The Team House - Elon Musk Gutting CIA & USAID | EYES ON PODCAST

Episode Date: February 10, 2025

today we talk about USAID, the CIA and other agencies that may be on the chopping block, as well as President Trumps statement about the U.S. talking over Gaza and redeveloping it.New merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.comSupport the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseFind Andy Milburn here: ⬇️https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmilburn2023https://amilburn.substack.com/https://www.amazon.com/When-Tempest-Gathers-Mogadishu-Operationshttps://bsky.app/profile/andy-milburn.bsky.socialhttps://open.substack.com/pub/amilburn/p/journal-of-a-plague-year?utm_source=app-post-stats-page&r=emo6q&utm_medium=iosFind Mick Mulroy here: ⬇️https://fogbow.com/https://www.loboinstitute.org/https://x.com/MickMulroy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthorhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-patrick-mulroy-31198b52/https://bsky.app/profile/mickmulroy.bsky.socialFind Jason Lyons here: ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-lyons-666873316?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_apphttps://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.sociBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Hey guys, there's a new Teamhouse merch store. You can come and check it out. The link is in the description. You can get Team House stickers, Team House patches, which are really cool and really well done. American made. Team House T-shirts, hoodies, mugs. Shout out to that one person that's on a Mug.

Love you. Mouse pads. Camelback. Tote bag. I don't know why we have the tote bag. I'm not a big tote bag guy. If you are, you know, all the more power to you. But yeah, we got a ton of cool stuff.

Stickers American made. Patches American made. T-shirts are also American-made, but I don't fulfill them. I'm actually going to be the one shipping you the patches and the stickers. They're very cool. Check it out. The Teamhouse dash shop. Fourthwall.com.

That's a crazy URL. We'll change that. But don't worry. The link is in the description. Take a look. And in the show notes, if you're listening to us on audio, we really appreciate it. And thanks for the continued support. Hey, everybody.

Welcome to another episode of Eyes on. We've got the full crew. here, Jason Lyons, Andy Milburn, Mick Mulroy and myself, pretty busy week. A lot of things going on. And, you know, not many things blowing up, I guess, that we could talk about, which I guess is a better, decent thing. I mean, there are still things blowing up. But the big news this week was probably the USAID and that agency getting essentially

gutted or trying to be gutted. like I think it speaks to we were talking about in our group message like US soft power and stuff like that where you know someone's going to fill that gap and yeah all right let's kick it off you guys you guys fight over who wants to go first about this. Like you want me to start so go for it Mick yeah sure so just not to give too much of a history lesson but it's a bit relevant it was created as a creature of the Cold War uh 1961 by the Federal Assistance Act, which created the need for an entity like this. And then President Kennedy created USAID from an executive order. I'm only bringing that up because there's a lot of questions

about can you get rid of it by executive order. I don't know the answer, but that's from my understanding doing the research on the topic to be ready this week. That's how it was structured. So the importance of it is substantial. And I'll be the first, I'll lead with that. It is to enhance U.S. foreign policy. That's a question that we should come back to, whether it has strayed from that. That's one of the reasons why many people wanted to fall directly under the State Department and not be its own independent agency, the first part, which is enhancing U.S. policy objectives.

The second part is the humanitarian work that it's, It does overseas. Full disclosure, obviously I'm and my team is fully involved in that. So we see it in action. About 60% of their budget goes to critical food aid to people who are in need. And a substantial part goes to medical assistance to include trying to seriously reduced transmittable diseases, which of course can affect everybody. And I think as Americans, we should all be proud of the work that they have done in that regard. We're about 40% of the foreign aid, U.S. taxpayers around the world. We can have another discussion on the need for other countries to step up in that regard. But we should be proud of that.

And then the other part is the developmental part. And I think we can get into some of the issues there. Some of the things they fund to be frank, to me, we should never be fine. funding. But some of it on the developmental side is very important because countries that once received developmental aid are now key trading partners with the United States. So it isn't just, you know, all give no benefit. It's, it is to the U.S. beneficial. But I think some of the issues that have have really harmed the reputation of U.S. aid and seeing what's happening right now or that they haven't always been consistent with U.S. foreign policy and some of the things they fund

seem to be not beneficial to the United States. And I think we could solve those issues by addressing that rather than dismantling the organization, which is very important. Foreign aid, only 1% of the budget, 1%. And that includes all of the State Department. and USA. And then lastly, before I stop my diet drive here, the people of USAID, as I'm sure you guys,

Jay, Andy, have seen them all over the world, conflict zones, risking their lives, out on patrol. They don't get near the recognition that, you know,

say us vets do for doing what they do. And they hang it out there and they risk it all. And this is no way to treat those folks. There's a lot of, lot of real issues that need to be addressed. And I think it's good that they are being addressed. But remember, these folks are Americans working for the government doing great work around the

world for America. So I would just hope that we don't turn criticism of what the leadership has decided to do in some circumstances into turning them into something they're not, which is this, you know, idea that they're completely off the reservation. They're doing great work and the rest of their lives every day. So I would hope that we keep that in mind in any of the debates going forward on this agency. Yeah, USAID is a tremendous enabler for the military, especially in the soft side, but the military in general, you know, going all the way back to Vietnam.

I mean, the agency, right, to some extent, certainly the Marine Corps Civil Action Program both involved tying in with closely with U.S. AID officials and guys in the field who stayed there longer than the U.S. military did, you know, they'd be out there for two to three years, folks and went Vietnamese. And then, you know, in our own experience, remember the, remember Sunday long ago, the D provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan, you know, which were heavily supported by USAID. And, you know, and even if you don't care about things like the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, actually, of lives that they've saved, most of them children from epidemics

like malaria in Africa or indeed HIV. I agree if you make a good 75% of what the organization does is solid work in line with U.S. foreign policy. And if it has strayed in the area of development, well, fire the guy in charge. You know, I mean, that's how you deal with the unit. I mean, if Seventh Marines is doing bad things, you don't dismantle the whole register. and send the Marines elsewhere, although many of them would love to be out of 29 pounds. You know, you've the boss, I mean, it all comes from, it all stems from leadership. I mean, that's such a basic tentative.

But I think, you know, I mean, this is, it's politics. It's about, it's about sending a very loud message by the media. And I've watched the Fox News go over and over these stories about development projects, gone awry. But none of this other background or context, not a single story about it. Yeah, I agree with everything that both you just said. And I, for me, personally, it's the human element of it, both those lives saved and the fact that like Mick touched on, these people have families, you know, even if they're overseas, they have families back home. And to say that you're okay with just gutting, you know, these people's jobs and saying, oh,

well, you know, go find something else, especially for me and this is kind of a rant for me, people who have never worked in the government at all or even with the government, you know, whatever it is they do. God bless you, your job, whatever that is. But not that you shouldn't have an opinion on it, but that's an opinion. I don't care what, you know, unless you're going to show me numbers and you're going to say, well, when I worked at USAID, you know, I saw this and I do agree that there's probably bloat that needs to be cut and there are probably programs that need to be refined and again like andy said you know

get rid of the people who are in charge of those things if they're wrong you know but leave the the little folks alone and for anyone who's okay with um decimating these people's lives well i question your patriotism you know if we're gonna get a prickly about it sorry yeah and if we're like you know if we're going by the premise that there's bloat um there's bloat and waste and like probably every agency that the u.s. or any government runs, right? Like, um, it's, it's just, it's hard to, like, not delve into domestic politics with this.

Because I mean, Congress controls, controls the budget, right? So if there is an issue, they want to cut certain things, negotiated in Congress, do it the right, the lawful way, how it's always been done. And, you know, that's that. Like, going in and just with a chop saw and sending out two million. emails, this is a broader conversation to like all federal employees, I think it's great. I think it's insane. I think it makes no sense.

It's leaving us exposed. There's someone's going to fill that vacuum, right? And it's going to be China. So if we have a real, if we're really thinking, seeing China as an actual threat in the next, next century, how is one percent cutting out completely one percent of the budget? that helps strengthen our soft power and put us where we need to be around the world. How is that beneficial? Like, I mean, I'm looking for somebody to explain it to me.

I get it. Maybe there's waste for sure chop that stuff. I get it. But it just really feels like a ready fire aim kind of thing rather than like actual thoughtfulness, logic, going into making decisions that would benefit U.S. taxpayers and people around the world. I don't know. Call me nuts. I think you hit a really important point that we hadn't touched on yet is just how our adversaries are going to react to this, right?

So, I mean, the reason why China has its built and road initiative isn't because it's a giant benevolent country that's just looking to do good in the world, right? They try to embed themselves in these developing countries and then take all the resources. That's my commentary on it. And they're looking at this idea that we would just dismantle the U.S. entity that does this. again, very small part of the budget, and they're just going to fill the gap. And that's why then Secretary Rubio was so pro-USAid for his whole career, because he looks at it as soft power, yes, but certainly a way to compete outside of the sphere of conflict with our adversaries. So, yeah, they're absolutely going to take advantage of the fact that we're not where we used to be,

and they are and they're just going to be there or we're the only ones left on the on the field so to speak. So yeah, that is a big factor in this. And I think a lot of senators understand both sides of the aisle and they'll be asking all those questions here next week. Do you remember when we spoke about a few weeks back

about like a little bit of a rift inside the administration with the China Hawks being Rubio and others against like the business folks, Elon Musk and the last. those guys, it seems to me that the business folks won, or at least have a little bit more sway in the administration. I feel like Rubio is kind of, kind of the odd man out a little bit. At least it's what it seems like for my. So I think, I think you could include Mike Walsson and the, traditional national security perspective of the Republican Party along with Rubio. So there's

others there. There's certainly others in the Pentagon. I don't, I don't even know what Secretary Hague Seth's view of that is, but certainly under him, Colby, for example, was one of the biggest China Hawks in D.C. And now he's the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. He'll set the policy of the Defense Department. He was a very fervent anti-China hawk. And I assume he still is. You know, he don't just. change. So I think you're right. It's going to be attention inside the party, particularly with Elon, which I don't know, I don't know how long you're allowed to be a special government employee, or I don't know what the situation is with that. All your CEO of five other, like, massive companies,

like, yeah, they're happening. That all do business with the U.S. government, which is another issue. But I think there is hawks, the traditional hawks inside of the Trump administration. Yeah, that's, I mean, that's a good point. I think, you know, hopefully, hopefully cooler heads get, you know, it holds sway here. And that's a great point about, you know, National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz. I mean, he has, you know, everything I've seen from him. I mean, he's got a balanced and a very realistic view when it comes to foreign policy, and particularly towards China, and we'll recognize the fact that undermining our own soft power

is shooting ourselves in the head. However, however well it seems to play in the short term to domestic politics, and it's probably wise for any politician to understand that public discourse in this country is largely fueled by ignorance, just lack of education, general education, lack of interest, and collective ADHD. So, but, you know, and wise politicians and statesmen understand that. And I mean, going all the way back, I mean, you know, who knew? Who knew that we would now be looking back at someone like, say, Nixon, okay?

But Nixon and Kissinger, who had been vilified, and rightly in cases, you know, for the conduct of Vietnam War, blah, blah, blah, delaying. But remember, you know, they also had some inspired moves when it came to foreign policy. My point is that reaching out to China at the time when they reached out to China would not have sold well to the American public, right? But they recognized that it was something that was probably in the long-term interest to the United States. And it was, you know, for the next two decades. It was the right thing to do regardless of how it played to do domestic politics. True.

To try to get the Sino-Soviet split, right? I mean, that was the, that was the, yeah, it did. Yeah, it wasn't about befriending the Chinese or thinking that they were benevolent. But yeah, it was all of that. And ultimately, ultimately, arguably that led, you know, 20 something year, 27 years later to the demise of the Soviet Union or contributed to it. Yeah, it did contribute it, I think. I think that's a fair statement. any final thoughts about USAID uh I can't really see it being held up in courts I'm going to be

honest you know I hope not anyway because like that would mean uh separation of powers are out the window right yeah but the problem the problem with that though D is and yeah I'm a great believer in separation of powers but in order for them to work they have to act with alacrity and courts are not positioned to act quickly necessarily. So normally in the near term you're looking at Congress. But yeah, I mean, I agree. Ultimately, that is the sanction. We'll see.

Well, I hope I, I hope cooler heads prevail that the, you know, a lot of the, not that Democrats shouldn't also do it, but certainly the Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committees in House go talk about why this is important and how they can address the issues that they have issues with without dismantling the very entity that we're just going to recreate, right, to do that. And yes, I think, and I've heard I've been on many country teams, which are the interagency teams at embassies, where the State Department were one of the most adamant about U.S. aid falling under state. Maybe it was a parochial belief, but I think it also makes more sense that the leader of the U.S. foreign policy and diplomatic should actually include direct tasking of USAID.

So, yes, I think most would agree with that, including on both sides of the aisle are many. And then the question is, if we don't want to fund that, that doesn't mean we stop doing all. that, right? Like so helping the world not be so unstabilized, you know, because it's, yes, it's, we should, we're a moral country and I think we should be proud of that. We are primarily the ones that are going around the world helping people in dire need. But it, and that's important for itself. But it's also important because the people that live there can't stay there, they leave. And it destabilizes other countries. So it's a benefit of everybody to do that. That's 60% of their budget. So the other 40% is really coming down to these developmental issues. And a lot of them are

really important, too. But just focus on the ones you don't like, don't, you know, destroy the U.S. reputation. And potentially, and I'm not one to be hyperbolic, but a lot of people are going to die if we don't keep supporting this. I mean, there's people on the verge of starvation now, for example, in Sudan, which doesn't get enough attention, in my opinion. If we just cut off our efforts, it's not just the aid itself. And by the way, $2 billion a year goes into the farming states to buy food to send to places like Sudan. It also benefits the American people. So they're going to have to hear from their Iowa conditions this year really quick

because they're going to lose a lot of money because of this. Right. So that part, I don't think is controversial. It benefits the United States and it saves lives around the world, which I think we should all support. Yeah, you think, yeah, that's like an easy, like, oh, it saves lives. Like, oh, yeah, I'm for that, right? You would assume that that's the, the snap reaction by most people.

Can you, let me know some of the development programs that are like on the fence in terms of like maybe they don't make sense. Maybe they're boondoggles or whatever, you know. So there's a list. I don't want to repeat them because I can't tell now which ones are true or not. All the condoms in Gaza thing? Oh, Jesus. Yeah. There's a lot.

I've seen Congress persons read them in Congress, so I assume they're reading. And some of them, I think everybody on this, like, what, why are we funding that? Sure. So I'm not saying that there isn't, and you guys have already said it, you particularly, there's stuff that is funded by a lot of different

agencies around the government that are head scratchers. Right. So I'm all about going through that and cutting them because we could take that money and spend it on something more worthwhile to the American. people. So I'm not defending all of it. And I don't think anybody is, to be honest, but I'm just defending the part of it that's at the core, the whole reason why it was created back in the early 60s. It's still relevant today. It's as relevant as it was back then.

And I think we just need to make it more effective and more in line with what the American people expect. Yeah, I think that's a totally logical and reasonable way that everyone, you know, anyone who has the purse string should be doing that, like living by that standard. Like, I don't think I can't see this be why this is such a, why this has to be such a wedge issue and a political issue. It's, I mean,

it's because Elon Musk. Let's not get it twisted here, okay? Like, I'm going to say it. You know what I mean? Like, I have, I don't care at all.

So, and what's going on with him is I'd be worried if I work in any federal, federal agency or department, right? Like, you got, you just got like basically walking papers, the similar ones that they got at Twitter two years ago. Meanwhile, Twitter's not even profitable yet. Like, so let's not back and like he's doing stuff that makes sense. It doesn't.

And, you know, they did it with the CIA. They sent this, you know, what if the CIA, what if half the CIA? It was like, you know what, I'll take my walking papers, go to the private sector, make three times as much money as I make in the CIA. and the CIA's gutted when 60% or is it 60 or 40% of the CIA's budget goes towards Intel on China, right? Our next greatest peer near peer threat. So I don't know.

It's too much to me and I'm just a dummy. It's too much like ready fire aim like not even giving a shit about the lives it affects, the national security it affects. They shot over a list of the email names of the CIA folks that had signed up over the last two years. over unsecured emails. Like, what are we doing here? Like, this isn't like just a startup. Like they was. Yeah, they sent over a list of the names of the CIA folks

who had just been hired over the last two years because they're more likely to get fired, I guess. They're easier to get rid of over unsecured emails. Yeah. Yeah. So they're in a probation period. So it is easier to terminate them. The issue, of course, I don't,

we'll start with the email and go to the broader issue. I mean, there's, I don't know why you wouldn't do that on a security mail. It doesn't whatsoever. They tried to obscure it by not including the last name, but some people have very distinguishable first names. Let's face it. We're not all John Smith, right? So that's a problem, big problem. It's going to be a big, big problem for them to deploy, especially if they do have these certain first names that are very easily identifiable, so unique. The bigger issue, and I'm bias and you know me and jason we're both in the agency so i'll start with that um first of all the agency is very small the exact number um is classified so well i don't even really know it but um i won't guess

um but i can say because we used to say this uh it's a lot of congressional delegations is at one time there was a base in afghanistan that had more military members than the CIA had people Oh, wow. Period. All of it. Okay? So, you know, if there's some kind of cost savings, then you've definitely gone to the wrong place when it comes to personnel. In addition to that, especially on the clandescent side,

it costs an extraordinarily amount to train a person. I mean, they told us it's more than a firefighter pilot. The training, you know, for, you know, I'll just, PMO, for example, could take over two years. and then you're going to get language before you actually. So we're getting rid of PMOs were very small, but the clandescent side, which is much broader than my little tribe. It costs a lot of money just to get them before they walk out the door to do their first job, right?

It's a lot of training. It's repetitive. Then there's language. There's all sorts of things that they have to go through before they're actually hitting the streets doing the clandestine job, which is, is. is dangerous, very important, and there's no decent country in the world that ever didn't have an intelligence, right? I don't care. It's like, you can go back to, we had rating parties as primitive man, and probably the second thing they thought of is let's go collect information on the

other group. So, I mean, this is a core function of any society. We do it better than anybody in the world with a budget that's actually pretty reasonable. So I would hope that they, and I know that a lot of the career national security folks in the administration are going to stand up about this. We don't want them to take that. We all have to replace them. It'll cost more, and it will take years to get to the point if we get a lot of takeouts in the spying out. So I hope that they don't. And it's in the interest back far of the U.S. people that they don't. Sorry, we're going to sorry to the Elon Musk fans out there but I'm going to call it like the guy's

a joke like he shouldn't be anywhere near the administration at all forget the fact that he's a CEO of like four or five companies that gets government contracts and it's just insane conflict of interest that's for sure and I don't want to get anybody worked up because it's right or left thing, but it's wild. And anybody who's like sort of logical and reasonable sees that and understands that. Because there's things you can cut. Yeah, there's a four trillion dollar budget, right? Or whatever the

trillions of dollar are budgets. Like we can cut stuff 100%. When the next budget comes up, go in there and figure it out. Like do your job as a Congress and negotiate it, debated, do whatever you need to do, what you get paid for, and take care of business. I mean, the defense department can't pass an audit. The Marines can, but the entire defense department can't, right? That's an issue. I'm not saying cut the defense department by half. I would never say that because we have real threats out there, but you could find stuff

to cut. You could, you don't, maybe you don't need 17 different like submarine development programs, right? Maybe chop that down to floor. Like, there's probably ways you could, you can line. not admit and find things to cut. So I don't know. Sorry for my pinko, Connie.

Well, sorry to add to that, along with what you're saying, you know, making these cuts, don't just send people to the chopping block. Fold them into other areas. They have skills that can be used. Don't just, hey, you have a week to decide the rest of your life, you know, your fate. Fold them into other areas. That's, you know, this, you know, willy-nilly thing that we're doing here is just it's dangerous in my opinion i think it makes sense

as a strategy if you're a startup or a business owner that just like you're uh whatever being capital is like a type of like a private equity company that goes and chops up a company and makes money off that i don't technically agree with that too but it makes more sense to do that in the private sector than it would governmental stuff and i don't know what i'm talking about but i'm just looking net like some logic. Just one plus one equals two. It just doesn't make sense. Or even if you're going to do it in the federal government, do it stretched out

over strategically over time, period, not just you have a week, you know, or we're just going to gut this thing, whether you like it or not. That just doesn't make any sense. And it's unconstitutional. Yeah. And it might sound to be disappointed if I didn't bring up the whole issue of massive national debt. It tracks it a lot.

We do. It's $34 trillion, you know, I think it's right now. And I saw a stat the other day that by 2050, that 50% of our budget will go to paying interest. So it's a real issue. I mean, I'm not an economist, but you don't have to be an economist to see that. But there has to be, like you guys just said, there has to be a comprehensive plan, right? Because even the cuts that are talking about now are going to do much to it. So like, how are we going to actually increase revenues, cut spending?

I mean, how are we going to do that? Most politicians don't care much beyond their term, either side. So if there isn't some like coming together, the folks that are making these decisions coming up with a plan that will suck for some people, whether you're paying higher taxes or tariffs or like, whatever it is, that we have to come up with a plan because it just seems like where we're headed is just like we've ignored. We just ignored it.

Like we're just not even talking about it and then hoping that it won't come to fruition, but it seems like it will. I'll tell one short anecdote when I was at the Pentagon, the secretary, Mattis, had us go to an offsite with all those folks. We had one, and I'll leave the person out, but it was a significant political figure that was there, answer all sorts of questions, and most of them are obviously very helpful. But he got one question on the deficit, or the debt, rather. and his answer was Camp Pendleton. And we're like, what?

And he was like, what about Camp Pendleton? He goes, we're going to sell Camp Pendleton. To who? People. Like Camp Pendleton, I mean, Developers. Right? And so, and then, of course,

the second question after he said that is, we're going to the first Marine division, right? So, I mean, it's, and then it's, I mean, a lot of us left out of that going, well, I was concerned about the debt. I'm super concerned about it. Like that's the plan. Like literally this person was substantial.

And I don't know if he was being tongue and cheek, but it was like, is the plan to deal with the debt to sell off federal lands? I don't know. I don't know. But I've never heard that articulated by anybody else. But I would, you know, I know this isn't what this shows about, but we're going to have to deal with it because it is a security issue too, a national security issue to have this incredible debt hanging overall.

If you want to really go after it, as far as the DOD budget, you go after the acquisition programs. I mean, you don't think around the margins with manpower, you know, trying to persuade a handful of people to retire early. You go after the big acquisition programs, because if you want to talk about wastage and pork, and that is where it occurs, right? And everyone knows it. But no one wants to go after them because there are too many people with vested interests. I mean, it is, you know, I know it's a cliche, but the military industrial complex, that is the heart of the military industrial complex. And I haven't heard any talk from this administration about really going after that. I haven't seen any action either.

And that, you know, I would welcome that. I mean, the whole, our whole acquisition program needs to be retooled. It is hopelessly slow, inefficient. By the time we field pieces of gear, everything from, you know, the 782 gear to aircraft carriers, they're largely obsolete. And by the way, aircraft carriers are obsolete. And if you want to save $10 billion a pop, then you do away with, you know, the modernization programs and the building programs. But I won't get into that. But, you know, my point is all of this is for show.

what they're saying for show. If you want to really go, it's cut down on the budget, DOV. That's what you do. Well, I remember the F-35 program, which obviously it brought out like a really good plane and they're out there and they're, we've given them, sold them to our allies and stuff like that. But parts for that plane were built or manufactured in like 45 states because they wanted it to be a job program. And I get that. I love jobs for a lot of states, but there's definitely more efficient ways of doing things, right?

And yeah, I mean, unlimited money into Congress is not the way to keep things efficient, right? Like, that's always going to. It's poor power of politics, right? And the other vested interests, of course, are the, you know, the giant defense companies. So there's only half a dozen of them. And they are, they get contracts again and they gain it again, reduce hardware, which, as I've said, is largely obsolete. I'm not talking about the F-35 green.

I mean, that's an extraordinary aircraft. But you can look at, you can anyone, anyone familiar with acquisition and more familiar than I am, can trot out a long list of failed projects that have cost the government billions of dollars. And that's no exaggeration in aggregate. Yeah. And like, yeah, like you said. But no one goes after it because, as you pointed out, it is tremendous, tremendous congressional buy-in to, you know, regardless of which side of the aisle you fall, you're going to have, if you have constituents who are making money out of one of these acquisition programs, constituent companies, then you're going to, you're going to fight tooth and nail to prevent that program from being scrapped.

Right. Or you're going to get primaried, right? Like he'll get booted. Yeah. So we should just fix the entire government, us four right here. I'm ready when you guys are to get going on this. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know what the hell is going to happen. I mean, there's certainly, you know, there's certainly fact. I mean, we've talked about that. And I've got to say, I mean, there's part of me that just looks at the Pentagon, you know, 28,000 people we should be. we should be solving everything in the world. But I mean, it's a major city. I mean, yes, we definitely have a tremendous layer of fact when it comes even to DOD in manpower is my guess. But that's all it is on my part. It's kind of my guess because I don't, you know,

I've never done the analytics. But even then, you're not going to save, that's not, as I said, where you're going to save most money. And the other area where DOD spends most of its money is on benefits, right? I mean, I hate to say this, but retirement, a huge amount because as people get older, you've got, and then remember, we had to military retire a lot of people during the, not Vietnam, during Afghanistan and Iraq, disability payments, all of that. takes up an enormous amount of the tense budget.

Are you going to go after that? No, I would hope not. Yeah. Exactly. It's interesting because like Mickhead alluded to it too. It's like all kind of interlocked, right? Like even if we got rid of USAID, which helps domestic farmers, right, bring food to different countries that need it.

Like you said, like if we fix the health care system, it probably be a lot cheaper for, folks in America, whether they're military or not, to like, it would ease the burden on like certain agencies and be able to trim fat if health care was like more streamlined like every other, you know, developed country in the world. Yeah. I mean, Secretary Mattis said, I think when he was general, but, um, that if you're going to cut USA, you're going to have to give him some money to buy more bullets, right?

So, um, this is also a lot of these places, and I saw, one example that I think at first most people would say, ah, it seems like we shouldn't be spent it. But we were spending money on, I guess, a version, if not Sesame Street, teaching kids in Iraq and Syria. You know, at first you're like, well, should we be in it? And then when they say, well, do you want big bird teaching these kids? Or do you want ISIS? I mean, madrasis, yeah. Yeah, right? It doesn't cost that much. And obviously, we want kids to be educated. And we sure to hell don't want them indoctrinated into the theology or the depravity of ISIS, right? So when you step

back and actually look at it, it's, again, it's pennies on the budget. And it does. So that's, those one of those things that they should be a full review, not just a, you know, a snippet on, you know, social media where people just go, I don't know why we spend that. It needs to actually be thought out and explained. And if they can't explain it, then it needs to be cut. Right. So it's a two-way street, but it's not as easy as it might appear from a social media post. Yeah, and 280 characters, right? Yeah, I budget, you know, all right. I don't feel good about this conversation.

But so are we going to buy a eyes on timeshare in Gaza soon? What are we doing? Because the next bit of news was President Trump came out the other day. in a joint press conference with BB Netanyahu talking about relocating Gazans, Palestinians, from Gaza to the surrounding areas, Egypt, Jordan, and the U.S. taking over Gaza and redeveloping it, which is like a new wrinkle in this entire and this roller coaster. Sure. Yeah, so I'll start with where it started, then where it went and, you know, potentially try to put. you know, both sides, if there is both sides. One, I think it's surprised even the White House.

So, and I think it's enough reporting that we can know that's true. And this certainly Defense Department and who would not want to sign up for another war in the Middle East. And the State Department. So the issues with it, you laid it out, I think, one, it's completely impractable, right? there's too many people that aren't going to be for just leave their home homeland so it would be an extraordinarily difficult military problem well armed well entrenched uh it probably would require the u.s military and that's completely against the stated policy of uh trying to pull herself out of conflicts not going into conflicts that aren't even our conflict uh so that's one uh two it's likely and

I'm not an international legal scholar, but unlawful. You can't forcibly displace people from their home period. It's not a thing. Just because you want to then occupy and potentially benefit from their terrain, territory. So that's another downside. The third downside is everybody that would be required to do this is against it. So the two countries where these people could potentially be forcibly relocated. are Egypt in Jordan and they are 100% opposed.

They would completely destabilize their country and they don't have the infrastructure board. And then the countries that we really need to come in and help reconstruct Gaza, the Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, are also completely opposed to it. So it seems like a non-starter from the get-go. And that's why even the White House rolled back.

He didn't mean permanent. He meant temporary, even though we said permanent, like the word permanent. that it's been walked back substantially. I think we're kind of where we were before the press conference. I'm sure that there's certain elements of that Yahoo's coalition. It'll just continuously go back to the press conference because they want this to happen. But I don't think we're there.

If there is, you know, an upside to be as fair as I can. It, you know, some people are saying it's a negotiation tactic. Just throw just on the wall, just kind of a very out there idea. And then when everybody's opposed to it, they are, turn to them and say, what's your idea? So I do hope that, you know, some of these countries that are very comfortable sitting on the sidelines and critiquing our ideas, some of them have been good for the last 40 years, do start coming more involved in. Well, what's the solution? So that might be very rosy way of looking at it, but that's certainly what

some of them are saying. And if it does get more countries to the table to actually present ideas and ways to implement those ideas. I hope that does happen. But this, I think, is a non-starter problem. I think, to a mixed point about Egypt and Jordan, again, second and third stage effects, in Jordan is, Jordan, just over half the population is Palestinian. And during this whole, since Gaza kicked off back in October of last year,

The Jordanian government has been hanging on by its fingernails. And the Muslim Brotherhood gained traction, significant traction, for the first time in the Jordanian parliament in last elections. So, you know, mass displacement of Garzans into Jordan would undoubtedly have a catastrophic effect on, you know, one of the most benevolent democracies in the Middle East and a staunch ally of the United States. and now Egypt, Egypt has its own concerns with Muslim Brotherhood, as we all know. And Egypt said that, hey, the peace treaty with Israel was off if this happens. So you can see, you know, Israel may scoff at that right now,

but that's going to have significant ramifications for Israeli security too, even if you don't care about anything else. Israel said all bets are off and lets that border be porous. especially, you know, with all the trouble that's been bubbling away in the Sinai, that's endless trouble for Israel. And unlike Gaza, where Israel could contain all this problem, all these problems, now you've got two massive borders, and countries are just not enough border guards to be able to stop the, you know,

Palestinian militants from going back and forth and attacking Israel. So, you know, Netanyahu chortling away about this, again, just shows that, that, yeah, he's a political operative and he sees again another lifeline, but this isn't good for his country either. And it's disastrous for Middle East. And by the way, Russia and China are also laughing because, I mean, let's be honest. is looking not very smart right now. And then they're poised in the wings ready to take advantage of that yet again. It's just bad, you know, it's just bad news across the ball. Yeah. And I mean, it looked like Netanyahu was pretty surprised by it as well, right?

Because if you, I'm sure if you ask his, like, his right of his coalition, you know, they want to come back into Gaza and resettle it, right? Like, they probably don't make it a secret. that that's what they want. Well, Netanyahu's, yeah, the right wing in Israel has for a long time said that Jordan should, you know, that the Palestinians have a home in Jordan. But there's all, you know, kinds of things wrong with that. I mean, even if you don't care about the ethical part of this of simply transplanting people from that one place to another, you know, which may seem like a great idea to, you know, to. to again many Americans until, for instance, you talk about taking Brooklyn and, you know, that's a bad example because I think most people there would just love to move anywhere in the United States.

I mean, any other like normal part of the United States is to another false. It's probably fair. Yeah, I mean, it's, but, you know, the point with the right wing in Israel, is that they really can't see, to say they lack, they lack vision is an understatement. I mean, all they're thinking about is a return to Judea and Samaria and this is our homeland, blah, blah, blah. But they're told on that homeland. It's going to grow increasingly fragile if they pursue these policies.

You can't appeal to their ethics because they don't have them. You know, they really do feel as though the Palestinians are on to mention. They're not, you know, they're the people who are not worthy of consideration. So you have to appeal to the fact that they're going to undermine their own security. I mean, it's, you remember when we, we had an episode here with an Israeli, former Israeli politician, and that appeal just kept falling flat. You know, it was like, look, we know, you know, you're just like, look, we know, you don't care about the ethical part of this argument, but do you understand that by simply

plowing on as though these are not human beings and they don't deserve anything or that in the end, you know, you can't ever attain what you want to attain for your people? That's a good point. Yeah. Yeah. Which is a secure homeland. Yeah, very well said. I mean, that's it. Have we solved it? Have we figured everything out? I feel like we have. Right? Yeah.

Abolished the pinnigan, scrap aircraft. Well, we know, we see now what Andy is really. He's anti-aircraft. Yeah, he's been from the beginning.

Yeah. Anyone with the brain is, yeah, against these big platforms. They're definitely rethinking of aircraft carrier. I mean, they're not cheap. They're 13 billion a pop.

And how much is a missile that can take it out, right? Yeah. I mean, I was in, you know, I'm digressing a little bit here. And I, you know, when we divested of tanks in the rain call, it was a hugely emotional issue. And actually, I didn't, I didn't 100% agree with it. I think if you need, you know, you need certain weapons systems. But the problem is I think we need to read, and you certainly need a rolling gun platform, you know, wherever you're going to use infantry.

And to scrap them, I thought, was premature because until you can figure out, until we can have unmanned tanks. You know, that is the solution. I'm not sure. Yeah. Or unmanned aircraft carriers that fly drones, you know, and multiple ones that have vastly reduced costs. But once you start having to pay for the care and feeding and protection of human beings and any platform, then the price starts shooting up. Exactly.

Tank's a good example of that, right? Yeah, absolutely. You could make multiple little M1A1 models with similar capability gun platform, right? Yep. But unmanned. Much lighter, much cheaper. Yeah.

Absolutely. All right, going back to the guy that came back, I was trying to think what I was going to say. Like Saudi Arabia put out a statement at like 5 a.m. their time after that. So they were like, yeah, we're not down with this. We want Palestine to have their own state. You know, dropping a statement like that at 5 a.m. local time is, you know, means like, yeah, this is serious for us.

We're not waiting until we wake up and have our, you know, our tea. Yeah, that's another aspect to the day. They've been absolutely consistent with that throughout. And one of the big initiatives for this administration when it comes to Middle East is this grand bargain, right, expanding the Abraham Accords, which is Saudi Arabia, Israel coming into some kind of agreement. And this, this took us well down the path of the other direction. So that's another reason why they walked it back, I think, substantially. Yeah. Anything else, boys?

This was great. Sorry if anyone's upset. I'm not. Talked a little smack about Eli. Musk, sorry. I'm totally into space exploration, so I So am I. Listen, I think Tassel's done some great stuff in terms of like.

Space X has done great things. Yeah. I think he's done some great things for sure, but he's gone off the deep end. Yeah. I think he stuck his, his toe into the wrong pool of water here. He's just been too long at the party, man. You can't be the richest guy alive and like, be a normal. more person your whole life.

Something's going to give. It's like look at Gaddafi. Look at like these people who are in power for 30 years. They're just too long at the party and they got to go home. Guys, do me a favor. Check everybody's links out in the description. McMorroy, Lobo, Fogbo, doing great stuff, humanitarian stuff. You just muted yourself, man.

Cool. Oh, that's what happens when we talk about Elon. Exactly. Yeah. He's still gone. Sign it. Okay, well, we are signing off here. Check out Longbow photo.

Please check out my book. I get at least a dime every time one is bought anywhere in the world. And we will see you next week. And hopefully we'll have Dee back at that time. I think he's still running the show, so only he can end. Oh, sorry. Play by, Dean.

All right, guys.