The President's Daily Brief - PDB Situation Report | May 24th, 2025: U.S. Intel: Israeli Strike Incoming & Trump Reveals The Golden Dome

Episode Date: May 24, 2025

In this episode of The President's Daily Brief: New U.S. intelligence indicates that Israel may be preparing to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, sparking concern in Washington. Behnam Ben Taleblu from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies explains what this could mean for U.S. foreign policy and regional stability. Former President Donald Trump unveils bold new details of his “Golden Dome” missile defense initiative aimed at protecting the U.S. from missile and drone attacks. Brandon Weichert, author of Winning Space, joins us to break down the ambitious plan and what it could mean for America’s future in missile defense. 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. YouTube: youtube.com/@presidentsdailybrief Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Choice Hotels get you more of what you value. Here's a little tune to help you remember. Same drive, different day. Don't you wish you were getting away? Pack your beds and come on through. Texas, Ohio, Alaska, we're up there too. Comfort in. It's calling your name.

Save on the stay. Oh. And free waffles are yours to claim. Well, I hope you like my little song. Book direct at choiceotails.com. Welcome to the PDB Situation Report. I'm Mike Baker, your eyes and ears on the world stage. All right, let's get briefed. We'll start today's show by taking a look at some intelligence recently obtained by the U.S. That suggests Israel is preparing to strike Iran's nuclear facilities,

prompting, of course, urgent concern in Washington. Ben and Ben Taliblu from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies joined us to break it down. Later in the show, President Trump has unveiled new details of his ambitious Golden Dome Missile Defense Plan, have you heard about this, to shield the U.S. from foreign attacks. Brandon Weikert, author of Winning Space, joins us to walk through the details. But first, today's situation report spotlight. New intelligence suggests Israel may be preparing to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, despite ongoing U.S. efforts to negotiate a new deal with the Iranian regime. Now, according to American officials, intercepted communications between Israeli leaders and recent military activity all point to a possible near-term

attack. CNN reports that Israel has moved munitions into position and wrapped up large-scale air exercises, both potential indicators of a preemptive strike. The news has raised concerns in Washington, of course, that such an operation could ignite a wider regional conflict. Joining us to discuss what this intelligence might signal is Benham-Taliblu. He's a senior fellow at the Foundation for the defense of democracies. And for inside baseball purposes, you know, the situation report is a year old. In fact, it was a year old as about a week ago. And Benham was one of our very first guests. So we're very delighted to have them back on the situation report. Benham, thanks very much, man. It's an honor to be back with you. Thanks so much.

How did this intelligence get out there, right? I mean, so obviously somebody saw that within the White House within the national security offices, we add intelligence saying that there's concern that the Israelis may be preparing to strike. Any insight into how that information got out? Well, how the information may have gotten out from the White House to press, you know, my Occam's razor approach or the simplest explanation is the most likely, is this the same way that other information that the U.S. government sometimes more political, sometimes more policy, sometimes more classified or high-level compartmentalized intelligence information gets out, which is it's a leak from a human individual who happens to know a reporter and wants that

particular story out there because they play sometimes the Washington folks call an inside-outside game, whereas when they have a certain amount of exposure to a topic or to an issue that generates a certain kind of public backlash that allows folks within the administration and within that kind of, I don't like to use the word deep state, but within the, you know, more longstanding civil service bureaucracy, the room maneuver to ride on top of the sentiment reacting to that story to achieve the policy processes that they may have wanted to. Again, I have no insight as to if this was the way or if there was a different way that some of this information got out there about the administration seeing the Israelis getting ready for a strike, basically deal or no

deal. But to me, also, having read that story the first time, I pushed away from the table on it and said, even though I'm reading this for the first time, this is really an evergreen story because I think the Israelis mean what they say when they say they won't let the Islamic Republic of Iran get a nuclear weapon. They're a country that does have a very advanced Air Force. You saw that specifically against the Iranian threat, both in April and in October of last year when they retaliated against Iran's missile barrages. And you've seen in history over the past 40, 15 years where there have been a whole host of operations involving these Israeli air forms, not just in counterproliferation ways, but other ways, where they really confounded

expectations that do exist in the open source about what they can and cannot do. And so layering all of this on together, I think, yeah, this is a snapshot, but a snapshot of a story we've seen over time, which is there are always folks in various administrations left and right that always tend to leak the press sources. There's always people within the civil service bureaucracy who benefit from those leaks. But as to this specific topic, yeah, the Israelis have always been training and probably will always continue to train so long as there is Islamic Republic of Iran that is interested in getting a nuclear weapon. Yeah, it is interesting. Look, from my perspective, I mean, given my background, I'm always fascinated by, you know, the concept of intelligence,

intelligence leaks, issues, you know, within, you know, maintaining classification and discretion. And it does seem in Washington, D.C., I think you're right. Look, there's not that many, you know, scenarios here, not that many options. So either someone saw this. And it's a very small circle, still to this day, right? I mean, we tend to over disseminate, I think, in Washington, D.C., but it's still a relatively small group of individuals who would have access to specific intelligence, specific intelligence reporting. And so you could argue, okay, it was somebody or individuals who disagreed with, you know, the direction, you know, that the intelligence indicates their Israelis may be going. Sometimes in Washington you get people leaking information, you know, because it benefits the administration, right?

Because they want to get it out there. They want to, it's sort of a soft landing, trying to set the table. Sometimes you get people who just, you know, you know, get off on talking to journalists, even though it's anonymous, right? So, you know, there's not that many scenarios, but stepping away from that issue, do you, are you concerned from your perspective about the concept of the Israelis trying to do this on their own? I mean, do they have, I know obviously they've got a very advanced air force, but do they have, as an example, the munitions needed, which are not, shall we say, out in the open? Well, I think if you're going off of 2024, which was a historic year for the Israeli-Iran rivalry, both in terms of what the regime launched, as well as how and where and using what ordinances the Israelis responded, I think, A, that thing I said before about the Israelis being able to found expectations and having certain assets in reserve holds true. But if I had to do kind of the open-source

macro assessment, I think today in 2025, the Israelis can destroy any. any above ground facility in the Islamic Republic of Iran today on their own. An above ground facility could be a political entity, could be a military base, it could be a production facility for drones or missiles, it could be a radar installation. It could even be an above ground reactor or nuclear storage facility. What they cannot destroy is two or three facilities, one of the facilities being underground at Nathans, one of the other facilities being much, much more deeper underground at Fordo, and the third facility being constructed on the outskirts of that hands at Kuhekwalang

or Pickax Mountain, which the Iranians say will be a centrifuge production site in the future, but having permitted becomes an enrichment site in the future. Those are things that without, I think, the heavy bombers, countries like the United States of America has, without some of the munitions that you can drop, those GBUs, I forget which number, I don't know, it's 38 or 57, the massive ordinance penetrator, as well as the other heavier conventional bombs like the U.S. is dropped in Afghanistan. I'm thinking the Moab of 2017. Without those that can really explode and tunnel and penetrate much, much deeper than the, you know,

500-pound or 2,000-pound bunker busted bombs, if you've seen the Israelis use to the north and south against Hezbollah and against Hamas, you will need America, which is why this debate about, you know, Israel's right to respond. It's not a debate that exists in isolation. It's a debate that exists very much at the heart of U.S. national security policy. Yeah, no, absolutely. And let's pick up on Matt. What do you believe is the likelihood that the Trump administration would get on board? I suppose it would in part depend on the credibility of the intelligence that the Israelis present. Where do you think that stands? You know, I think this is a very kaleidoscopic scenario.

It depends on the intelligence. It depends on the sourcing. It depends on the nature of the talks. It depends on, I would even say with respect, the view of the president towards the Iranian threat that day or at that point in time, whether he feels like he has the backing of not just his party and not just the Congress, but the vast majority of the American people. Will the president have been able to show the American people that there was more than a good faith effort to reach some kind of diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. I'm sure the president and his team in Washington are going through even right now

in the absence of the strike being dangled, all of those things with round five of US Iran-Duther top's underway or wrapping up in Rome right now. So those are all factors that can impact and create push or pull factors. But ultimately, I would say would the regime be shooting itself in the foot? Because one fear that I have is, is, they get a lot more by staying at the table. And if the only way the U.S. goes militarily at the Iranians is if the Iranians are no longer at the table, well, then the Iranians can come to the table and just read a whole host of grievances and gillibuster and just kind of gain from the optics of being there without really

providing any concessions. That would make a lot harder for that, I think, the Trump administration to back an Israeli strike. And it also depends a lot on phasing with the Americans want Israel to go first. than America to play defense and then take out what is left, or would the Israelis want a joint strike, or would the Israelis want a retaliatory strike only in the instance of Iranians directly responding to Israel? Or what if the Iranians ride in the fronts and go after U.S. assets or the jurisdictions from certain sites, from where certain things were launched?

Again, this is very much like a kaleidoscope. We know the facts, we know the positions of people, but based on the context, when you turn it, that image turns drastically differently. And there is as much politics in this question as there is policy in this question. What do you think is the likelihood or the possibility that the Trump administration is maybe playing chess here? And what I mean by that is that they don't really believe that the Iranian regime is going to make a good faith effort in these talks that they wouldn't follow through. and actually stick to any agreements, but that they're having these conversations, I mean, the Trump administration,

having these conversations basically to show, as you mentioned, the American public that they've made all good faith effort to go the diplomatic route, and that gives them top cover then to, you know, switch to the military option. I would honestly, I would say it exists, but it exists in the universe of it being a non-lawful.

zero number, meaning I probably put the chances of that in the single digits or very, very low double digits. I think the president means what he says, and he's been pretty clear, at least on this front of he does not want the Islamic Republic to get a nuclear weapon, but even when he was campaigning before term one, his whole thing was about making deals, even in places where potentially that might not be possible or hard or feasible or where it may come with political constraints. You know, his line was back then, and it remains true today. bad deals, I make them good deals. You know, you saw that with North Korea. But with North

Korea, he learned, and when there was really no chance, he was willing to walk away. Now, that didn't commence a larger war, did it lead to a larger strike? But I think with respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the president has said that he doesn't want to have to do the military option, but he's willing to at least put it on the table and make it meaningful over time. So I think every threat with respect to this president, every option with respect to this president is credible. And if that, you know, five months out, I had to judge the Trump administration's Iran policy, I would say they're trying to go a mile wide and an inch deep on everything. So even though you heard this line back starting from President George W. Bush

when he said all options are on the table, when you look at literally everything that President Trump has been doing, he has literally been putting stock behind every single option, military, economic with the sanctions, for example, political, diplomatic even, by engaging in these direct or indirect, depending on who you believe, bilateral conversations with the Iranians. So he is every element, diplomatic, informational, military, economic, trying to create an element, and this is Iran policy. I think he's trying to provoke a reaction. He's trying to see where the Iranians are responding. And right now the Iranians are responding primarily in the diplomatic or political domain. They're trying to test him.

They're trying to buy time. But now it behooves him to grow the stock beyond just an inch of those economic and of those military options. And if I had to advise him right now, I would say one thing that you've got to trim with respect is the positive rhetoric or the optimism that the most powerful person in the world injects into these talks, which is when the president says, I want them to go well. think they're going well, looks like they're going well. The Iranian currency, the Rial, has appreciated, meaning improved about 20% since talk started just because of this slightly more different, changing, positive atmosphere. The president has gone after three refineries in China going after Iranian world while talking to the Iranians. This stuff President Obama or President Biden never did. And yet still, Iranian exports are flatlined at 1.5, 1.6, 1.7.

million barrels a day, depending on who you ask. So there is going to have to be more done to make the Iranians feel the pain. But long story short, I don't just see this as the president ticking a box and rushing through things. I think this is consistent with how he sees the Iranian threat, consistent with his options, consistent with what he campaigned on multiple times before the American public. And he is trying to square peg round whole this because the Islamic public is trying to raise the cost and the U.S. is trying to limit the cost. And Neri the two meet. Well, I think you do get, oh, you just finished up with a very eloquent final sentence, Mary the two shall meet. Come on, don't start making this a highbrow show. That's not why people

tune in. No Shakespeare on this show. I want to come back around to talk about what you said, the positive statements, the optimistic statements, because there have been contradictory statements, right? There have been things back and forth and I want to touch on that but first, as you know, we're going to need to take a break. So, Benham, if you could stay with us, we'll be right back with more of the situation

report after this quick break. Own it all. Pay off your home, travel for life, drive a Ferrari. In celebration of the world premiere of the Monopoly Big Board Bucks slot 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's Toronto members can earn daily instant prizes and secure a spot in the finale May 29. 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. Make Mother's Day even more special at Whole Foods Market. Kick off brunch or dinner with quality cheese and charcutory with no synthetic nitrates. Then go seafood. There's an abundance on sale at Whole Foods Market, where it's all sustainable while caught are responsibly farmed. At the bakery, grab seasonal treats like their strawberry pretzel cream pie, and you can't go wrong with a ready-to-heatheesh Lorraine,

deviled eggs, and fresh-cut fruits to go. Celebrate Mom with Whole Foods Market. Paradee presents, Ojos with Alerjcacin'Conrador! And the ganador is Paraday, ExtraFuerte. To alleviate the acacia for allergy, act more rapid and supera Clarity and Flownays at 1 at 24 hours. Parade.

Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is Ben-Talablu. He's a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a very good friend of the show, and quite frankly, a snappy dresser. Ben, we were talking about the comments, the optimism, the positivity coming out of the White House from President Trump related to the ongoing discussions with the Iranian regime, the nuclear talks. at the same time, you could argue, look, there have been a lot of contradictory statements. So

President Trump will come out with something positive, and then you'll hear back from the Iranian regime saying, no, no, we're not ever going to give up uranium enrichment. No, you know, because they're obviously playing the same game over on their side of the table with their population, right? They probably do not want to be seen as caving in to the U.S. by any means. But with When you, and in reality, you can argue we're seeing the same thing with the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Oftentimes we're getting, yes, the phone call was very positive. We're going to have discussions. They're going to move for a ceasefire.

And then you get Putin saying, well, no or not. Then we're not having any discussions and we're not meeting wherever. So talk to me about that. Is that just in the nature of President Trump? Is that just the way that he operates? Or again, I keep kind of pulling at the same threat. Is there a strategy here? Well, I do think there is a strategy here.

It's just that there are other strategies as well. I think there is an attempt by the Iranian to rope-a-dope the Americans. I think there's an attempt by, you know, Iran's great power partners, the Russians and the Chinese to magnify the Iranian threat, the satchapole, the oxygen in the room and time and political space in Washington deal with a tier three threat and to not be able to deal properly with a tier one threat, which is the likes of China and Russian, in my view. But with respect to the things that people have called contradictory in the president's policy, even in some of the president's statements and even in some of the statements of his advisors, I think I would say, yes,

you could see different approaches being taken by different flanks of the Republican Party pretty early on in the Trump administration when it came to with technical things like enrichment in Iran be permitted yes or no. But if you have to plot those divergent state states, on a chart. Yes, indeed, they did start very scattered, but now they are all very much correlating in one direction. There was a time when former national security advisor Mike Waltz was the only one talking about dismantlement and zero enrichment and the Libya model. But now you've had Secretary of Defense Pete Heggsett. You've had the White House Press Secretary much more recently. We've had President Trump himself. You've had Secretary of Rubio, the Secretary

of State on multiple occasions, bring this up. There is much more administrative cohesion. You've had the special envoying for crying out loud, Steve Whitkoff, a much more cohesion with respect to statements, with respect to both technical and political and states for Iran's nuclear program put forward publicly by the U.S. administration. At the same time, we've had the Iranians congeal and dig in in and double down on the 180 degree exact opposite, which is, if America is saying zero enrichment, they're saying, no, they want to retain enrichment at all costs. And under this scenario, until you have an exogenous shock, until you have more pressure, the only way you would get a deal is if you have a massive collapse between the public statements of one side, which is, at that

point, not for strategy, but for face-saving and ideology and domestic politics, and the private, acceptable, more narrowly circumscribed red line. So unless America says no enrichment publicly and says yes, enrichment privately, or unless Iran says, yes, enrichment privately, but no enrichment publicly and yes, enrichment publicly, you are not going to get a deal from these two sides anytime soon. That is at the heart of the matter right now. Let's talk about, you mentioned it earlier in our conversation, the fifth round. of talks that are going on between the Trump administration and the Iranian regime.

Any insight into how those talks are going? I think they should be concluding pretty soon, at least, you know, late morning, early afternoon Friday today. But I do believe that, you know, the Iranians after round three and after round four, once the Americans introduced a technical team into those talks, their talking points and their spin, particularly when you contrast it with round one and round two, has become much more narrower, much more about managing expectations than about playing up the political wind and the optics of round one and round two, of having been seen as an equal, sitting, even though indirectly, of sitting and talking with the American. So I think they understand

here that their stylistic strategy is going to be running out of substantive steam. That style has a substance of its own, but it doesn't always get to replace substance. And if they really do insist on these 180-degree drastically different red lines, then the Americans, which are increasingly saying no enrichment on your own soil, then they are beginning to understand and you see it in their commentary, you see in their reaction to the new sanctions. For example, the spokesperson of Iran's foreign ministry doing a press conference with Iranian media only in front of the facility where the diplomatic negotiations were just about to be held, critique the State Department sanctions the other day for going after Iran's construction sector and targeting

the trade of at least I think 10 different kinds of strategic metals that can bolster the regime's missile, military drone and potentially even nuclear programs. So they are much more wary right now of those other growing stocks of the administration, you know, the military stock, the economic stock. And they're seeing too that, you know, there will be costs to not delivering or to not changing their position. So that's why they are trying to ring the alarm bell. And they're saying if there's a strike, everybody will be impacted by it. They're saying if there's a strike, monitoring verification will be gone. They're saying that they're basically kind of hold America responsible for the things that Israel does. They're trying to increase the sense of panic

in the West right now. You see that in their statements very much so. Monitoring and verification. You just mentioned that, look, if there's an agreement, say that somehow the Iranian regime says, all right, fine, no enrichment, and we reach an agreement, that would imply that the only way we can enforce that is by full transparency, the ability to inspect all the sites that the West puts on the table and says, no, they don't let the Iranian regime say, these are off the table, these you can inspect. What's the likelihood that that would happen? Well, moderate verification has always been a problem with the Islamic Republic because this regime has been caught red-handed more than 20-some-one years ago trying to create a nuclear fate to complete. And

And so while they have been engaging and opening up significantly compared to where they were in the very early 2000s, the question is, what is it that we don't know? Could there be a secret facility? And this fear is in my view justified because A, the regime has blocked inspections of military sites of the past. And there is a strong connection between the military and the nuclear program given that this is not some science fair project. And second, that the regime understands that it actually benefits from this.

this double hourglass effect. By growing the nuclear program and diminishing the monitoring, they can again induce panic. And so long as they retain the ability to do that, they will always be in control of the monitoring and verification process. And this is despite them being signatories of the NPT, this is despite code 3.1, this is despite the comprehensive safeguards. And this is despite the additional protocol. You know, monitoring and verification is important, but I'm not going to lie.

It's technical and it's boring and it's difficult. And it is not as sexy as talking about a potential strike or a potential deal. But deal or no deal, strike or no strike. The way to make sure there is no Iranian nuclear program that has this weapon dimension is 100% transparency, monitoring and verification. You need the IEA to be able to come to a broader conclusion with respect to Iran's nuclear program. They haven't been able to do that still.

They still have outstanding questions about certain facilities, about not being able to interview previous Iranian nuclear scientists. So long as you have that, you do not have that cloud of suspicion taken away from the Iranian nuclear program. And that's why I think it behooves us to treat this not just as a technical problem, but as a larger political problem. The nuclear threat and this nuclear monitoring verification challenge is just one more challenge we face from this regime, which since 1979, has been saying death.

to America and remains the world's almost the sponsor of terrorism. This is just the next layer. This is just the regime taking the threats and turning it up to 11. Yeah, look, when he was Secretary of State, John Kerry, he used to bang on about, well, you know, the nuclear agreement, it's, you know, we're trusting but verifying. I'm thinking, no, you're not. Because to your point, I feel very strong about this, if you don't have 100% access, if you don't have full transparency, you do not know. And getting intelligence on the Iranian programs has always been a very heavy lift. And the U.S. has always had to rely very heavily on our liaison partners in the intelligence communities to get a, well, it's not even a full

picture, but to get the fullest picture possible. So I'm concerned that, you know, the Iranians will continue to play the same game that they've been playing. They'll agree, and then they just won't stick to the agreements. So I'm not sure why we would imagine that that dog is going to change its behavior. Benham, last question, being mindful of time, and I know this would require a lot of speculation, but if you're a betting man, let's look at six months down the road. Are we still in these negotiations with the Iranian regime? Are they still at the table, but kind of dragging it along? Or have we moved on to a military option? I think the most important fact that the there is not us and not the railings and not the Iranians, but the Europeans, if in less than

six months time, you don't have the Europeans triggering this tool that expires on October 18, 2025, which is snapback, if you don't have that, then it's likely you have one of two scenarios, either a limited strike or a limited deal in place. I can't guess which one is more 51-49 at this moment, but I would say both the Iranians and the Americans have an interest in kind of delaying because they don't like their exit options for political reasons. I certainly think our exit options, ramping up pressure is much more attractive when the regime's exit option, which is having to go full speed for a nuclear weapon. But I think politically there is less of an appetite for entertaining a cycle of violence and conflict in Washington at the moment. And therefore,

Or despite me saying 51-49 deal, limited strike, if no snapback, I think both sides could find a way to lend the long and continue talks, despite both of them not budget on their red lines. Okay. You should have been a diplomat, Benham. That was a very good answer. All right. Not a good gambler.

I'm not sure where to put my money on that particular question. But I do think- Keep your money. Keep your buddy. Yeah, yeah. You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to bet that you're going to be back on the Situation Report here in the not too distant future. That's what I'm going to bet.

I'll take that, man. Ben and Ben Taliblu, excellent. Of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, listen, thank you, man, for joining us as always. Well, President Trump, revealing the details of his multi-billion-dollar Golden Dome. It's a missile defense system. Have you heard about this? It's a little bit like Dr. Ewell's Alan Parsons project. Anyway, it's to shield the U.S. from future attacks.

I just love the name, Golden Dome. Brandon Weicker, you know him. He joins us to break down what it is and whether it can actually work. And that's an important question, isn't it? 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 usaa.com slash auto discounts. Restrictions of play. You always want the best for your family, and that means only Egglands Best Eggs in your kitchen. Compared to ordinary eggs, Egglands Best Eggs contain six times more vitamin D, 25% less saturated fat, more than double the omega-3s, 10 times more vitamin E, and more than double the vitamin B12.

So why give your family less, when they can have the best? Add Egglands Best Superior Nutrition to your next grocery list, better taste, better nutrition, better eggs. Thanks, yours too. What does RAV stand for anyway? To me, it's the remarkably advanced vehicle. Really? To me, it's the runway approved vehicle for its amazing style.

What about remarkably adaptable vehicle because of its versatile cargo space? Or really admired vehicle? Oh, or really awesome vehicle. It really is the recreational activity vehicle. The stylish 2026 Toyota RAV4 Limited. What's your RAV4? Welcome back to the PDP Situation Report. This week, President Trump,

Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegzeth unveiled new details of their ambitious $175 billion, that's billion with a B, missile defense plan, known as the Golden Dome. The system would combine ground and space-based capabilities to intercept missiles at every stage of flight, including before launch. According to sources, the U.S. could deploy over 1,000 satellites for global tracking with 200 armed satellites ready to shoot down incoming threats using missiles. or lasers. The plan has already drawn international criticism. China, as Hugh might not be surprised to learn, slammed the announcement, accusing Washington of turning space into a war zone. Now, here's a

pro tip. China turned space into a war zone some time ago. Supporters say the Golden Dome could revolutionize missile defense if, here's the if, it can be built. Joining me now to break it all down is Brandon Weicker. He's a senior national editor at the national interest and author of winning space. Now, that's a great book. Full title is Winning Space, How America remains a superpower. If you don't have a copy, go out and get one. Friend of the show, Brandon Wecker, thank you very much for being back on the Situation Report. Thanks for having me again. It's good to be here. So, Golden Dome, the Golden Dome. First of all, do you have any idea how they came up with that name? Well, Trump loves gold. And so I just assumed this was his

continuing fixation on the color gold. The golden eggs, you know, it's all gold, man. It's all, it's the golden era. And now we've got the dome. Look, obviously it's a bit of a riff on Israel's Iron Dome. Ours is going to be shinier. But is it, let's start it. Yeah, and bigger.

Of course it is. But at the 30,000 foot level, right? I mean, actually, we're going to be above 30,000 foot with this thing. But is it even feasible? Well, the science. that I speak with, I've been talking to these guys since I wrote the book, a lot of them were sort of on background sources for me. They're very skeptical, generally, of missile defense of the kind that we're talking about. I am not skeptical, obviously. I think we have the technology to do it. It's a question of political will. We finally have a politician in Donald Trump who wants to do it. So he's going to point the direction and the scientific community is going to have to catch up. This is what, by the the way, JFK did, right? In 1962, it goes to Rice University, gives a speech saying, we're going to go to the moon in 10 years. Everybody's looking around going, WTF, what is he

talking about? And almost to the day, a decade later, we were on the moon because of the political buy-in. And I think something similar is happening here, especially because everybody in D.C. is aware that China and Russia notably have capabilities that can hit our homeland now. and more importantly, even some of these radical terrorist groups like Bhoothis apparently have a Palestine 2 hypersonic weapon that's threatening the Israelis. So we don't want to live in a world where we don't have any kind of defense. Yeah, well, okay, first of all, Brandon, I'm going to correct you. Back in the early 60s, when Kennedy was announcing the moonshot, nobody said WTF.

Nobody said WTF back then. Yes. You know, I mean, somebody might have said, L-O-L, and that's it. That's the sum total of my knowledge of those little phrases. Anyway, but you mentioned something very interesting, which let's pick up on that. You said that now we have a president who's got the willingness, right, to push for this, because prior to that, there wasn't the political will. Well, if you step back and you say, okay, what's the concept?

The concept is creating a shield that defends the homeland. from missile attack, why was this a problem for previous politicians? What was the problem regarding political will? Well, at the time, the first time it was mentioned really was the Reagan administration, remember Star Wars, the Strategic Defense Initiative. Back then, the technology was really not quite mature yet. So the scientific community was able to kind of push back. And the State Department types who don't want to upset the Apple cart diplomatically did not want

upend mutual assured destruction by making nuclear weapons basically obsolete. So they were able to kind of drag that process out and not get it. But now the technology has matured, we now have, we have directed energy capability, however rudimentary. We now have more complex systems that can go at different levels in and out of the atmosphere to shoot these things down. We have better sensor capabilities today. So the technology is finally caught up with the dream. And so the idea here is that we are going to create a comprehensive layered defensive network, and basically they're going to have to come along with us, these diplomats and these scientists, because they're allocating $175 billion for it.

So that's too much money to ignore. So it's going to happen, I think, just because of the amount of money they're throwing at it. Okay. Before I go to the next question, you mentioned directed energy. Can you, just for the benefit of our viewers, can you explain that without using lots of big words? Big lasers, basically. Big energy weapons. Lasar wars.

Yeah, the giant freaking lasers. Now, we have had a lot of problems. The Chinese are actually ahead of us on directed energy weapons. The Russians might be on par, if not ahead of us. But the idea is that by dumping this kind of money, 175. billion dollars into the program, whatever issues there are with that particular technology will be overcome. This is something that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegset has explicitly noted, along with hypersonic weapons, that he wants his defense department to get done. And so when you

have that kind of level of political buy-in and that kind of money floating around, they're probably going to figure it out. Now, whether or not it's going to be, you know, the defense contractors taking a cut off the top for themselves. That's another story. But I think that I think we're going to get there politically and technologically a lot sooner than people realize. I'm shocked that you would even imply that defense contractors might take a little something off the top. I mean, I actually think we could probably do it cheaper than $175 billion. But of course, they're not going to, they're not going to let that happen. But, you know, no, no. I think, I think, you know, look, I've said this before, I think, you know, throwing out $175 billion as an estimate, I think it's a very

conservative number. I think so, too. It'll probably, that might be why Trump wants a trillion dollar defense budget. That might be the real reason is we're going to space, baby, you know, so. Yeah, there you go. Now, okay, talk to me about this. There's a lot here, right? But if you can, the up to this point, talk to me about the defense system that we've had, right?

the missile defense system that we've had, why it is, if it is, why it's inadequate today and what the Golden Dome would primarily be focused on in terms of defense? Well, the first thing I would argue is that it's been inadequate for decades, going back even to the Cold War. Everybody kind of knew our air defenses when it came to intercepting nuclear weapons. we could do it, but not the way that our defense planners really wanted to be able to do it. The cost involved were always high. It's very technical. Think about it.

You're basically shooting a bullet with a bullet. Okay? That's basically what you're doing, is that you're firing a missile and an incoming missile. And so that's always been very complicated for anyone to do. So this has always been a problem. And our current system is basically very rudimentary, the ballistic missile defense shield. We don't have enough of those interceptors. They're very expensive to make.

After the Cold War ended, the political class sort of didn't care anymore because there were no more enemies. And so we're playing catch up in that regard. What the Golden Dome is, is it's not just ground-based and sea-based interceptors. It's now also space-based. So we're going from the ground up and from space down. And so the idea is it's going to be very layered. And it's going to have multiple advanced sensors with multiple points of intercept. And obviously, the more eyes on a target and the more capacity to intercept a target,

even if it's moving fast, the greater the likelihood you can prevent it from hitting its intended destination or its intended target. Okay. And the nature of the targets have changed. To correct me if I'm wrong, and also elaborate on this, because I'm sure I'm going to oversimplify. but past defense systems basically were working on ballistic missiles, which have a predictable trajectory, right? They go up, they come down. The Golden Dome now will be focused on, and you mentioned them hypersonic weapons, as well as sort of the old traditional attacks. So talk to me a little bit about, actually, you know what, before we do that, let's take a quick break

because there's a lot here to discuss when we start talking about hypersonic weapons. So if you could stay with us, Brandon, we'll be right back after a quick break with more of the situation report. So please stay right where you are. Don't go on you. Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile,

the message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan,

equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full-price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com. Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money, because behind every headline is a bottom line.

Whether it's the funds-fueling AI or crypto's trillion-dollar swings, There's a money side to every story. And when you see the money side, you understand what others miss. Get the money side of the story. Subscribe now at Bloomberg.com. Starting a business can seem like a daunting task, unless you have a partner like Shopify.

They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing, to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz, and Allbirds continue to try to design. trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into, sign up for your $1 per month trial at Shopify.com slash special offer. Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is Brandon Weikert. He's the author of Winning Space, How America Remains a Superbauer. Pick that book up

and read it because it's very good reading. And it's also important given what we're talking about right now and what the U.S. is intending to do, which is the Golden Dome. So bringing it back around to the Golden Dome, Brandon, yeah, we left off in the last conversation with the notion that our missile defense systems were focused on ballistic missiles, predictable trajectory. Yes. Now, the Golden Dome is focused on new technology, right? New capabilities that our adversaries have, including hypersonic weapons. Talk to me about that. Is this Is this the case where using space-based sensors and interceptors, is that the primary focus of that element of the Golden Dome? Yeah, you're lasered in, to pardon the pun, you're lasered right in on it.

So this system will also deal with the ballistic missile threat, the conventional threat. But yes, it's going to also significantly address the hypersonic weapons capability. The problem with hypersonic weapons is not necessarily they're going fast. That's a misdower. They're not necessarily going faster than a ballistic missile. The problem is the way that they can radically maneuver after they get to their terminal phase. So they're coming in like a ballistic missile would, but then they start kind of going crazy, and that's to evade known capabilities of our air defense system as it stands.

So what the Golden Dome is trying to do is they're trying to basically add layers of sensors in space because they also are able to launch faster and they're able to, these systems are able to evade in some cases are our tracking capabilities. So they're trying to add other layers of tracking and then eventually they want to put, and this is something that Lockhe talked about at a conference I was at back in 2021, they want to also put interceptors in orbit because they think it might be actually easier to knock a hypersonic weapon out from orbit rather than trying to shoot up at it as it's a approaching. So that was an interesting theory. That was back in, I think, 2021, 2022 in D.C.

They were talking about that. And I don't know if that is what they're still going with, but I know that was in 2021, they were talking about this capability. Okay. That's very interesting. Look, when this was announced, when they came out and said, you know, we're going to build the Golden Dome, China was probably the first to react. And they reacted in a fairly aggressive and, you know, indignant manner. And basically what the Chinese regime said was, how dare you? How dare the U.S. weaponized space? What would you say to that?

Well, the first thing is, and the Russians also, you know, Putin was very upset, although I note that his upset was not as vocal as I thought it would be. And I think that's indicative of how interested in a deal he wants with Trump. But anyway, Xi Jinping was quite upset. And that's because I think it's a matter of projection. The Chinese know that space is not only our greatest advantage, our ability to use space for coordination and communication over vast distances, for interception as well. But they also know that it's our greatest weakness because we are so poorly defended in the strategic high ground of space. We have let our space capabilities, our military space capabilities, wither on the,

Vine since the end of the Cold War, and China's catching up with that. And so they're worried that we're going to start plugging those strategic gaps. I'll remind your audience, after Trump announced the creation of Space Force, now mind you, China's had their own Space Force since 2010, as has Russia. But after Trump announced Space Force in 2018, 2019, the Chinese were apoplectic over that. So they're projecting. They're letting us know this is a key vulnerability they don't want us to strengthen. They want to exploit it, whether it's with nuclear missile threat, hypersonic weapons threat, or just anti-satellite weapons attacks to deny space to Americans. This is why they're so apoplectic over that. It is nothing to do with the concern about international law or norms. The Chinese regime

doesn't believe in the international law because they think it's a Western construct. Yeah, no, yeah, it's, they're doing what they tend to always do, and just say, oh, my God, we're only interested in global peace. How dare you? Right. to this one. Yeah, you're right. I couldn't agree with you more. I mean, my favorite right now is they're demanding a two-state solution for Israel, Palestine, even as they're threatening to absorb Taiwan. It's, you know, it's indicative of the regime. Yeah. Look, you could, yeah, now we're starting to disparate out that rabbit hole about how absurd the world is. One of my favorite examples of that is that both Ukraine and Russia by key drone components from China.

China is selling both sides of that equation. And to your point, at the same time, saying, oh, my God, we need, you know, we're just interested in brokering peace. That's right. That's right. Of course they are. We're getting rich off of the war. Yes.

Yeah. Well, there is an interesting concept. I haven't heard that one before. And certainly, certainly the U.S. has never done that. Okay. They've learned from the best, right? That's exactly right. Hey, so with this, look, the golden don't.

I'm going to, I think I'm going to impress you with my mathematical capabilities here, but the Iron Dome in Israel, Israel, roughly the size of New Jersey. We're talking about just with the U.S., you know, 450 times at landmass, perhaps. Canada has now expressed interest in being a part potentially of the Golden Dome. And so now we're talking about, you know, North America. Yeah. I kind of going back to that same question before, and I know this is a tough one, and I take your first response, but you throw Canada into the mix. Yeah. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if our other really key trading partner in Mexico says, hey, how about us? Which kind of would make sense. Now you're tying key trading partners

into something that's very important. Again, I go back to that same simplistic question I have. talk to me about the feasibility of this. And I also talk about the timeline because President Trump has mentioned, we're going to get this done before the end of my term. Yeah. Well, I think we're going to get started. I don't think we're going to get the whole system stood up in four. I think it's going to think about a decade.

I think the key thing here about feasibility is we have the underlying technology and the handful of things we don't yet have we're still developing. So it's not like we're starting from scratch. And so I believe that when you have the political leadership that we have right now to get it started, that's the key thing. Getting it started, I think that we will start seeing it happen. Now, the question is, can it cover the whole North America? The reliability or usefulness of the comprehensive system, that is TBD. That's to be determined.

But ultimately, I do think, you know, I look at this as mitigation. So I think that if we can mitigate the threat that ballistic missile and hypersonic weapons pose by a significant percentage, even over parts of the country, I think that's a win. And you have to remember, this is how the Russians have thought about missile defense. People don't realize this. We actually didn't start the push for missile defense. That was begun by the Soviet Union in the late 50s, early 60s. They ringed Moscow under Khrushchev.

They ringed Moscow with the Galosh weapons system, which was an early form of air defense for nuclear weapons attack. And the Soviets were very clear. We're not going to save the whole country, but we can prevent the capital from being taken out in a first strike. So it's mitigation. And if you live in Florida like I do with hurricanes, mitigation is a big deal down here. So you're not going to necessarily avoid a hurricane, but you can at least survive it and weather the storm. With the time that we've got left, Brandon, I want to go to circle back. to China's reaction to this, because again, I think this is really interesting. They were indignant.

They, you know, they said, how dare you essentially weaponized space? Has space already been weaponized, and to what degree and for how long? This is the thesis of my book, my argument, and I show the history of it. First, we militarized space, which is basically meaning we were using it for surveillance and communications, but in my research, it looks like space has already been weaponized. Back in the 80s, there was a lot of talk that the FOB system, the fractional orbital bombardment system, the Soviets and the Americas were trying to put it up there. We know the Russians and the Chinese have put co-orbital satellites, otherwise known as space stalkers in orbit.

These are small satellites that tailgate our systems. And with grappling claws, they look like something from Moonraker. They can latch on and push our satellites out of their orbit. I have an article pending at the national interest right now talking about one system in particular. Our geosynchronous orbit, that's the highest orbit around the Earth. We've got the nuclear command control communications and C3 functions. We've got the wide band global SATCOM and the mobile user objective service system for the Navy. All three of those systems, the Chinese have targeted with these space stalkers.

They have placed, I think it's the Xi Jian 21 in orbit and that system can latch on to our systems in geosink. and push them out of orbit. You could technically destroy, or at least, degrade America's nuclear deterrent by getting rid of those NC3 functions in orbit. Well, look, you mentioned your book. I'm going to one more time encourage everyone to pick up a copy of that. It's called Winning Space, How America Remains a Superpower. Brendan, it's always excellent having you on the show.

We appreciate the fact that when I learned something new every time I'm here. I look at this, see, it's not just entertainment. We consider ourselves to be an information show. Listen, Brandon Weigert, Senior, National Security Editor at the National Interest, very much appreciate your time, man. I look forward to the next one. That's all the time we have for this week's PDB Situation Report. Now, look, if you have any questions or comments or humorous anecdotes or limericks, if people still do limericks, please reach out to me at pdb at thefirsttv.com. Every month, well, you know what happens.

Our incredible team selects a bunch of your questions, and they produce one of our critically acclaimed Ask Me Anything. episodes. Finally, to listen to the podcast of the show ad-free, you can do that, you know, just become a premium member of the president's daily brief by visiting pdbpremium.com. I'm Mike Baker. Until next time, stay informed. Say safe. Stay cool.