. We'll talk with Carolina Hurd, the Russian deputy team lead at the Institute for the Study of War, for some insight on that debate.

A little later, we'll speak to the Vice President of the National Border Patrol, Council Chris Cabrera about the difficult realities faced by America's Border Patrol agents and the troubling toll it's having on their mental health. But first, the Situation Report Spotlight. In a notable development, two senior Biden administration officials hinted this week at a potential change in the rules governing Ukraine's use of American supplied weapons. This shift would allow Ukrainian forces to target sites inside Russia.

Now, during a visit to Moldova, that's a country, U.S. Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken said, quote, a hallmark of our approach has been to adapt as the conditions have changed, as the battlefield has changed, as what Russia does has changed. We've adapted and adjusted to, and we'll continue to do that, end quote. National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby echoed Blinken's remarks saying that while there's no change in the current policy, America's support to Ukraine will evolve appropriately. That's some serious diplomatic speak there. This potential policy change comes amid increasing pressure from European allies, lawmakers, and Ukrainian officials

on the White House to lift existing restrictions. Russia's recent advances, especially around Ukraine's second largest city, Kharkiv, have intensified these calls. Now, the momentum is clearly building in support of allowing Western weapons to be used inside Russia. The statements from administration officials come as several key U.S. allies have now given the green light. Speaking at a news conference alongside German Chancellor Olaf Schultz, French President Emmanuel Macron, stated that French weapons sent to Ukraine,

including long-range missiles, would be permitted to target Russian bases. Macron, as it turns out, is becoming a real action Jackson when it comes to the Ukraine conflict. McCrone said that French-supplied weapons would be allowed to neutralize sites from which missiles are fired and any military sites from which Ukraine is attacked. However, he added that the weapons would not be allowed to hit other targets in Russia and obviously no civilians. Now, Chancellor Schultz of Germany appeared to support Macron's remarks, declaring that Ukraine should be allowed to defend itself as long as it does so within the bounds of international law and according to the conditions set by the country supplying the weapons. Poland has also announced it will apply no restrictions on the use of weapons

supplied by Warsaw to strike Russian territory. In an interview with Poland's Radio Zet, the nation's deputy defense minister said Warsaw would not impose any limitations on the use of Polish weapons by Ukrainians. He added, quote, the Polish position is that there should be no restrictions in this regard. Ukraine should be able to fight with the equipment it receives because That is why it receives the equipment to be effective, end quote. And for that statement, the Deputy Defense Minister wins this week's Situation Reports Statement of the Obvious Award. As we recently reported, NATO is backing the relaxation of restrictions.

The Alliance's Parliamentary Assembly adopted a declaration on Tuesday, stating that allies must accelerate the delivery of crucial weapons to Ukraine and lift restrictions on their use. NATO Secretary General Yen Stoltenberg also, agreed on the need to remove limitations on the use of weapons, saying that the right to self-defense includes hitting legitimate targets outside Ukraine. Now, the news comes despite warnings from Russian President Vladimir Putin. There's a surprise.

During a trip to Uzbekistan, that's another country, Putin said that relaxing restrictions on Ukraine is part of an escalation that can lead to serious consequences. Really? So Putin's warning about the dangers of escalation. there must be something about despots and dictators that results in a complete loss of self-awareness and a sense of irony. Putin added, quote, in Europe, especially in small countries,

they should be aware of what they are playing with, end quote, because Putin likes nothing better than to bully small countries. So thanks for the warning flag. That's terrific. Up next on the PDB Situation Report. We'll have more on this with Carolina Hurd from the Institute for the Study of War. Stay with us. How many discounts does USAA auto insurance offer? Too many to say here.

Multi-vehicle discount, safe driver discount, new vehicle discount, storage discount, legacy. How many discounts will you stack up? Tap the banner or visit usa.com slash auto discounts. Restrictions apply. Here with us now is Carolina Hurd, the Russia deputy team lead at the Institute for the Study of War. Carolina, thank you very much for joining me here at the Situation Report. Thank you so much for having me. Now, if you don't mind, I want to talk, I want to spend some time talking about this idea of the use of U.S. supplied or frankly, NATO supplied weapons by Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia.

But first, I was hoping you could give us your current assessment of the situation on the ground with the conflict. Yeah. So as of end of May of this year, we're seeing a very difficult and interesting time for Ukraine, difficult. difficult in that Russia is currently pursuing an offensive operation in Ukraine's north to basically draw and distract Ukrainian forces to the Haddikiv Oblast border area in northeastern Ukraine and move them away from other critical areas of the front line in Danyetsk Oblast in order to set conditions to pursue more operationally significant offensives in those areas in Danyetsk Oblast. So this is all very much contingent on the situation with

Western aid and Western prohibitions on Ukrainians using NATO-provided weapons to strike Russia because a lot of these, the delays in Western aid and then also the prohibitions on striking targets within Russia with these NATO-provided systems, I really allowed Russia to prepare and launch this offensive operation into northeastern Harkiv Oblast and distract and divert and pin Ukrainians to a very discreet area of the front line when they're already facing widespread material and manpower shortages. So a very difficult time. Now, I mean, to what degree currently? I mean, I suspect that the situation could get worse over a period of time, obviously, but right now in terms of manpower, as you mentioned, what are the difficulties that Ukraine is

facing as Russia starts to expand their offensive? So as of right now, the fact that Ukraine doesn't really have the forces and personnel to defend all of the areas of the front line that it needs to defend. And Russia is exploiting this because they're pursuing offensive operations in Hariki-Oblast, in Luhainzkoblast, Dunyetskoblast, limited offensensens in the South. And Ukraine doesn't have the manpower to defend against this. They also don't really have the equipment and the advanced systems they need to defend against this. Ukraine is taking steps to stabilize its manpower force as well, lowering the conscription age, for example, training brigades out of the country and setting up new brigades, but these are kind of longer-term fixes for a very immediate

problem. What's your assessment of the mood inside Ukraine when it comes to additional mobilization? Again, lowering that age from, I believe, 27 to 25, but what's the appetite within the population there inside Ukraine to basically continue this struggle? How do you read that? People are absolutely exhausted, but this war is existential for Ukraine. in a way that it's not in the West or in Europe. So when we say that we can get tired of it, Ukrainians can also get tired of it, but they can't really remove themselves in the same way,

especially as Russia is continuing to strike major population centers, such as Hadikiv City, Kiev City, of course. The appetite is still there because Ukrainians largely know that they're fighting a war for the survival of their state, but that doesn't mean that there is an exhaustion. and demoralization, which is a difficult thing for Ukraine and society to balance, of course. No, no, it's an extremely important point. But can you quantify in some fashion the manpower advantage that Russia has over Ukraine?

So in terms of actual numbers, it's a little difficult to tell in the open source, which is where we're operating. But the Russians are able to really sustain their losses and recruitment at a one-to-one ratio, which the Ukrainians do not necessarily have the capability to do. So we look at the Russian force generation capacity and then the Ukrainian force generation capacity and their ability to basically plug holes made by losses in the line. And that capacity is mismatched. Russia has the upper hand absolutely in that capacity.

That's right now. But as Ukraine starts conducting its own mobilization efforts throughout the rest of this year, that can shift a little bit. But as of May, June, 2024, the scales are absolutely tipped in the manpower sphere to Russia's side. Do you get the sense, though, that the Russian population is likewise as exhausted or that there's a potential for Putin to lose additional support or popular support within the Russian population by going to another mobilization if he needs to? Well, what's fascinating about the Russian side of this is that Russian society

is largely apathetic towards the war. And this is because Putin and his administration have been very, very skilled in basically siloing the impacts of the war in specific communities. So his largest and most powerful constituency being pro-war isn't necessarily impacted by the war. So we're not seeing this sort of widespread exhaustion because the impacts are siloed within Russian society. There's very much an apathy from telling from the different polls that have been conducted by independent organizations in Russia, there's very much this attitude of we're not against the war, we just have to keep going on, as long as it's not really like impacting my life, it doesn't really matter. So I would say that the, whereas the mood in Ukraine is more demoralized and exhausted,

the mood in Russia is absolutely more apathetic and people just want to get on with their lives. Putin will not, we do not assess that Putin will in the near term call this, new mobilization because he knows it will be extremely unpopular and because he is able to generate recruits at a sufficient rate to do what he needs to do in Ukraine right now, which is pursue the types of offensive operations that he is currently pursuing. The new mobilization wave would not be successful or not be popular. And that it's this kind of constant calculus that Putin's trying to do of maintaining domestic support and also being able to continue to pursue the war in Ukraine.

Do you get the sense when you're talking about sort of the apathetic nature of the population of Russia to the war? To what degree is Putin's efforts and his regime's efforts to spin the narrative, right? This is the defense of the motherland or this is we're fighting the Nazis and fascism here. We're reclaiming what's rightfully ours by history. To what degree is that effort, right? To carry the day with a narrative. Is that having any impact? Or does the Russian population just kind of go, meh? Yeah, right, whatever.

You know, we're just getting on with our lives. I would say that the majority of the Russian population, or kind of your average people, are going about this apathetic way of life. However, Putin's core constituency, these kind of ultra-nationalist, very well-read in military commentators or veterans or whatever, they really respond well to this basically,

ethos of the great patriotic war, making comparisons between what Russia is doing in society today, to the efforts to fight Nazism in the Second World War, they're receptive to that. That's the intended audience. So Putin can kind of skate by on the apathy of the general population while very strongly catering to his core constituency, which wants the war to continue, which wants the war to be continued to be persecuted aggressively, and which are like Putin himself, kind of students of Russian imperial history who are observing and watching and making these parallels. Okay, let's talk about now about the weapons, right, the weapons systems, the munitions that are making their way to Ukraine. And the restrictions that up to this point, right, some of them are

easing, particularly from the European allies, but the restrictions that have been placed on them, to what degree do you assess that's changing? Where do you think this is going to be in, say, a month's time? Do you think all restrictions are off? And, you know, it's basically free reign. They can use the weapons in any fashion they see fit on. Any target that they believe is valid? So actually about five minutes before I logged on to this call, we started getting signals that the Biden administration had quietly allowed Ukraine to use U.S. provided weapons to strike targets within Russia. It's a major development on the U.S. policy side that literally happened as I was preparing to talk to you today.

So the tide is shifting. Look at that. Look at this. Not to interrupt, but this is very exciting. Thank you, Caroline. We've got breaking news on the PDB situation report. That's fascinating. Talk to us about this. If you used Babbel, you would. Babel's conversation-based techniques teaches you useful words and phrases to get you speaking quickly about the things you actually talk about in the real world, with lessons handcrafted by over 200 language experts and voiced by real native speakers. Babel is like having a private tutor in your pocket. Start speaking with Babel today. Get up to 55% off your Babel subscription right now at babel.com slash Spotify. Spelled BABB-B-B-E-L-L-Sash Spotify. Rules and restrictions may apply.

Yeah, so I frankly hadn't been able to read into it too much in the like five minutes before it broke and I came onto this call. But it's very much, I guess, inconsistent with the way that the U.S. administration had been very much holding back. But then we've seen in the last few days this shift in Blinken's positioning, et cetera, kind of saying that they'd assess and reevaluate and that U.S. policy towards Ukraine has always been very flexible and adaptable. We're seeing that flex and that adaptation now.

And I think a lot of it is coming from following the example of European allies who've been very much at the forefront of pushing, not saying no restrictions, because of course all European allies have been operating within the realms of Ukraine using these in the bounds of international law to strike legitimate military targets. But the European allies have been pursuing the strategy and really advocating for this. And I think we've started to see the shift of this tide this week. And then literally like five minutes before we started recording this segment. Do you think the White House is being influenced more by the move of the EU of NATO allies to lift restrictions and to say, no, you should be able to go after valid targets outside Ukraine.

Is it more the pressure from seeing our allies take this stance? Or is it the White House looking at realities on the ground from an operational perspective and seeing what's happening with the Russian offensive? I would hope that it would be a mix of both from the European perspective, from kind of a coalition building United Front for Ukraine perspective. But then also, I think the situation on the ground in Ukraine is, bad and it's become worse because of these Russian strikes on Hattikiv City, on basically glide bomb strikes on Ukrainian defenders in the Harkip area that have really made real the

tangible consequences of delays in aid or all of these bounds that the U.S. has put on how Ukraine can use its aid. So I think it's likely a mix of both. And I think that those two things are also quite mutually reinforcing because I think European allies have been receptive to the situation on the battlefield and very much been trying to kind of push that edge forward. It sounds like, I mean, from the European side, you get individuals like Macron, of course, from France, talking about they should be able to use our weapons to strike out at targets outside of Ukraine where we know they're launching their attacks from, meaning the Russian attacks.

So, you know, you've got a missile facility. Okay, fine, we can go after that missile site. if it's a base that they're using to launch attacks on Ukraine, fine, go after that. And that seems okay. So we're lifting restrictions to a degree. But I guess what I want to hear from you is your assessment on this idea that, like, Russia's been just hammering Ukraine's energy infrastructure, right, for a very long time at this point. Knowing the impact that has on the Ukrainian population, on the military, I mean, would it make sense,

to just say, okay, the gloves are off. If Ukraine wants to use the missile systems, the munitions, the weapon systems that we're providing to go after Russian energy infrastructure inside Russia that's within reach, would that make sense, given the importance of the energy industry to Putin's ability to wage war? I think from a Western decision-making perspective, I'm having a little more trouble seeing that be the reality.

I think that European states and the U.S. have been very clear about this being military targets. So launch points, spacing sites, that sort of thing. I think it gets a lot more opaque when it comes to energy infrastructure. And that's why we've seen Ukrainians really have to pursue this approach of handmade, domestic-made, drones, striking oil refineries or whatever it may be. I don't necessarily see that approach changing. partially because the Russians are so good at this reflexive control technique in which they will try to kind of issue nuclear threats or military threats in order to sway Western decision-making. And I think that the strikes on energy infrastructure will continue to be neurologic,

and I don't necessarily see that changing in the West. Shifting gears just a little bit. What do you make of Putin's recent talk about, you know, look, I'm willing to discuss a ceasefire and to hostilities. What do you make of the fact that he's thrown that out there at this stage of the game? Is he serious or is he essentially just posturing to make himself look like the responsible party? I think the latter half of your statement there is exactly what's going on. Putin may have said that this is his intention, but we know that through years and years of watching the Kremlin's posturing vis-a-vis Ukraine, that they do not really want to ceasefire. They do not

want to negotiate in good faith. And any negotiations that they do pursue would be on Russian terms, which would be incredibly damaging to Ukraine as a sovereign state and also to Western security in Eastern Europe. Even if the Russians were to push for a ceasefire on the lines as they currently are now, that brings the Russian border much closer to the NATO border. It allows Russian forces is a new base point to basically launch future attacks on Ukraine from. We saw this in 2014 when they, or like after the Minsk agreements and they reneged on the Minsk agreements and then further attacked Ukraine and Dunbas. So the negotiations part is not ever said in good faith and it's always said in a way that

is meant to further Russian aims and never in pursuit of peace or pursuit of Ukrainian. sovereignty or any of the things that the West would need and want in order for negotiations to actually be done in good faith. Now, Carolina, we've only got another couple of minutes at best here, but it's sort of a two-part question. One is if the Biden administration follows through on what appears to be their change in strategy and they allow Ukrainians to use the weapon systems we provide to strike targets inside Russia, to what degree is that going to have a positive impact for the Ukrainians on the current situation on the ground. And the second part, now this is a tough one, this is soft science, but I'm going to ask you to speculate, where are we in this conflict six

months from now? Yeah. So to the first part of your question, I think in the immediate term, allowing and enabling Ukraine to strike targets within Russia is going to be very, very immediately helpful in the context of Harkiv Oblast, specifically. We're seeing Russian forces basically conduct almost like close air support of their ground troops by launching glide bombs at Ukrainian troop concentrations that are defending in Haddkeep Oblast, as well as inflicting very large-scale infrastructure damage on Hadqqqq city by bombing Hadqqqq, all from within Russian airspace. So when this policy changes in Ukrainians are able to strike Russian assets in Russian territory, Russian airspace, the Russian ability to inflict the sort of damage on Ukraine from close range changes.

They're going to have the strike from further back that gives Ukrainian air defense more time to respond, et cetera, et cetera. So on the battlefield immediately, I would say that especially in Haredes-Bolost, this is going to have tangible and very important impacts. My colleague, George Barros, the Russia team leader ISW, has written about the tactical implications of this at length, which I would highly recommend reading. for those interested, but it will help and it is a critical part of this equation. That being said, I think six months into the war, from where we are now, sorry, we're like,

that would be two and a half years into the war. I don't necessarily foresee major breakthroughs on either side of the equation. I think Russian forces are going to relaunch a summer offensive operation, likely somewhere in Dignetsko Blast, as they were kind of preparing for with the Hadekev offensive to draw Ukrainians out of the Netskoblast. But around Chasi Viad would probably be my best guess. I think that's the most operationally significant settlement for Russians at this moment. So we'll see a Russian offensive effort at some point in this summer. We could feasibly see some small Ukrainian counteroffensive counterattacks when they get the new Western kit, but for the most part, it looks like they're going to be on the defense this year.

That being said, I don't see a major breakthrough coming on either side. I don't think the Russians have the manpower, tactics, ability to collapse the Ukrainian line in order to advance and kind of conduct these massive sweeping offensive operations. And the Ukrainians are not at a point where they can do that either. So I would watch out for Dignyat's Goldblast in the summer, but I would caution anyone against expecting any sort of decisive offensive operation in the course of 2024 or indeed 2025. Yeah, before you know it, we're in 2025. And you and I'll be having the same conversation and I'll be saying, so six months from now

and then we'll be looking at 2026. It's not a particularly optimistic viewpoint, but it is fascinating. Carolina heard of the Institute for the Study of War. Thank you very much. I hope you'll come back and spend some more time. with us. Thank you so much. It was a pleasure to be on today. All right, coming up next. We'll examine the grim realities faced by America's Border Patrol agents and the alarming rise in suicides among their ranks. We'll be joined by Chris Cabrera from the National Border Patrol Council to discuss the

impact on law enforcement. I'll be right back. Let me tell you the secret of how to look like you know what you're doing. Use mushrooms. Tossamine eggs, noodles, boom, it's delicious. It's not magic. It's mushrooms. Hit up mushroomcounsel.com and get cooking. Last week, we highlighted an important but often overlooked crisis that's unfolding at the U.S. southern border. According to an investigation published in the free press, the grim realities faced by Border Patrol agents are leading to a troubling increase in suicides. These agents frequently encounter horrific scenes, including the discovery of dead bodies and numerous reports of sexual assault by migrants making the dangerous trek north.

Moreover, a new report indicates that the U.S. Border Patrol is facing unprecedented turnover within its ranks, with nearly 25 percent of its agents leaving the force since President Biden took office. Now, to delve deeper into this issue and its impact on law enforcement, we're joined by the Vice President of the National Border Patrol Council, Chris Cabrera. Chris, thank you very much for taking the time. and joining us here on the PDB Situation Report. Not a problem. I appreciate you guys having me. Now, let me preface what I'm about to ask by saying,

in the U.S., it appears that Americans, and certainly much of the media, have attention deficit disorder, right? Very short attention spans. They can't seem to focus on more than one issue. And for a while, right, for a while, the problems at the U.S. southern border were front of and center. It actually seemed to impact the White House. The White House actually seemed, although I suspect that they were pretending, but they seemed to care. And they acted as if they were going to take action finally and try to do something to properly secure the border. Now we're hard pressed to find stories, articles, coverage of what's happening at the U.S.

Southern border. Everyone's talking about the Trump trial in New York, or obviously they're focused on what's happening overseas, whether it's in Gaza or whether it's in Ukraine. Can you give us at the outset your assessment of where we are right now with the U.S. southern border? Right now, I think it's probably the most poorest that I've seen it in almost 23 years. It's gotten really bad. You know, years ago, the focus sector was just the Rio Grande Valley. and most of the people were coming just in that area.

And here recently, it's spread out throughout the entire southwest United States. San Diego and Tucson are taking the brunt of it. Also, you have a big issue in El Paso and Eagle Pass, and even the northern border, they're starting to see it. So I think the word is out that it's easy to get in now, and so people are going to take advantage of it. I mean, I think it's akin to if Bank of America said they were giving out $500 to everybody that comes on a certain day, of course you'd have a line around the block. And that's what we're seeing now. Whether it's true or not,

whether all these benefits are given out or not, that's what the word is. So, I mean, we're getting hit not just from South and Central American countries. We're getting hit from all over the world, from China, from India, from Bangladesh, from Romania. I mean, you name it. We're seeing it down here. Yeah, talk to me about that a little bit,

about the influx of Chinese migrants. Where primarily are they hitting at the border? and what do you make of that increase? Well, you know, primarily it's in the San Diego area, but we do see them sprinkled in in Arizona and in Texas. We see quite a bit. You know, it's odd because China is not one of those countries where you can just say, hey, I'm going to leave for a little bit,

go on a vacation, and I'll be back. You know, it's not like most countries where you can come and go as you want. So that's kind of concerning. You know, you have a lot of people talk about military age males. I don't know how accurate that would be, because most people that come over are military age males just for the fact that those are the ones that come to work. So it could be one thing, it could be another, or it could be a sprinkling of both.

What about the White House? Recently, anyway, they have, when they talk about the border, which isn't often at this point, they point to a dip in numbers, right? There's been a decrease in numbers coming across the border. What do you make of that? You know, I was thinking about that just yesterday. A good friend of mine told me years ago that, yeah, there's a dip in the numbers, but better than bad is not necessarily good. If you look at the numbers where around what, $130,000 a month under the previous administration and probably the administration before that, we were looking at $30,000 to $40,000 a month.

$50,000 was a big number. So even if we're at $140,000 and it's down from $300,000, it's still not a good thing because we went up and came back down. it's it's we're nowhere near where we should be um to even get where we've been in the past okay and what about what about the the manpower numbers we we talked uh just before our conversation started about uh the idea that the board of patrols lost about 25 percent of its of its personnel since president Biden took office where is the board of patrol at this point in terms of manpower staffing uh resources and what's the impact on the uh current active duty agents when you talk about that sort of reduction.

You know that the manpower numbers are kind of deceiving. You know, I think we're around almost 20,000, maybe 19,000 nationwide, but we're not putting the brunt of the manpower in the field to prevent people from coming into the country, from drugs coming into the country, from, you know, whoever, for whatever, whatever it needs to be done. The majority, at least 50%, if not more, start the day of the day. off in the station. And as the shift goes on, that number dwindles and more and more people end up inside rather than outside where they need to be. They're doing hospital watch duties. They're transporting. They're processing. So obviously processing is a necessary part of the system,

but so is having a deterrence out there for people coming in, not just that for safety, safety for the agents that are out there and safety for the people that are crossing. I mean, It's a dangerous area. There's a lot of snakes. We see a lot of dehydration. You know, we need to have that manpower out there, but it's just not out there. As far as the attrition,

we are losing people faster than we can get them in. This job's not for everybody. You know, you're outside, 105 degrees with, you know, 50, 60% humidity, sometimes higher. You have to want to be out there. You have to want to do that job to even sign on the dotted line. And traditionally it's been that when you hit your retirement, window, which is anywhere from seven to 10 years, you'd wait towards the end of it and then,

you know, leave around, you know, 50, 57 years old. Now as soon as guys hit that retirement window, they're gone. I mean, I would say about 60, 70%, 80% are taking off the first chance they get. Okay. Well, this kind of moves us into a related topic, of course, but a very important one, which is how do you assess the, and I know this is a bit of a soft science, but how do you assess the morale of the personnel there within the Border Patrol? You know, it's unfortunate, but morale right now is in the toilet, you know. We're not allowed to go out there and do our job. You know, people that we catch, we're turning around and letting them go.

What we see out there on a daily basis, a lot of people think that, you know, Border Patrol agents just don't want anybody coming into the country. They, I guess they forget to look at the fact that the majority of the Border Patrol is of Hispanic origin. I think if people saw what we saw with, you know, what happens to some of these kids, what happens to these women, what happens to these young boys, by the predators, by the Mexican cartel members, what these people have to go through, they would understand that if we stop this altogether, this wouldn't be happening. It's just, it's mind-boggling. I guess people want to get their news off TikTok for some reason instead of actually doing some research and seeing what's actually happening down there.

And it's not what it's painted in the media. A lot of it doesn't get reported, but we do see some horrible, horrible things that no one should have to see. Do the agents talk about this themselves, amongst themselves? I mean, the increase that we touched on earlier in the show about the number of suicides within the Border Patrol. Is there much discussion or do you find that the agents kind of keep all of this locked up inside? You know, I think most agents will keep it locked up inside. However the border patrol has done, they are out there trying to bring more awareness to it. You know, and it's one of those jobs where, unfortunately, it's seen as a weakness instead of a, you know, call for help. With all law enforcement, all military, I guess, you know, the higher-ups look at it as a weakness or they did. And thankfully, the culture is starting to change where people are allowed to come forward and not face any repercussions for doing it. it but you know some people see it as a as a shame to do it and and they don't want to come forward and it's unfortunate that we've lost way too many people these last

couple of years and I don't think you can find anybody in the Border Patrol that doesn't know somebody that that has taken their own life in the last few years yeah I think mental health concerns and the ability to offer assistance you know whether you're talking about a difficult position or job like the Border Patrol or whether you're talking about first responders we're talking about military it just seems like we've always been kind of lagging and, you know, missing the boat on this. So it's very worrisome. And that's why I asked that question about morale, but also the important question of,

you know, to what degree is, does the agency itself understand these problems and in real time addressing them or trying to address them? Yeah, you know, they're starting to get on board with it. I think where the flaw is with the agency. And this is just my way of thinking is, you know, we have, you know, CBP is a very big agency and it covers many different spectrums. You know, you have the guys at the bridge, you have the guys that fly the helicopters, you have agriculture, you have a lot of office people and you have Border Patrol. And for the most part, they're completely different jobs.

And to fix this, I think you have to attack it at each level, at each lowest level, not, you know, one big umbrella that covers everybody because what applies to the office folks or the guys that are working at the bridge don't necessarily relate to the guys on the ground that that are on foot most of the day as the Border Patrol is. But they are, you know, I will give them credit. They are moving forward. I know the Chief of the Border Patrol has done a lot to address this. So we are making strides.

It's just unfortunate that you wish it was a magic pill that they could put something into play and it was fixed the next day. But unfortunately, that's not how it works. Right. No, that's very true. Let's look at it this way. If you're in charge, say you suddenly were in charge, what would be the one thing that you would propose that you believe would make a significant and in the short term impact and improvement for the

U.S. southern border situation and for the border patrol? You know, I think as far as enforcement-wise, I think it's very simple. It's insanely simple. It's mandatory detention, mandatory removal. 2005 time frame, we had a lot of people that were coming across, and we didn't have any bed space, so we were releasing everybody out the door. They came out with a program called expedited removal,

where the Border Patrol agent was, in a sense, he was the judge as well. So when somebody appealed it, they would talk to the same guy that processed them, and there's no merit to your claim. Turn around, you're going home. And in two days, it stopped. I mean, it completely stopped.

It went from hundreds and hundreds a day to nothing. And then they came up with this asylum claim, this asylum loophole. And don't get me wrong, there is a place for asylum in this system. But it's being exploited. And the ones that need it aren't getting the attention they need because everybody's claiming it. So it's like the boy who cried wolf. So people aren't paying attention to it. So they need to put this, they need to stop this, close this loophole.

If this is a tax loophole, they would have closed a years ago. I mean, but for some reason, there's just no, there's no need for, there's no fire under them to do it. And in the meantime, there's, there's thousands of people that are suffering. There's women that are being exploited. There's people that die along the journey that we don't even know about, not to mention what's coming into this country that we don't know about. Granted, a good majority that people are coming in looking for a way to make a living and work. They do it the incorrect way, but, you know, I think they have good intentions. But then there's also those that are getting through that may have bad intentions.

And then you have the criminal element that comes in and they're just going to prey on people. And I think what a lot of folks don't understand that live away from the border is this affects you guys much more than it affects our communities. Because they come in, they don't stay here. They go to the rest of the United States. We don't have an opioid problem down where we live. It comes through here, but we don't have that problem here. MS-13, guys, I've arrested them before, but I've never seen one walking around. around town. You go to Virginia, Maryland, D.C., you'll see them all the time, but you won't see

them down here. So it affects people the rest of the country more than it affects us. And I think until people realize that, we're still going to be behind the eight ball on this. Talk to me about the vetting process, if you could. We don't have much time left, but how thorough is the vetting of individuals that are encountered? Obviously, there's nothing you can do about the known gotaways. But for those that are encountered, what's the vetting process like how how thorough is it it's not very thorough at all i mean um if you come into this country and you don't have an id um i have to take your word for it that you are who you say you are um i run your fingerprints if you don't come up with a hit from the united states that you've been

arrested before here in this country i got to take you at your word on who you are um that wouldn't work anywhere else you try getting into the halls of congress without an id they're not letting you in um but yeah we're we it's it's based on everybody to telling the truth and everybody having noble intentions. And that's not necessarily the case. So, yeah, we're not vetting them at all. I think if people really knew what the vetting process is down here, there would be an outrage over it. But yeah, it's just not there. You know, getting into one other thing is years ago under the last administration, and I don't like to play this, you know, this administration and the administration,

but this is just for timeline purposes. We were doing DNA tests for people that families that came with kids. And that was to ensure that this was an actual family with this kid. We wouldn't do it for everyone, but it was pretty widespread. And we put it out there and we would tell these people, okay, everybody line up with your family. We're going to do a DNA test. If that is not part of your family and you go through with this test

and we find out your line, you're going to jail. And 40% would step out of line, 40%. and now there's no money for that for that DNA testing but 40% were coming in with kids that weren't their kids as a fake family and if you look at to me the the most vulnerable part of this is the kids and if you have funding for anything it's got to be that anything at all you have to do that but for some reason there's no money for it well chris unfortunately we're out at time but i hope that that you'll agree we could sit back down in a couple of months revisit this situation, see where we are. Because again, my concern with the border is always that it flares up.

The media will pay a little bit of attention to it, the White House less so. But then something else happens, you know, either you domestically or overseas, and we tend to push it off the radar screen. It's too important to do that. You can't have national security. You can't have public security in the U.S. unless you have a secure border. So I very much appreciate you taking the time. the National Border Patrol Council. Hope to see you again very soon. All right, thank you for having me. And if you ever down this way

and you want to go for a tour down here, let me know. I'll be happy to show you around. I will take you up on that, sir. Thank you very much. All right, thank you. All right, coming up next, North Korea's latest, look how we jump around here on the PDB situation report, right? We're on the border, now we're in North Korea.

Anyway, North Korea's latest airborne attack. Well, it's not what you might expect. Normally, right, a balloon drop, we can all agree. It's a fun-filled surprise. You've seen balloon drops, right? You see them at parties and conventions. Well, unfortunately, North Korea appears to have taken all the fun right out of a balloon drop. Stay tuned for the unhygienic details.

All right. To wrap up today's show, we bring you one of the more bizarre stories that we've covered here on the PDB situation report. Folks living near the border in South Korea are on high alert after North Korea launched hundreds of massive balloons filled with garbage and human excrement, poop, crap into their territory. The South Korean military started noticing these balloons from the north on Tuesday night, and by Wednesday morning they'd spotted over 150 of them. In total, around 260 of these garbage and crap balloons were found scattered all over the place.

Now, some balloons traveled pretty far, landing hundreds of miles south from the North Korean border. order. In a statement, the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff said, quote, North Korea's actions clearly violate international law and seriously threaten the safety of our citizens. All responsibility arising from the North Korean balloons lies entirely with North Korea. Well, of course, and we sternly warned North Korea to immediately stop its inhumane and low-level actions, end quote. According to the North Korean government, the balloon offensive was payback. South Korean activists, you see,

tend to send balloons across the border into North Korea to distribute information and materials censored by the North Korean government. So the balloons at the South sends north, well, they often carry leaflets and USB drives and other media with news and human rights information and messages critical of the North Korean regime. And sometimes they even include some K-pop music.

Yes, the South occasionally drops sick beats, on the north from groups like BTS and Black Pink. Not to mention the girl group Illet, which, if I'm not mistaken, has recently clinched the top K-pop girl group spot from Black Pink. Because here at the Situation Report, we try to keep you up to date on all the important global issues. Now, the goal is to give North Koreans access to outside information and undermine the propaganda and censorship imposed by the Kim regime.

That's why they send those propaganda balloons from the south up to the north. Activists believe, of course, this information could inform and potentially inspire change among North Koreans. Now, as you might guess, Kim Jong-un and the North Korean regime, well, they don't see it that way. They view the balloons coming from the South as a direct threat to their power. So in a statement from the state-run Korean Central News Agency, Kim Jong-un's younger sister, Kim Yo-Jong, called the balloon launch from the north carrying the garbage and poop freedom of expression. She added, we've done some of the things that they always do, meaning the South. But I don't know why they're making a big deal, like they've been hit by a shower of fire.

Not really the fire that the South Koreans were worried about. It was really more the poop. Well, that's all the time we have for, here at the PDB Situation Report, for this weekend. If you have any questions for me, they'd like to address on the air, reach out to me at PDB at thefirstTV.com. And remember, to listen to the podcast of this show, ad-free, Well, you can become a premium member of the president's daily brief by visiting PDB premium.com. Now, I'm Mike Baker. Until next time, well, you know the drill. Stay informed. Stay safe. Stay cool.

Pay off your home. Travel for life. Drive a Ferrari. In celebration of the world premiere of the Monopoly Big Board Buckslot Machine by Aristocrat Gaming, Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is giving one person a $1.6 million dream package. The biggest prize in Yamava's history. Club Serrano members can earn daily instant prizes and secure a spot in the face. finale May 29th. Don't pass go and own it all. Only at Yamava celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win? Details at yamava.com must be 21-20. Please gamble responsibly. Monopoly is a trademark of Hasbro. Hasbro is not a sponsor of this promotion.