The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - What Comes After the Iran War? — with Rep. Jim Himes

Episode Date: July 2, 2026

Scott Galloway speaks with Congressman Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, to discuss the fragile ceasefire with Iran, whether the U.S. has lost leverage in the Middle East, the future of Ukraine, and what Democrats need to offer beyond opposition to Trump.  Algebra of happiness: the memories never made. Want to listen to this and other episodes ad-free? You can, if you subscribe at profgmedia.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from Odu. Running a business shouldn't feel like surviving a software group project. One app for accounting, another for inventory, another for sales, and somehow none of them talk to each other. That's where Odo comes in. An all-in-one business management software that brings every part of your business together, from sales and accounting to inventory and marketing, all in one powerful platform. No messy integrations, no bouncing between tabs.

Best of all, no spreadsheets. Stop managing software and start managing your business with one unified system. Try for free today at Odu.com slash PropG. That's ODOO.com slash PropG. Episode 403 is the area code serving the Canadian province of Alberta. In 2003, MySpace launched. When I was on MySpace, I used to get a lot of overtures from ladies asking me if I wanted to come over and blockbuster and chill. Welcome to the 4 and 3rd episode of the Prop G Pod.

I was just in Cann. I used to go and actually work meetings all day. There's something about being in Cannes where you feel as if you're in a room with people more important than you. It makes you more important. It's like you're the average of all the people around you. So when you go to Cannes, I used to try and get rooms with people more important than me, which was basically any room. And something about being in the south of France. I wouldn't never go to Cannes for Cannes.

I would never go to Lions just for Lions, but Cannes and Lions together, that's chocolate and peanut butter. Now I just hold up at the hotel. I hire a guy, a Zodiac all week, who managed us to drive a speedboat, a rubber speedboat, constantly smoking. I've never seen a light of cigarette, but it always seems to be smoking. Anyways, and I feel like James Bond,

and I roll up and I crash. I'm like an American evading Normandy for the second time, minus the courage. And I was trying to roll up to Meta Beach, and I walked through the quassette with flashing a bird in the air. Whoa, aren't I a rebel? Oh, my gosh.

What an intense hero I am. Anyways, what did I notice about Cannes this year? Creator economy, pretty basic. It went from 400 people to 500 creators. It used to be that the creators were invited to the after-party. Now they're hosting the after-party. It's now more than half of marketing spend is on some sort of creator or influencer platform,

whether it's YouTube or an individual showing you how to cook using, you know, whatever. Crisco, or how much fun it does it. is to use whatever it might be. Other insight, AI has gone from being this magic trick to the plumbing. People are talking about the boring workflow and how you integrate AI and starting to talk about ROI. And there's also less fear around it, and that is there's a recognition that creativity is as in-demand, maybe even more, because essentially creative or marketing is chip and salza. You need a platform, you need the product, and then the salza is the creativity and the design that makes it stand out.

And AI can produce a bigger chip, but it's desperate for salza. Remember SORA and how the first Coke ad that was all AI, that shit is just so fucking boring an anodyne that it doesn't break through or grab anyone's emotion. And if you think about AI, it takes everything to the median, which is the exact opposite of where creative is supposed to be. And as a percentage of their total employee base, tech firms now have. have more designers and more creatives than they did pre-AI. So I think there was a bit of a sigh of relief and an appreciation for creative, 13,000 people from 90 different countries, crazy expensive, inflation, I'll come back to that. Let's talk about it now, about 12,000 new millionaires in the Bay Area because of the AI and space boom, or as I call it, the douchebag wave or army that's

about to descend on Europe this summer. If you're a 34-year-old and didn't have a lot of social capital in the high school and you got a CS degree from Carnegie Mellon, And then you wake up at the age of 34 after graduating working your ass off and you're worth $11 million. You're going to Abitha. I'm going to Abiza. Anyways, that's going to happen. And then the other thing, sports. When I first started going to Cannes, there was no sports.

Now it's everywhere. Sports Beach. That's kind of the cultural religion. It's still the only programming where you opt for the commercials. And I think World Cup is the biggest story playing out culturally and economically. culturally, the world needed to feel better about itself. I would describe the World Cup as cousins who really like each other, doing a sleepover without, despite the fact their parents keep arguing.

And also what's happening on Calcium Polymarket, I think we're going to find out that more gambling or more money was being wagered on the World Cup than any sporting event, anything in history. I think you're going to see that way more money was bet on the World Cup by young men, mostly young men, during the World Cup, then was wagered in every gambling mecca, whether it's Macau or Vegas or Reno or Atlantic City. Anyways, why go to the casino when the casino's in your pocket? I think those are the biggest stories of what I took away from Cannes, and also just a recognition

of, I still think Europe's going to boom. I think it's going to recover, I should say, in the next few years. And every time I'm in France, I look at the economics, and I look at a heart. is the start of business, and then I end up spending a crazy amount of money just to be surrounded by that culture and that beauty, something in the water there. It goes all the way back to the time of Marie Antoinette when essentially the head of the Treasury said that their luxury goods, which they spent at peak 5% of GDP was going to be the equivalent of their Chilean gold mines, and that is he saw that wigs and powders and makeup and incredible dresses were, in fact,

going to be an economic engine. And it has been, whether it's Chenet, or LVMH or Clarence. I mean, these companies are just absolute juggernauts, a ton of margin, a ton of economic growth. Anyways, absolutely love Cannes. I don't know if there's any enormous, like, overriding theme there other than I love just, my life has changed so much. It used to be getting up so early,

trying to have as many meetings with people as possible. Now I wake up late and try to avoid meetings. I like that. Anyways, in today's episode, talk about an altitude shift, we speak with Representative Jim Himes, the U.S. Representative for Connecticut's fourth congressional district. I really enjoy Representative Himes. I think he's fearless and very knowledgeable about foreign affairs and our defense department. He brings clarity to these issues, and I'm a big fan of Representative Himes. So with that, we hope you enjoy our conversation with Representative Jim Himes.

Representative Heimbs, where does this podcast find you? I'm sitting my office here in Washington. All right, let's bust right into it. We signed a memorandum with Iran two weeks ago, but this weekend, the U.S. and Iran exchanged direct strikes. Iran hit Bahrain and Kuwait. The U.S. hit Iranian military targets, and Trump is now threatening that Iran will no longer exist if it continues. How would you describe the state of play here? Yeah, well, you know, this memorandum of understanding by any standard is a kind of

catastrophe. You know, it gives orders of magnitude more money to Iran than the Obama deal in 2015 did. It, you know, it empowers this regime. It recognizes this regime as the legitimate rulers of Iran. That has implications, obviously, for what the president told the people of Iran, which is that help was on the way, and they should plan on rejecting those rulers. The one thing I can say about the memorandum of understanding as catastrophic as it is is that it's better than going back to war, which, of course, was crushing the global economy and causing, you know, people here in the States to pay a buck 50 a gallon more for gasoline. And look, the Iranians know that you quoted the president on his, you know, weekly threat to

obliterate Iran. The Iranians know that's a bluff. You know, they're savvy people. They understand the president's political imperatives and the fact that he's not going to go back to war. And so we find ourselves in a really tough spot, which is, instead of of fighting with the Iranians, which, you know, at least as a tactical matter, we can win, we're negotiating with the Iranians. And there's about 4,000 years of Persian history to suggest that that's not a happy place to be. Do we have any leverage in these negotiations at all? Well, not really. At this point, the regime now knows they can survive the worst that we can throw at them. They now know something they didn't know a year ago, which is that they can

control or at least have a profound impact on the global. global economy simply by flying a bunch of drones over the Strait of Hormuz. And what do we have? We can, you know, bloviate the way the president is. That has no impact. Or, yeah, we could go back to war. We could cause a lot more damage. We've kind of played that card twice in the last year. But that's the one card we have to play. But again, the Iranians know what that means. The Iranians know that that means a heightened risk that, you know, bodies are being unloaded from a transport aircraft at Dover Air Force Base, which is, you know, unacceptable to most Americans who despise this war, or that, you know, the all-important gasoline prices will once again skyrocket.

So we, at this moment in time, we don't have a lot of leverage. So Trump promised or claimed that he would deliver unconditional surrender. And it feels like he's made good on that promise, but it's unconditional surrender on our part. I mean, aren't we coming out of this just much weaker and they're coming out of this much stronger? Well, I certainly agree with the second part. Again, you know, they always wondered whether we could knock over their regime. They always wondered whether the people of Iran would finally get angry enough to overthrow them. We know the answer to that question now.

And the answer is no. That regime is not going to get overthrown or taken out by the United States or Israel. And again, they know that they, with minimal technology, can control the flow of energy and helium and first. fertilizer out the Strait of Hormuz. So they're obviously hugely empowered. You know, whether whether that weakens us, I don't know. That's a more complicated question. You know, all of the president's military adventures have shown how spectacular our military is. And I include Venezuela in that. That's got to cause pause amongst people like Vladimir Putin and, you know, President G in China. it is a slow bleeding, right?

There's requests to the Congress for, you know, 80 billion additional dollars. That's dollars that didn't get spent on infrastructure or education. So it's probably a slow bleed associated with these crazy wars that we keep getting into in the Middle East. But I'm not sure it makes us obviously weaker the way our attacking NATO does. You know, when we attack NATO, Vladimir Putin says, huh, that's interesting. my chief objective of breaking up the Western Alliance seems to be working. I'm not sure that that's happened in this case. You're on the Intelligence Committee.

You're the ranking member on House Intelligence. So believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that felt like a pretty big intelligence failure. Isn't the inability to predict what would happen with the Strait of Hormuz and effectively handing the IRC what is arguably more powerful than a nuclear? weapon. Isn't this arguably one of the greatest intelligence failures in recent history? You know, I don't, I don't necessarily see it that way, Scott. And the reason I don't necessarily see it that way is because we see a syndrome similar to what happened with the George W. Bush

Dick Cheney administration. The intelligence was on, you know, on weapons of mass destruction back then in Iraq. The intelligence was at best ambivalent. In fact, if press reports are to be believed four months ago, John Radcliffe, the director of CIA, told Trump flat out that the regime was not going to fall in Iran and that, you know, there would be very real dangers associated with them closing the Straits of Hormuz. So in both cases, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and recently with Donald Trump, you could argue that the intelligence committee, sorry, the intelligence community didn't get it wrong. Maybe they didn't get it right enough, but that the president and the president's people ignored it.

So I'd contrast the two examples you gave maybe with September 11th, 2001, where that was obviously a massive failure. You know, the information was all there. It just didn't get knit together in a way to allow us to prevent it. What we're talking about here is the most powerful man in the world, either having a political agenda the way George W. Bush did or not being particularly interested in reality the way Donald Trump is not. Yeah, and so you're saying it's a failure of leadership. You think the intelligence was there? It just, the president decided to ignore it. Yeah, I didn't, I didn't, and I look at an awful lot of intelligence. I didn't see a single bit of intelligence that suggested that the regime would crumble. In fact, much to the contrary, you know, our people were watching pretty closely when those protests were set off and ultimately the Iranians killed tens of thousands of Iranians. The intelligence did not in any way, shape, or form suggest that this was a,

regime or a country that was just going to go belly up, you know, after a couple of bombs. So my guess is the president got pretty consistent advice to go a different direction and just simply ignored it. I think some people got in his ear and just said, you know, what you know you need to say to Donald Trump to persuade him, which is you will be the greatest leader since Napoleon if you end this regime and painted a picture of, you know, Trump as conquering hero and Trump towers being built in Shiraz in Tehran and that sort of thing. And let's talk a little bit about U.S. Israeli relations. There's a feeling that, or among some people, that Trump was co-opted into this war or that Netanyahu is now acting unilaterally.

Can you give us or provide some color on the U.S. Israeli relationship? Look, I don't think there's any doubt at all that Netanyahu, who is a very wily guy, probably the wiliest leader I have ever met. No doubt in my mind, and I wasn't in the Oval office, but, you know, in the many hours they were speaking prior to the decision to go to war, no doubt in my mind that the prime minister was telling a little bit of that story of greatness and how quickly the regime would fall. Remember, the press reported that Netanyahu made that case and that John Radcliffe, DCIA, said, no, it's fantastical. Anyway, you know, I've watched now the prime minister tried to get America to go to war under several presidents. And none took

them up on it. You know, Obama didn't, Biden didn't, Trump didn't in the first term. Well, this time, this time he did. And, you know, we're paying the price for that now. More broadly, because of prime minister Netanyahu's decision to cater entirely to the Republican party in the United States to disdain the Democratic Party, starting with when he showed up in Washington to argue in front of the Congress against the Iran deal that President Obama was negotiating, and the examples go on and on. But, you know, he was the first prime minister to decide that he would be partisan. And then, of course, more obviously, you know, the plate of the Palestinians has always been, for most people, kind of a slow burn issue. I mean, you know, I think most

people, and by most people, I mean just, you know, folks that don't work inside the precincts of Washington, D.C., probably felt that, you know, the Palestinians have had a raw deal for some time, support Israel strongly the way there was a consensus in this country for a long time. But of course, a combination of the Gaza War, with its tens of thousands of dead civilians, with its, you know, pulverization of all of the urban areas there, the treatment of the Palestinians and the West Bank, the brutal treatment of the Palestinians and the West Bank. And then, of course, the rhetoric of the more extreme members of the prime minister's government. I'm thinking of Smotrits and Ben Gavir here who openly call for the commission of war crimes. I think that turned, I think that turned a real corner for the way a lot of Americans, not just members of Congress, but certainly anybody under the age of 40 in this country thinks about it. And if you're our generation, you know, you are more swayed by the state. story of survival, of the establishment of the state and the survival of the state in the most

improbable circumstances than you are if you're 28 years old, and that seems like textbook history. So it feels as if you were an investment banker, I was an investment banker. A memo of understanding was a business term that one party would issue to another party, perhaps in the context of an acquisition, and I loosely estimate that somewhere between a third and 50 percent of memos of understanding actually resulted in a deal. I'd never seen that term used in a geopolitical context before. What do you think happens from here? Look, the MOU is what it is, right? It's a statement of intentions. It has no legal effect, and even something that did have a legal effect in this case would have all kinds of outs, right? And we're seeing that, just turn on cable news.

right? I mean, all weekend long, though we have a ceasefire, the U.S. and Iran were trading munitions. You know, they attacked a whole bunch of our bases this weekend. And, you know, we undertook bombing raids along the strait there. So, you know, no legal effect. It's a statement of intentions that was very convenient for both parties, right? The president absolutely positively needs to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. And the Iranians obviously would love to get their hands on a whole lot of money. Now, the Iranians are starting to get their hands on a whole lot of money. The reopening in the Strait of Hormuz remains an open question, right? Every time I open up my Twitter feed, it's either closed or open or they're saying it's closed or saying it's open.

Behind this, of course, is two other huge things. The nuclear negotiations, right? I remember watching Obama and his, you know, merry band of two dozen experts negotiating this thing. It's hugely complicated. And, you know, there's a saying about the Iranians, right? They never win a war, but they never lose a negotiation. And, you know, the idea that in 60 days, you know, Jared Kushner and, you know, a bunch of real estate guys are going to get a deal negotiated on the nuclear stuff is crazy.

It's just not going to happen. And eventually Trump will forget about it. And, you know, it'll be the usual neocons that remain angry about it. But Trump will stop talking about it. And then you have the other stuff, by the way, that Obama was deeply, deeply criticized for not including in the deal, which is, you know, the Iranians ballistic missiles. We've already heard President Trump say, well, everybody else has got them. What do you want me to do?

So we know we're kind of done on that. And the Iranian sponsorship of terrorists, right, which, again, Obama got brutally criticized for not including those two things in the nuclear deal. You know, good luck. Good luck. Even if the Iranians do commit to stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas, which I don't think they will, how you're going to verify that and, you know, I just think, just to end this long speech, you're exactly right to say an MOU.

That doesn't seem like much because it's not. How do we insure, though? It feels to me that just by demonstration of their willingness to fly drones over the Strait of Hormuz and an inability for insurance companies to ensure vessels don't, I mean, it feels to me like they've got total control. and I don't see under what circumstance they give it back. The free flow or the freedom of navigation may recommence under, you know, their terms. But what is the scenario under which they do not control the Strait of Hormuz?

Well, at one level is there is no scenario, right? I mean, you could put treaties and, you know, agreements and everything else on the table, But when push comes to shove and they need to, again, they'll just fly a bunch of drones. They don't need a Navy. You know, Pete Tyseth is in his testosterone-fueled, you know, orgasm of manliness is, you know, focused entirely on the Navy at the bottom of this. They don't need that Navy, right? Again, you made exactly the point.

You don't actually need to sink a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz to stop the flow of stuff. You just need to fly a bunch of drones, maybe fly, occasionally fly one into a cargo ship the way they did last weekend. into that Singaporeanship, because at that point, the insurers, Lloyds of London and all those guys, they say you're not going anywhere near that place. And so there's really nothing we can do to stop them from controlling it. Now, the way I think this will play out is, and I'll give you this sort of medium term and the long term, and the medium term, the president's going to make some kind of deal, and it's going to be ugly, right? The Iranians are going to reserve the right to provide services and insurance to trips,

to ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Well, the magic is going to be in the fees and services and insurance that the Iranians reserve the right to provide. So it's going to be a really crappy deal. And then secondarily, while that is in place or not, you know, we'll be working like mad with the Gulf states in Saudi Arabia to basically make the Strait of Hormuz irrelevant to the flow of energy in particular. So we'll build more pipelines across the Arabian Peninsula.

We'll figure out other stuff. And the reason I highlight that, this is really important. The reason I highlight that is that the Iranians, again, they're very savvy, very, very savvy. And they know that. They know that having played this card, it runs out, bad metaphor. But having played this card is no longer valuable five years from now when we've built pipelines across. So guess what I think they're doing to maintain the leverage they've acquired? I think that over the next five years, they're going to work like mad to develop a nuclear weapon.

because they look at Pakistan, they look at India, they look at North Korea, and they say, you know what? It doesn't happen to those three countries? They don't get invaded. They don't get bombed. And so one of the byproducts of this war, I think, is going to be taking an awful regime that was ambivalent about having a nuclear weapon and creating a regime more ideological, more extreme, who now says, guess what, now we have to build a nuclear weapon, because eventually the Strait of Hormuz is not going to be a point of leverage. And how does Israel respond as they get intelligence? My understanding is when we ripped up there, when President Trump ripped up the JCPOA, the IRGC had nuclear material that was it enriched to 3.7 percent. My understanding now, as an intelligence says, it's around 60, if it gets to 80 or 90 and they get within, you know, spitting distance of a nuclear weapon, do you think Israel most likely preemptively strutely? I mean, aren't we just setting ourselves up for what could be a pretty ugly confrontation here? Yeah, yeah.

You know, except for that period of time when the JCPOA, the Obama-Iran deal, was in place. You know, the Iranians have always had 60 percent. They always had little bits of 90 percent. There's no peacetime use for 90 percent. And that's probably where they are right now. Now, it just so happens that all this stuff is at the bottom of a lot of rubble in three or four locations in Iran. and still there. But yeah, I mean, the answer to your question is 100% clear.

You know, the Israelis, you know, the Israelis, and this isn't even a Netanyahu thing, they will do everything, literally everything in their arsenal to keep Iran from getting there. The question is, can they, you know, if this 300 billion reconstruction fund gets set up, How many of those 300 billions get used to build a, you know, hardened, a hardened facility, even more hardened than the old ones that the Israelis can't get to? So, yeah, at one level, of course, Israel is always going to regard a nuclear Iran as unacceptable. But it's an open question about whether they'll be able to. I mean, look, if this rift between J.D. Vance and President Trump and, you know, and the growing alienation of the American

political apparatus from providing weapons to Israel, if that were to go further south, that could be a real military problem for Israel. We'll be right back after a quick break. Support for the show comes from NutriFLE. The number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand used by over 1.5 million people. We all have unique grooming routines. It's a normal part of upkeep for everyone's confidence. So if it ever takes a hit, you can always go back to the basics and revisit your routine,

specifically your hair care. That's where Nutraful can help. Nutriful has formulas built for men at different life stages. There's Nutriful men for guys 18 to 49, plus the new Nutriful Men 50 Plus. It's the first product of its kind specifically made for men over 50. Wherever you're at in life, you can address the key root causes of thinning. Grow visibly thicker, fuller hair in three to six months with NutriFle. It's backed by pure.

reviewed studies and NSF certified for sport, which is the gold standard for supplement quality. Start Nutraful today and make the hat optional. Visit Nutraful.com and enter promo code ProfG-Gee for $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping. Find out why Nutraful is the best-selling hair growth supplement brand at Nutraful.com, newtriful.com promo code PropG. That's Nutraful.com promo code PropG. Support for the show comes from O-Doo. If your business runs on 5-2, different apps, 12 browser tabs, and one spreadsheet that everyone's afraid to touch, it's probably time for Odo. Odo is an all-in-one business management software that connects every part of your business into one powerful, easy-to-use platform. So, instead of wasting time switching between

disconnected systems, your entire business works together in real time. Your team moves faster, your data stays accurate, and you can actually focus on growing your business. Let one unified system run your entire business. From the first opportunity to the final pain, everything works together in one place. Whether you're a small business or managing a large operation, O-Doo gives you one flexible platform built to grow with you. Try today for free at Odu.com slash prop-G. That's O-D-O-O-O-com slash prop-G.

Support for the show comes from IMA. Every day it seems like there's a new fad diet that wants to tell you what to cut out and what to add in. But before you go and fill your fridge with beef tallow and salmon skin, ask yourself if you're actually getting the full scope of vitamins and minerals you need in a day. Here's a tip to help you fill in the gaps. IMAID's daily ultimate essential drink. IM8 uses clean ingredients. It's NSF certified, which means all the ingredients are third-party tested for purity. Our colleague Ed, Ed, IMAid. Ed, IMA-8. Love it. Hydrating, refreshing,

makes me feel like I'm healthy. I hope I am healthy, but this makes me really feel that way. So big fan of IM8. Nice. Give your body what it deserves with IM8. Go to I IMAidehealth.com slash prop G and use code prop G for a free welcome kit. Five free travel sachets plus 10% off your order. That's I am number eight, h-e-a-l-t-h-h-h-com, dot com, slash prof-G, code prop-G. For a free welcome kit, five travel sachets plus 10% off your order, IMAidhealth.com slash prop-G code prop-G. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.

This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Let's move on to sunnier skies, so to speak. Let's talk a little bit about Ukraine. And the sense or the thesis I would put to you is that this has been an incredibly pivotal or positive few months that Ukraine has gone from playing defense to playing offense, which is a victory for the West, specifically Europe and Ukraine itself. What's your assessment of the situation there? Yeah, I was just there three or four weeks ago. And I'd been three times. I would completely agree with your assessment. was in Kiev and Odessa, and I'll tell you, it's a weird schizophrenic feeling there now, because on the one hand, missiles are flying in and hitting schools and, you know, creating five, six, seven fatalities a day or whatever, really tragic stuff. On the other hand, there's such a spring in the step of most Ukrainians, because they now understand that they're winning this thing.

You know, they're taking the fight to Moscow. They're imposing shocking. I mean, the brain doesn't process the number of Russians that the Ukrainians are killing every day. I mean, between now and the weekend, the Russians are going to lose the same number of men that we lost in Vietnam in 13 years of war there. And so the Ukrainians really feel like they're winning. Now, they're realistic, right? Winning doesn't mean that, you know, all of a sudden the Russians are pulling back to the pre-war borders, but they do know two things. number one, that anything gets negotiated is going to be a radically better negotiation

for them than it would have been a year ago. And number two, I think they think that there's some chance that the Russian people are going to do what they do every 50 years or so and decide we've got to get rid of the czar. And again, I wouldn't tell you that anybody thinks that's a high probability thing, but it's certainly a heck of a lot higher now than it was a year ago. Do you think we're close to or some sort of negotiation? negotiated settlement or peace? You know, I'm going to say something terrible, which is I hope not.

And the reason I feel really guilty saying that is that so many people are dying. So I probably shouldn't say that. But, you know, each and every day, the Ukrainians are delivering such massive punishment to a guy who badly needs punishment, right? you know, who five years from now may very well try this in Estonia with all of the implications that has for us as a NATO partner. And so, you know, quite apart from my own belief, I think the Ukrainians feel the same way, which is we're on the march. You know, let's let's position ourselves even better for an ultimate negotiation. How insecure do you think Putin's position is,

is amongst Russians right now? You know, I'm not a Russia guy, and I listen to people, you know, and there's the school of thought that says the Russians are the people that fought the bottle of Stalingrad, right? You can never break them, you know, and then there's a school of thought that says, you know, the oligarchs that support this guy, you know, are getting pretty tired of not being able to go to their houses in London and seeing their bank accounts emptied. and their yachts confiscated, and their, you know, kids denied admission to Stanford and Oxford. So the honest answer to your question is, I don't know.

What I do know is that the situation for the average Muscovite or, you know, middle-class person in St. Petersburg is a hell of a lot worse than it was two years ago. You're the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, And most recently, the president appointed Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence, replacing Tulsi Gabbard, who announced her resignation at the end of May. And Bill Pulte currently has a federal housing finance agency, no national security background. He's led many of Trump's legal crusades against opponents, including Lisa Cook, and Jerome Powell, pushing for mortgage fraud charges.

You said, it's open quote, probably the worst appointment into the Intelligence Committee. you've ever seen. Can you share more about your reaction and the intelligence community's reaction to this news? Yeah, I mean, you walked through the resume challenges there. You know, you could have just pulled somebody off the street in Cleveland, Ohio, with zero national security experience, and you'd have Bill Pulte. The problem is, you know, what did Bill Pulte spend his time doing at this obscure federal housing agency that almost no one's heard of? The FHFA. What did he do? He dove into records to find, you know, to examine Adam Schiff's mortgage history,

Letitia James, the Attorney General of New York's mortgage history, to look at Lisa Cook, you know, governor of the Federal Reserve's mortgage history, and then he tried to get court cases built up against him. So we know who this guy is, right? And he's a hell of a lot worse than that guy off the streets of Cleveland, Ohio, because he's dedicated to being a servile, you know, eunuch to Donald Trump. And, you know, I mean, even when he gets elevated to a national security position, does he change his stripes? You know, does the sort of seriousness of his office change him? No, like, look at his Twitter feed right now.

You know, every 14 hours he's posting a loving Pyongyang-like portrait of the dear leader. And there's a couple problems with that. One, you got a lot more tools in the, you know, in the intelligence community to go after Americans. none of them are legal or acceptable because they're all designed to be used against our enemies abroad, but the intelligence community has surveillance authorities, it's got skills,

it's got, you know, in the extreme, guys who know how to repel out of helicopters dressed in black with guns. So it's just a much more serious thing. And I worry about that. And then secondarily, you know, it's not a much discussed thing. But the intelligence community is comprised

of tens of thousands of extraordinarily capable patriotic people who could be making far more money in the private sector because they're mathematicians or linguists or you name it, wonderful analysts. And, you know, when they have to deal with sort of nonsense, it's just that many more of them head for the doors. And, you know, there's serious threats out there. And I don't want those folks heading for the doors. It feels as if Thelty has taken precedence over competence. Is this just at a senior level in the intelligence community or has it been hollowed out. How worried you, are you about the general corpus and confidence of the

intelligence community? Yeah, it really varies by agency. And by the way, it's not uniform. I've been a little tough on Pulte. But, you know, the director of CIA, John Radcliffe, I know him very well. And we used to serve together. And I wouldn't put him in the same category. Anybody who works for Trump needs to do lots of annoying North Korea genuflection. But I think differently about John. than I do about Bill Pulte. I would say the same, by the way, for the president's original nomination of Jay Clayton. I happen to know Jay very, very well. And if I were president of the United States, would I appoint him D? And I know I wouldn't. But in the Star Wars can'tina of cabinet secretaries and purported leaders, you know, Jay would be very much on the good side. So it's a little bit of a

mixed bag. But I think the most important thing I can tell you, Scott, is that these political types don't penetrate too far into the agencies, right? So, you know, just down the road here at the Defense Intelligence Agency or up the road at the National Security Agency, you know, 99% of the people are real professionals who are steeped in a culture of objectivity, who are studiously non-political, and they're human, so they will from time to time respond to the incentives that come from the very top, but by and large, I think they're doing a good job. I have no doubt that if Bill Pulte ordered the CIA to hover a bunch of helicopters over Adam Schiff's house that you would see mass resignations at the CIA rather than compliance to that. So, you know, there are some

safeguards in the system. I want to speak more broadly. You chair the new Democrat coalition, the centrist caucus, and that lane feels increasingly uncomfortable, even untenable in today's party. where do you think the center actually lives right now? Yeah, I always object a little bit to the notion of the center. You know, it's not a mathematical thing. You know, the way I think about it, I've been around this place for a while. The way I think about it is that there are people who are more inclined to do what the software of the Constitution and Washington demands, which is to make the compromises to actually get legislation passed.

And look, it sucks, but if you don't have 60 votes in the Senate and you have a filibuster, you're going nowhere. And it sucks that you have to pull together big coalitions to actually move something in the House. But the software of the system demands that. And there's some people who are really comfortable with that. And then there's some people, and I'm making no value judgment here because I think both instincts are important. There's some people who are kind of more activist in orientation and say, no, here's the North Star and there's where we need to go. You know, so it's it's more, which camp do you fall into rather than, you know, centrists are trying to measure the extremes and get halfway between.

But let me put forward just a couple of principles quickly, Scott, that I think are really important that are maybe being lost here. First, this country of 350 million people has two political parties, two. That means both of those parties are going to have internal dynamics that are really, really hard. the fact that I representing Fairfield County, Connecticut, don't have quite the same orientation, you know, that Zoran Mondani does. It should not be a surprise and should not be a problem. And I've argued this on the right side of the party before. I've lost enough elections and seen Donald Trump reelected enough times. I haven't personally lost elections, but I've seen the

House lost. I've seen the Senate lost and the presidency lost to know that you better lean hard into including diverse viewpoints, right? So I've usually thought about it like, gosh, in the Democratic Party, could we tolerate somebody who's pro-life? There are people who say no. I would say, you know what, if you share 70% of the values, but you disagree on some, you know what you need to govern this country? A majority.

So here's my take on the folks that just won primaries in New York. First, it's New York, right? You and I know New York, right? It ain't America in any way, shape, or form. Number two, those candidates, including the mayor, tapped into something really important, which is that people are pissed off, and rightly so, our lifetime, financial crisis, Iraq war,

catastrophic mistakes done by the establishment. And they are pissed off. You better grapple with that rather than what we all did in the Biden administration, which is to say, inflation is transitory. My God, right? And so, number one, it's New York. number two, they've tapped into something important, not just on substance. And by the way,

I'm not validating the substance. I happen to believe that rent control is not a good idea. And every fact out there suggests that that is true. I think if you want to lower the price of housing, build a hell of a lot more housing. So I'm not validating the policy positions. But again, back to what I said before, I appreciate that these folks that are far to my left are saying, shut up about everything except how are we going to make health care and housing less expensive. Now, I may disagree with their prescriptions, but I think it's great that they're doing that. My one request to them, back to what I was saying about the majority, is you're joining a team. And I'm not on the Godheimer team that says that if you call yourself a socialist, you don't get

to be on our team. The critical aspect of being on our team is acknowledging that you go nowhere without a majority. If you've got to, if you don't have a majority, you're just talking. That's all you're doing. You're getting paid $174,000 a year to talk. So you want a majority. And if you want to win a majority, say and do things that don't damage our ability to win seats in North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, because if you put out crazy stuff that alienates those people. And in this era of social media, when you say something a little crazy in a basement in Brooklyn, it is about three milliseconds before it gets broadcast in Arizona and Michigan, comport yourself in a way that is consistent with winning a majority. That's my one,

that's my one. Oh, and by the way, don't be anti-Semitic. I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, cartooning things here. Right now it feels as if the Democratic platform is, can you believe he said that? And I would say that we need to move from indignance to ideas. As the Democrats, think about their messaging around 26 and 28. What is Representative Himes believe is the right message that moves just beyond the anti-Trump message? I have one obvious thought and one non-obvious thought for you. The obvious thought is that we need to be ruthlessly focused on the cost of health care, the cost of food, the cost of energy, and resist the temptation to chase the the squirrel. And that sounds like a no-brainer, but we're terrible at it. We're terrible at it.

You know, we're going to, some crazy immigration thing is going to happen in Houston, and we're going to take three days to stop talking about affordability and talk about that crazy immigration thing in Houston. And then the next week, you know, something is, some vile thing is going to happen to a transgender individual in the United States Marines or whatever it is, and we're going to chase that for a week. And we're going to get to the end of the month. I'm going to realize we didn't actually talk about affordability. No. Now let me be very clear here. I'm not saying that immigration policy, cultural issues don't matter. On the contrary, you know, I'm enormously proud of my party that we fight for decency and immigration and equality for the

transgender population. But how you sequence these things, again, back to winning the majority. If you're not convincing people that each, this is what Momdani did, right? If you're not convincing people that you are all over the thing they care about most, which is expenses, the expensiveness of life, they're not listening to you on the other stuff. So we got to get that right. Second thing, this is the non-obvious piece. We got to actually do it. You know, I've been thinking a lot about why there are always these swings, right, 06 and 08, big swing to the Democrats under Obama. 2010, there's, you know, we get obliterated 2018. I think the way we stop that pendulum and actually gain traction as a party is not because we have a perfect, um,

housing policy, but because we actually do something. I mean, I can't tell you how frustrated I am thinking back over the four years of the Biden administration. When I campaigned in 2024 on, we passed the biggest infrastructure bill since the Eisenhower presidency, and we passed the biggest investment climate change, you know, ever. And you know what we actually did in the state of Connecticut? Nothing. Not a zilch. And voters know that, right? They listen to some blowhard like me, say, oh, we passed this incredible bill. And they're like, wait, wait, I'm looking around here. This shitty little bridge on the post road is still not built.

And so, anyway, the non-obvious thing I have to say is that actually doing it is going to be as powerful as getting it right. So, and I got nothing good to say about Donald Trump, but I do admire this administration's bias to action. Now, half the time it's illegal. But I'll tell you what, the Democrats better get a big infusion. of no, no, no, no, when we allow for Medicare to negotiate drug prices, it happens tomorrow morning, not five years from now, because, you know, Americans are just so sick of the rhetoric

and the blowhards in office and not seeing anything change. We'll be right back. This spring, denim gets a softer, lighter update. Introducing Old Navy's drapey denim wide leg, a new fit that moves with you. It's everything you want denim to feel like for summer. Easy, breathable, and effortlessly cool. With a fit that creates natural movement and a wide leg that feels modern, not overwhelming. Plus, that signature, wait, for this price, moment.

Old Navy's drapey denim wide leg. Are you one of those media strategy people clicking through slides, scrolling spreadsheets? Yes? Good. This is for you. Because on Spotify, there's an audience that's different. Locked in. Loyal.

Invested. They're called fans. Fans don't just listen to music. They feel seen by it, like it belongs to them. So when your brand shows up on Spotify, that's who you're talking to. And you're right next to artists like me, Lizzo. So, are you ready to talk to fans? Spotify advertising.

You're among fans. We're back with more from Representative Jim Himes. We were talking off Mike a little bit about our backgrounds. Can you provide us with your backstory? Yeah. As I mentioned to you, it weirded me out of little bit because it's a lot like your own. A single mom from age 10 onward, my parents split up a little town in New Jersey, worked in the hardware store, the pizza place, the drug store,

delivered papers, et cetera, et cetera. And then went off to college. And I don't want to paint, I don't want to paint too much of an Oliver Twist story here. My parents had good college educations ultimately wound up after grad school like you in investment banking. Like you, didn't love it, but I learned a hell of a lot. I got pulled in because the first 10 years of my life were in South America, and I was fluent in Spanish. And so the bank said, it doesn't matter that this guy doesn't know a thing about banking.

He speaks Spanish. And so they hired me on that basis. And now I'm doing what I sort of suspected I would always be reasonably good at doing, which is public policy. And it's crazy polarized times. But I'm very lucky to represent a thoughtful, pragmatic constituency. So you're a Goldman for 12 years. I imagine you're a VP or maybe an MD. I don't know where you were at that point. And you're making really good money. I know you didn't grow up with a lot of money, or at least that's my sense. And what's the decision to leave a job and take a pretty substantial pay cut and go to work in public service? What led you to public service? You know, the answer is I never really thought about it that way. In fact, I think I stuck around the bank.

too long. You know, like you, it didn't move me. It didn't sort of satisfy my soul in any meaningful way. It was great. I learned a lot, made a little money and, you know, got skills that I used to this day. But it didn't move me in any way the way policy always had. And both my parents were service-oriented. And my dad was at the Ford Foundation with UNICEF. My mom did a lot of education stuff. So that was always kind of my inclination. And this comes through a little bit in your book, too. The question is more, if you do go into a... bank, you had the wherewithal to say the hell with it after two years. I sometimes counsel young people, go to the private sector, go investment bank or be a consultant, but have an exit strategy

because you can get pretty used to the lifestyle. And you can get 10 years in as I did and say, wow, I'm a little off track of what I thought I would be doing. And as you know, those organizations make it pretty hard to leave. I was a little lucky in that, um, I was doing technology banking when the technology market went completely belly up. So I sort of looked around and what, you know, wow, not much going on here. But yeah, so then I was able, you know, and the one thing I give, you know, a lifetime spent following directions and decisions, the one thing I do give myself credit for was in 2007. I'd gotten pissed off about George W. Bush and Republicans at the time.

Little did I know what was coming. But in 2007, after helping a woman who ran for this seat twice, and she lost twice, I said, what the hell? I'm going to run. I'm going to lose. I know I'm going to get my clock cleaned, but I'm at least going to be proud of myself for having tried. And I would have lost, but out of nowhere comes Barack Obama. And, man, I grabbed those coattails in 08 and hung on for dear life. And having served in public service for now, 17 years, is that right?

Yeah, coming on 18, yeah. Coming on 18. Compare and contrast working in the private sector versus the public sector, and what surprised you most of the upside and the downside around serving in Congress? Yeah, you know, I get irritated with the mantra that, oh, government just needs to be more like business, right? It's a fundamentally different thing, right? Every business has as its objective to make money at the end of the day. They have lots of different ways of making money, but it's just a very good.

clear objective and good leaders and CEOs, you know, get rewarded for making lots of money. Government is a fundamentally different thing. We don't have a bottom line. Government is the division of power and resources amongst a massively fractured population of 350 million people. It's an exercise and compromise. It's how you bring the evangelicals in Idaho together with the Amherst graduates in Westport to have some sort of co-hors. national policy. There's no bottom line, and there shouldn't be. Now, by the way, government should be efficient, no question about it. And it makes me nuts that it's not. But it's a fundamentally different exercise. So I really reject that. My own view, Scott, is that a life well lived and maybe in the

service of our country should include a little of each. And obviously, I'm talking my own book here. Maybe it's just me rationalizing and being self-satisfied. But I do walk around the hallways here and see folks who have spent time in the military or in law or in the private sector. And it tends to be those members who really bring the kind of perspective to legislating that I think is hugely valuable. You're a father of two girls and married. Any thoughts? A lot of young men listen to this, listen to this pod. Any thoughts or learnings on what you've gotten right and what you've gotten wrong in terms of being a dad and a good partner? A couple of thoughts. number one i got too i got way too old before i learned the power of saying i don't know i mean it's

funny now that i'm a guy of some power i guess coming on 60 years old i feel very comfortable saying i don't know but when i was in my 20s and 30s i was uncomfortable saying that because i thought that it would indicate that i that i was dumb and the people would be like oh he's the idiot in the room. And as a consequence, I learned a lot more slowly than I might have. This leads into something that I think is denigrated by MAGA conceptions of manhood, listening. You know, listening is a more general characterization of what I just said about asking for help. You know, I think good leaders listen more than they transmit. I, I think good leaders listen. I was in a couple of, I've been in the company, both in the private and the public sector of people and, you know, powerful people in rooms, board rooms, you know, cabinet rooms.

And usually the individual with real influence, the real leaders, the one who doesn't speak first, who reserves his or her counsel. And then, you know, 20 minutes in the meeting says something and everybody just sort of turns around and says, wow. And so, you know, I think that's an attribute to be admired and, you know, strived after. A couple other things. I just jotted down the notes. Maybe it's elsewhere in your book. I think one of the most transformative things that a boy or man can do, and I don't mean this to be exclusive, it's probably true of women as well, but is to develop competence in something. You know, the discipline and the artistry and the commitment and all the things you need to do to become a great piano player or rower or beekeeper or speaker of the Farsi language, I think the process itself, you know, helps you become a, I'll say a man in full since we're talking about men, but I would not in any way exclude females.

it helps you become a person in full by pursuing something, really chasing competence. I think that can be transformative. Jim Himes is the U.S. Representative for Connecticut's fourth congressional district, as CEDES held since 2009. He's also the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, serving as its ranking member. He joins us from our nation's capital. Representative Himes, very much appreciate your time today and your good service.

Thank you, Scott. Pleasure being with you. Algebra of Happiness. My son's high school graduation was on Friday. and it's been the fastest four years. A lot of mixed emotions, and not all of them positive, some of that is my depression and anger kicking in.

When my son and his mom decided it would be a good idea for him to go to boarding school, I now look back and I kind of resent the decision and I feel like my son was taken for me early. I did not like having him at boarding school. He was sold to me that would be home Friday, and leave Sunday night. He comes home Saturday afternoon. He's gone Sunday afternoon. He's basically at home for just a day. And I missed him terribly during those years. And the first thing, I remember

when he got into these two boarding schools, I took him for a walk, and I told him which boarding school I thought would be better, and he agreed, or, you know, I thought it's neither here and they're there. But driving up to this school, and this is a story of privilege, because, he went to an amazing school, and most people don't have that opportunity. But the first thing I remember thinking is, I wish my mom were alive because she just, it's a boarding school outside of London. She just wouldn't believe that her grandson got to experience something like that. And his first year was tough for him. I didn't realize how tough until later, but he didn't do well academically. I think he felt a little bit ostracized as one of the few Americans at his school. I thought that would be a feature. It wasn't. I don't know. He did fine, but not great.

And one of the reasons he ended up getting into a great school was his momentum kept building. Anyways, the thing that just struck me and that it's made me sad, I was fine Friday night at his graduation celebration, but I got very upset Saturday morning or melancholy is that there were all these things we were going to do, right? We were going to, or I planned, I wanted to, I wanted to buy an old car and try and renovate it with them. I think it would have been a ton of fun. I'm not handy, but, you know, I wanted to, you know, I wanted to go to Alaska with him. I had never been to Alaska, and I thought,

you and I were going to go to Alaska together. There was all these things I was planning to do with him, and now he's gone. And when he was a young kid and it was the right decision, I focused on work and economic security. So I was there, but I was gone a lot. I would sometimes be on the road for two or three weeks. If I had speaking gigs or work in Europe,

it just made sense to stay over there, and I would come home and notice that my sons had physically grown. So I missed a lot kind of zero to eight. And then eight to 12 was great. And then he kind of left when he was 14. And I just feel like there's this part, this real sadness. Like there was so much we were going to do that we didn't. And now he's gone.

And it's kind of heartbreaking. And I'm very proud of him. He's done really well. He's going to a great university in the fall. but this, you know, you lose your kids. It's like, I think the reason we're so in love with our kids is the same reason why luxury brands are successful. It comes down to scarcity.

The 10-year-old you have at home is not going to be there in a year. They're just going to be different. And you still love them and you still have a similar relationship, but they're an entirely different person. And I had so many plans for us. And a lot happened. you know, we went to a lot of Premier League games. We traveled a lot together. We took trips on our own. I took them on a college tour. I think I've been more present than most fathers,

mostly because I have the resources. But I just am haunted by this notion that there was so much we were supposed to do that we didn't. And it just goes zero to two went slowly, two to eight, less slowly, eight to twelve went kind of fast, and twelve to eighteen just was over in instant. And there's no like profound insight here or, you know, wondrous aha other than the following. To the extent you can plan those things, if you want to take, if you, if you want to go to, you want to show your son the Imperial War Museum, buy tickets and go. If your kids into Pokemon and you think I should go to one of those Pokemon conferences with him and take the train to Heathrow and go to that thing because what they say is true, it goes fast. And there's just no getting around it.

I have a pretty large void about the things we were supposed to do. This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez and Laura Jinnar. Cammy Rik is our social producer, Bianca Rosario Ramirez, is our video editor. And Drew Burroughs is our technical director. Thank you for listening to the PropG pod from PropG Media. I have a really dirty one. You guys. want to hear that? It's pretty bad. Okay, you asked for it. I didn't want to do it, but you guys asked for it. All right. Episode 403, 403 is the area code serving the Canadian province of Alberta. In 2003, MySpace launch. My ex used to get her sexual fetishes and her social media platforms mixed up and kept asking her friends to come on my face.