FINALLY: Republicans ABANDON Trump in SHOCK update

If you want to see abject disaster from. the Trump administration, I think that. this pretty well summarizes the entire. feeling between the right and the left. So, I'm going to put a tweet from a. right-wing commentator on the screen. that is a reaction to Donald Trump's new. Iran deal. This is from Will. Chamberlain. He wrote, quote, "We have. the text. The deal is absolutely. terrible. There's no getting around it. The text gives Iranians huge immediate. financial benefits and protection for. Hezbollah in exchange for opening the. straight and nothing else. President. Trump should reneg." So, let's talk.

about the deal. First of all, since. Obama struck up the Iran nuclear. agreement, the JCPOA, years and years. and years ago, Trump and Republicans. have criticized it as a $1.7 billion. giveaway to Iran. In fact, that is. literally a comment Donald Trump made. today. >> I mean, the JCPOA done by Obama. he handed them a billion seven in cash, gave them hundreds of millions of. dollars, hundreds of gave them billions. and billions of dollars, but he gave. them $1.7 billion in cash, green cash.

from banks into a Boeing 757 and flew it. into Iran. And they stood at the plane. I have pictures of it, like, "Oh my look. at this money he's giving us.". >> And yet, now we find out that this deal. gives Iran access to not $1.7 billion, but $300 billion. So, if you're looking. for cognitive dissonance, it is Trump. attacking Obama while simultaneously.

bragging about a deal where Iran gets. access to 176 times more money. Then you have Trump coming out and. repeating that nothing else matters. these days so long as Iran has uranium. that can be enriched and made into a. nuclear weapon. And so, high gas prices. are a small price to pay to denuclearize. Iran. And then suddenly, this is what. Trump said on that point this week. >> To go get it is a big deal. Because uh say only China and us have. the equipment where you can even get The. whole mountain has collapsed and uh.

We have cameras on it. You could make. the case, why even bothering cuz it's. not really valuable. It's, you know, it's probably half a million dollars. worth. It's not very valuable stuff. >> Quote, "It's not very valuable stuff.". So, Trump was willing to let gas prices. surge in the United States to prevent. Iran from enriching its uranium, and now. that he's failed in doing so, suddenly. it's not even very valuable anymore. Another point, Trump has repeated his. insistence on regime change, getting rid.

of the hardline Ayatollah, which he did. But, then he was replaced by his son, an. even more hardline Ayatollah. So, the. guy who is bragging about regime change. oversaw Iran going from Khamenei to. Khamenei. Bravo. There's also the point that Iran. controls the Strait of Hormuz, through. which a substantial supply of global. energy passes. Iran's closure of the. strait has sent gas costs soaring here. in the United States, which in turn hurt. our economy. And the US government. hasn't been able to do anything to stop.

them, which means that Iran now knows. that they can deploy that weapon at any. time at their will, and that the impacts. on us will be cataclysmic. Not to. mention, where our ships used to be able. to pass through the strait freely, now. we can expect a toll, which will heap. even more money onto Iran. And finally, there's the point that this. entire war has thus far, according to. the White House, cost $30 billion. Now, I would bet my left leg that we are. billions past that figure, but even if.

it is only $30 billion, shouldn't that. money not go to the exact kind of. foreign war that Trump swore he'd avoid. on the campaign trail? Shouldn't that. money go to America in accordance with. Donald Trump's own America First agenda? Wasn't that the whole theory of the case. in Trump's campaign, that we're tired of. dumping billions and trillions of. dollars into pointless wars in the. Middle East, only for Donald Trump to. dump billions of dollars into another. pointless war in the Middle East, one. where the regime didn't actually change, where Iran didn't lose its enriched. uranium, and where Iran actually got.

access to more money than it had before. Like, if anybody can tell me what we. gained in all of this, I'm all ears. And that's the thing. Donald Trump. negotiated an objectively worse deal, certainly worse than the Obama nuclear. agreement, and just broadly worse for. the United States than when he launched. this war 4 months ago, but he wanted the. glory. He wanted to show how strong he. was, even if we'd alienated all of our. allies, we could do it alone. He wanted. to be right. And so, he engaged in a. process that he wasn't prepared for, and. now the United States is worse off for.

it, and Iran is going to be objectively. stronger. If ever there was a microcosm. for this guy's presidency, this is it. And the fact that even Republicans are. beginning to acknowledge that objective. reality goes to show that perhaps the. right is tiring of apologizing for Trump. making us less safe, less healthy, and. less prosperous on a daily basis, while, of course, he himself reaps the benefits. of his own presidency. You're watching. the No Lie Podcast. Next up are my. interviews with John Finer, uh one of. the negotiators for the Obama Iran.

nuclear deal, and Timothy Snyder, who is. the author of On Tyranny. But first, a. reminder that my new book, The Day. After, is available now for pre-order. So, if you'd like to support my work, that is the best way to do so. Um and. I'll also be on tour. So, if you live in. or near New York, DC, or Los Angeles, I'd love to see you in mid-July when I'm. on the road. I'll put a link to both the. pre-order and book tour tickets in the. show notes of this episode, as well as. on the screen, as well as in the. comments. Okay, here are my interviews. with John Finer and Timothy Snyder. No.

Lie is brought to you by Common Power. Last year, when the GOP started early. redistricting, they made it clear that. earning Americans' votes was the least. of their priorities. And after gutting. the Voting Rights Act, they've doubled. down on their attempts to rig the. midterm elections. Common Power believes. that Democrats can still take back the. House and the Senate by focusing on two. things: policies that benefit the. working class and tax the rich, and. expanding the Democratic coalition. As. Republicans rely on rigged maps to win, Common Power is how Democrats fight fire. with people power. Common Power is the.

organizing force for training and. deploying volunteers to doorknock for. Democrats in over 20 battleground states. and over 50 races this year alone. Their. teams are driven by next-generation. leaders, and we need your support to. fund their travel and development. We're. done waiting for half-cooked election. autopsies and poll-tested speeches from. establishment Democrats. This election, right here, requires our leaders to get. creative and use every tool at their. disposal, including trained, dedicated. volunteers from across the country. mobilizing to win in key battleground. states. Support Common Power, the.

organizing force of volunteers fighting. to shift the balance of power at. commonpower.org/crooked. No Lies brought to you by Shopify. When. I started this podcast, it seemed like I. had to figure all of this out on my own. Scripting, setup, filming, schedule, logos. I am definitely not tech-savvy, so it was really overwhelming, and every. day seemed to introduce a new decision. that needed an answer. When you're. starting off with something new, it. seems like your to-do list keeps growing. every single day with new tasks, and. that list can easily begin to overrun.

your life. Finding the right tool that. not only helps you out, but simplifies. everything can be such a game-changer. For millions of businesses, that tool is. Shopify. Shopify is the commerce. platform behind millions of businesses. around the world and 10% of all. e-commerce in the United States. From. websites like mine, briantylercohen.com, to brands just getting started. Get. started with your own design studio. With hundreds of ready-to-use templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful. online store to match your brand style. You can accelerate your content. creation. Shopify is packed with helpful.

AI tools that write product. descriptions, page headlines, and even. enhance your product photography. And. you can get the word out like you have. an entire marketing team behind you. Easily create email and social media. campaigns wherever your customers are. scrolling or strolling. And best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with. world-class expertise in everything from. managing inventory to international. shipping to processing returns and. beyond. Start your business today with. the industry's best business partner, Shopify, and start hearing. Sign up for your $1 per month trial.

today at shopify.com/btc. Go to shopify.com/btc. That's shopify.com/btc. >> So, the Atomic Energy just reported that. it was one of the most devastating bomb. he's ever The whole mountain collapsed. on top of it. And frankly, to go get a week we're. going to go get it. But, to go get it is. a big deal. Because they say only China and us have. the equipment where you can even get The. whole mountain has collapsed on top of. it.

We have cameras on it. You could make. the case why you even bothering cuz it's. not really valuable. It's you know, it's. probably half a million dollars worth. It's not very valuable stuff. But, I think psychologically we want to. get it. >> I'm joined now by former Deputy National. Security Advisor and someone who helped. to negotiate the former Iran nuclear. deal, John Finer. John, that was Donald. Trump speaking today about the this. latest I guess aspect of the negotiation. between the US and Iran. And he says you.

can now make the case why even bother. It's not very valuable stuff. Well, he's. talking about enriched material which I. had thought based on Donald Trump's own. statements was the whole basis for this. stuff that we have to get enriched. enriched material out of Iran and that's. why we have to do all of this because. paramount is stopping Iran from getting. a nuclear weapon. So, first and. foremost, can I have your reaction to. this latest comment? What seems like him. moving the goal post today? >> Unfortunately for him, Brian, you don't.

have to take my word for it. You can. take President Trump's own shifting. rationales for why he launched this. totally unnecessary war. Initially, it. seemed to be about toppling the Iranian. regime. He and Prime Minister Netanyahu. cooked up this idea that if you just hit. them hard at the beginning, they will. fall. That didn't happen. Then it. became, as you said, about getting the. enriched uranium out of Iran. Does not. seem like that's been agreed to as we. head into a potential longer-term. ceasefire. All that really has happened at this.

point, it feels like, is that Iran has. learned from Trump how to hold the. global economy at risk by closing the. Strait of Hormuz, and now we are paying. them to open it when it wasn't closed. before this war started. So, a bit of a. debacle, unfortunately, in terms of how. this is playing out. >> Now, in terms of him paying them, I. think the number that's floating around. is 300 billion. Is that correct? >> Well, so 300 billion dollars, again, according to leaked versions of this. document. I mean, another strange. element of this is the United States. government, which negotiated this deal.

and has apparently signed it. electronically, has not put out publicly. what it actually says. So, we're relying. on leaks from various places, and we. don't know what's actually in it. But, yes, in one of the leaked versions, there is a 300 billion-dollar fund that. Iran could draw on to rebuild, reconstruct its country. That fund would. be capitalized, maybe, again, according. to these leaks, by the Gulf countries. that were attacked by Iran. But, now. that we're in such a bad situation, unable to defend them, that they are. being going to put all of this money in.

play to help Iran rebuild itself, if. that ends up in the final deal. >> And and what was the dollar amount that. Republicans had spent so long attacking. the Obama administration over? >> Well, there was a 400 million-dollar. figure, that's million with an M, by the. way. There was a 1.7 billion-dollar figure, that's 1.7 as compared to 300. Well, by. the way, >> So, any way you cut this, it is a. fraction, a fraction of a fraction of. what the Trump administration is dealing. with right now. And so, how do you. reconcile the same party that had.

attacked the Obama administration for uh. as as they claim unlocking millions or. just over a billion dollars of funds for. Iran that is now. reportedly or if the leaks are true. considering. allocating 300 billion dollars to Iran. and yet that's fine. >> You can't reconcile those arguments and. people will tie themselves in in. pretzels to try to do that but but even. more important than the discrepancy in.

in the numbers is what that money. actually paid for. In the Obama nuclear. deal that funding was to compensate Iran. for diminishing and putting constraints. on its nuclear program. 98% of the. enriched material going out of Iran. Inspectors and monitors being physically. present inside Iran 24/7. This deal does. not get any of that. It is just at this. point to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. which yet again to remind people was. wide open. Nobody had to pay for it.

before this war. They have not actually. gotten anything according to these. leaked documents on the nuclear material. which is much more important. >> So is there any way that the Trump. administration could spin that. objectively speaking could spin this as. a win or that the United States can. point to something that we have or will. get now that we didn't have before? >> Look, the president believes he has the. ability to create his own reality and. honestly maybe with his base given how. they committed they seem to be to him. He will have some success in doing that. He is certainly going to try to say that.

this is some great victory but. objectively I think most of the analysts. looking at it including some people who. are quite strong supporters of the. president on other issues are concluding. what is unmistakable which is that this. is a significant failure for the United. States. By the way, not for the United. States military. They were put in an. impossible position given a task that. was not possible to accomplish. Just hit. the Iran government from the air and and. hope they fall. This is on the policy. makers and ultimately the president who.

made this decision. >> So, at what at this point what happens. what happens now? Like where where do we. stand for those who are just tuning in. to uh to this negotiation? >> So, what will happen now is for the. first time in quite some time the. Iranians and the United States are going. to start actually negotiating on the. nuclear program. So, this is a lot. closer to the beginning of talks about. what to do about Iran's uh nuclear. program than it is to the end. The last. time the two sides were face-to-face. with each other, you'll remember when. J.D. Vance flew off to Pakistan and.

spent 19 hours on the ground ultimately. giving a news conference saying nothing. had been accomplished. This next round. of talks is supposed to last 60 days. That may sound to some people like a. long time. When we negotiated the. Obama-era Iran nuclear deal, it took. more than 2 years including 19. consecutive days at the very end stage. just to get the fine print right. So, they are difficult to negotiate with. They feel like they are in a strong. position, they the Iranians. The idea. that this is going to get done in 60. days when you're sort of starting from. scratch, I think is going to be pretty.

difficult. >> What are the differences between what. the Trump administration is trying to. negotiate right now and what had already. been in place with the JCPOA? >> Actually, it's a very similar structure. They're going to be negotiating. monitoring and verification. Are. inspectors going to be allowed back. inside Iran? They were there by the way. until Trump pulled out of the Obama-era. nuclear deal in 2018. Can we get them back in? Can we get Iran. to agree to allow them back? Can we get. Iran to take its current stockpile of. enriched uranium? It has about 1,000 lb.

of 60% enriched uranium which is just. below the level you need to make a. nuclear weapon. Just a short period of. time would be required to enrich that. further and and make weapon. Can we get. Iran to give that material up, send it. out of the country, and can we get Iran. to agree to cap future enrichment either. at zero, which is what the Trump. administration wants, or at some low. level so we would have confidence that. they're not going to seek a weapon. The. problem, Brian, is that again, Iran. feels like it has a lot of leverage, it.

feels like it's in a strong position, and there are voices inside Iran that. say now, "Look, we put all these. constraints on our program for Barack. Obama, then Donald Trump pulled out of. the deal. Why should we make an. agreement with America again that gives. away this sovereignty, gives away this. deterrent for us? Maybe we actually need. a nuclear weapon." Now, that is the most. dangerous aspect of all of this is they. may feel incentivized to actually. develop a weapon that they were not. seeking before. >> Right. I mean, the reality is we're not. a good faith negotiating partner because.

Trump has shown that he's willing to rip. up any agreement even if it's just to. put in place the same kind of agreement. or try and strike the same kind of. agreement except this one won't have his. predecessor's name on it. I mean, to. what extent do you think that that. because so much of what the new. negotiation is seeking to do as it. relates to the JCPOA, to what extent do. you think this is just kind of assuaging. Donald Trump's ego? If he's looking for. the same the same.

outcomes from from whatever, you know, agreement he strikes up versus the. JCPOA, then like the only difference is. the guy who's the guy's name at the top. of this thing. >> Right. We used to joke when President. Trump started negotiating with the. Iranians again during this term that all. he wanted really was a TCPOA. It's the. Trump comprehensive plan of action. He. doesn't really care that much about the. details, he'd settle for anything. But. to your point about the United States. revealing itself to be not a very good. negotiating partner twice during this.

Trump administration, the second term, he has launched negotiations with Iran. on its nuclear program, and both times. he has interrupted those negotiations by. attacking Iran. With the 12-day war last. summer, there were negotiations going on. when that started, and again this year. when this war began now more than 100. days ago, there were negotiations. underway in advance of that. So, you. know, you can kind of forgive the. Iranians for having a lot of skepticism. about how serious he is about a deal. that can stick. >> On this point of leverage, how does that.

play in here? Because, you know, the. Iranians don't have midterm elections. coming up, right? They're This is not a. democratic form of government, but the. the the United States does. And so, there are certain political pressures. even in an era where Teflon Don isn't. isn't impacted by anything that happens, there is still political pressure that. exists in the United States. And so, to. what extent are the Iranians able to. leverage the the the usual. liberal democracy political pressures to.

their advantage? >> So, the Iranians are astute observers of. the United States. Many of them have. lived in the United States. Many of. their senior people, they've served at. the United Nations and other places. Some of the people in their government. even attended university in the United. States. So, they understand our. political system. They understand. our election calendar for sure. And they. understand and believe that they can. endure more economic pain, more. political pressure to do a deal than we. can. This is not to say Iran does not.

have politics. Now, remember that before. this war started, there were. demonstrations in the streets of Iran. that were crushed mercilessly by this. regime in a cruel and brutal way. And. President Trump, to his credit, sort of. stood up for the people of Iran. rhetorically and said, "I'm with you. And by the way, I am here for you and. I'm going to come and back you up.". Unfortunately, he then did not do. anything about that protest and that. promise until well after it had already. been crushed by the Iranians. And he. hasn't said much about those. demonstrations ever since. But, the.

Iranian regime does have to worry about. its own economy, does have to worry. about resuming basic economic activity. that's been damaged badly by this war, which which why they are trying to get. sanctions relief. and it looks like they. are succeeding in getting sanctions. relief, and why they are also now. talking about charging some sort of fee. They won't call it a toll because. President Trump has said there can be no. tolls, but some sort of service fee. they'll call it, or you know, like a. resort fee at the bottom of your hotel. bill. uh for ships that want to pass through.

the strait. They're going to try to. monetize that and say that basically. they control it going forward to help. rebuild their economy, and I think. they're going to have some success uh. unfortunately in doing that. >> So, at the end of this, I mean, won't. Iran be in a better a better position. financially than they were even before. all of this started? Because now in. perpetuity they have the ability um to. monetize the Strait of Hormuz, where. prior to this um ships were able to go. through freely, but it didn't cost. anything to do so. >> So, I think the tale of the tape, if.

you're going to kind of assess where. this landed, is you have a harder-line. Iranian government in place, more. anti-American, more against Israel, more. against the West, more dominated by the. IRGC, the Revolutionary Guard Corps that. is the sort of military that protects uh. the Iranian government. So, a worse uh. form of government. You have not yet any. meaningful constraints on the nuclear. program. So, basically a draw on that. issue because nothing has changed. And. yes, Iran now possessing this card and. knowing how to use it, where they can.

hold the entire global economy at risk. if they're unhappy with how things are. going in these negotiations or unhappy. with something else the United States. does, and they have that card to play in. perpetuity. So, I think you can make a. strong case that while the Iranian. regime has suffered a significant blow, many of them during this war, they. ultimately end up strategically in a. better place, uh and we end up. strategically worse off. >> And so, you know, given that that pretty. dire um assessment of what's going on,

how do you think about Donald Trump. basically. uh uh casting off any any questions. about high gas prices here at home or. the impacts the global impacts that the. war with Iran is having because, you. know, he presents himself as being. singularly focused on preventing Iran. from getting a nuclear weapon. Has that. been shown to be successful for him? Does what he's doing right now seem to. be in service of that theory of the. case? >> I guess the question is how successful.

will he be at at essentially pulling the. wool over people's eyes. Because one of. the things that he is claiming now, the. big accomplishment he says that's in. this deal that he struck with the. Iranians is they have agreed they will. never pursue a nuclear weapon, which is, I agree, a good thing. But if you look. at the original Obama-era nuclear deal. that Trump pulled out of, the second. line in this document says that Iran. will never pursue or acquire a nuclear. weapon, and he threw that agreement uh. in the garbage and and, you know, now.

here we are. So, to the extent that he. can convince the people that that's some. great accomplishment, even though. they've said this for a very long time. and it was in the previous deal, maybe. he'll be more successful on the. politics. The The thing that is going to. be hard for him is there are people who. even uh are Republicans who support. President Trump who say that the United. States has lost this war. One thing. President Trump does not want to be seen. as, can't stand being seen as, is is. essentially a loser, and that is the. analysis that even objective people, even supportive people of him, are.

offering about where this currently. stands. >> I mean, even if you just look at it from. from a a pure. number standpoint, Iran will have access. to $300 billion that they wouldn't have. had access to before. Um the the whole. crux of this thing, which is that Iran. won't be able to build a a nuclear. weapon, was already included in the. JCPOA, and also it's not like we haven't. incurred costs. I know the. administration has offered up some, you. know, some what I assume is a very. conservative number of $30 billion.

dollars this war is cost. That was weeks. ago, so I assume we're you know, we're. tens of billions of dollars beyond that, but that's money that could have and. should have gone to the American to the. American people, especially at the hands. of a president who built himself as an. America First president. So, any way you. cut this, I don't see how Trump can do. anything close to resembling a victory. lap when we don't have anything that we. wouldn't have already had under the. JCPOA. had we not engaged in this whole. process. >> In In some ways, what's even worse about.

this is, as I said, there were. negotiations going on before this war. began. There is no reason to believe. that this deal was not available to the. president without going to war, without. putting Americans in harm's way. And by. the way, there was significant loss of. life among American service members. during this conflict, without all of the. economic damage to many of our friends. and partners and allies around the world. and to the United States, without doing. all of that. By the way, drawing down. America's supply of munitions that we. need to deter our adversaries in other. fields. We have now expended a massive.

amount of this to fight a totally. unnecessary war, and the deal that we. will ultimately get is not a good deal, and at least this good a deal, and maybe. better, was available before we even. launched this war in the first place. So, a pretty bad strategic predicament. And when you have when you launch a bad. war. and it does not go well, ultimately your. options are limited, which is why. President is choosing. to do this deal, even though I think he. knows on some level how weak it is. >> Yeah. We'll leave it there. John Finer, thank you so much for taking the time. I. appreciate it.

>> Thanks very much, Brian. >> I'm joined now by historian and author. of the book that I'm sure most people. have heard of, and that is On Tyranny, and the author of the newer book from. 2024, On Freedom, Tim Snyder. Thanks so. much for coming on. I want to start off. with this because, you know, you are one. of the foremost experts on this idea, and so I This is a This is a big. question to begin with, but in your. exploration of of tyranny and. autocracies in other countries, and then. looking to what we have here in the. United States,

to what extent do you think what we have. here in the US right now is salvageable? >> I don't think it's salvageable at all. I. I I think we're beyond the point where. reform or rescue or even healing is the. right way to think about this. I think. if the US is going to make it through. this, what we're going to have to have. is rather something like a new. beginning. I I think just as a like as a. matter of practical politics, there. aren't any reference points in the. recent past which most Americans find. acceptable or interesting. I think the. task after Trump, or rather at late.

Trump, is to define what a better. American America will look like. So, that's that's that's how I I see it. It's not about salvaging something, it's. about a pretty drastic rethinking. >> Okay, so let me let me ask a little bit. of a different iteration on that. question then, because people are going. to be watching the extent to which the. administration attacks um the very. concept of democracy on a daily basis, the extent to which. uh Congress, Republican-led Congress, is. willing to allow him to do that, the.

extent to which uh the Republican-led. judiciary, the Supreme Court, is also. willing to be an active participant in. this whole scheme. And so, to what. extent do you think that democracy in. this country, maybe it looks different. uh in the aftermath of Trump as we were. just talking about, but the very idea of. democracy persisting is salvageable? >> Nope, not at all. Can't persist, has to. be remade. It's So, we are where we are. not just because of Trump, but because. of prior mistakes that we made as a.

people. And Trump has brought to a point. several things that were already wrong. with the United States. And if we're. going to get out of those if we're going. to get out of Trump, we were going to. have to, for example, get money out of. politics, because there's a reason why. Trump's line that everybody is corrupt. and I'm just honest about it. There's a. reason why that works. And the reason. why it works has to be dealt with. Um, if we're going to win this election, it's not going to be by way of. conventional means. It's not just going. to be because, okay, there's going to be.

a normal election, people are going to. show up and vote. If we win in a. meaningful sense, it's going to be. because there's an abnormal, historically speaking, abnormal big. coalition between center-right and. far-left. It's going to be because. there's enough protest potential that. those who want to throw the elections. are going to be deterred from doing so. And to win in the meaningful sense, the. political party that wins, the. Democrats, are going to have to. recognize that they didn't win just. because Trump lost, but they won because. people were angry, and because and and. that that anger has to be transformed. into something positive right away. So,

I don't I'm sorry if I sound pedantic, but I I think any notion of persistence. um is also not helpful, because too much. is already gone. Mentally, psychologically, institutionally, legally, too much is already gone um for. us to be thinking about persisting or. remaining or showing resilience. It has. to be more about a stunning, demoralizing defeat for Trump and the. people around him, and a creative. impulse that pushes us towards something. that's much better than we think could. happen. >> Well, so that's that's basically this.

idea of like accelerationism and just. tearing everything down um so that. something new can be built in its place. I mean, politics for so long has been. focused on the complete opposite, on. incrementalism. It's like, okay, we. can't get Medicare for all, which Obama. has has been, you know, um on record. saying was the initial hope uh for for. um the ACA. Obviously, without enough. support, it kind of devolved into um the. more incremental approach that that it.

that it turned that the ACA, Obamacare, turned into. Um but but this country has. been pretty resistant to to sweeping. changes in kind of the more modern era, um at least until Trump. I mean, it's. been so difficult to get anything done, whether it's Medicare for all, whether. it's uh a more just tax system, big sweeping infrastructure reforms, like it is so difficult to do things in. this country. And so I guess the question is, do you. think that there is an appetite now for.

some of these big sweeping changes that. people have been been angling to see for. so long, but always feel like we just. cannot get done? >> Yeah. I mean, I think the American. population on most of the things that. you're talking about is much more. radical than either of the political. parties. I think if you put the question. the right way, most people, including a. lot of Republicans, are in favor of a. good deal of wealth redistribution. Most. people, including a lot of Republicans, are in favor of rich people paying.

taxes, which is not the current American. policy. Most people, including a lot of. Republicans, are in favor of education. and health care being run by people for. people, rather than being run by. machines for a few individuals to make a. lot of money. And the list is pretty. long. Most people are in favor of decent. public schools and are against vouchers. Like there's a long list of issues where. there's a pretty deep consensus, and. it's not the people, it's not public. opinion, but it's rather the structures. themselves. And so if you are coming out.

of a victory in November, you have to be. at least ready to talk about changing. the structures themselves. And then if. you have a majority in both houses and. the presidency in '28, you know, assuming that we get that far, you have. to be willing to change the structures. themselves, because I agree with you, the structures are not responsive. And. that's very demoralizing. And it's one. of the things that went wrong for the. Biden people, right? Like there some of. their policies were quite ambitious, and. they actually passed some ambitious. stuff, but even when they passed it, the. consequences weren't felt until three or. four or five years later.

>> I mean, that's that's that's like the. the the standard Democratic response to. some of this stuff is like okay, we're. going to implement what we can even on. health care, and we'll make sure that it. that it hits eight years down the road, where it's basically scientifically. engineered so that the party in power. can ever get credit for it. It's not. felt by people and therefore. the work can't continue because because. you know by then the parties have turned. over and you have you know Trump that's. run roughshod over everything. >> I mean my like back at back in the day.

these are now old these are now old. references but. when Obama won and the Democrats had. both houses I thought on day one they. should pass a law saying we are going to. offer health care for Americans on the. model of the health care that people in. Congress have. End of story right? Like how could that. be resisted? And and if they had done that I think. they would have you know it'd be over. but instead we had debates and we gave. the other side a chance and so I want to.

pause on one point which is that a lot. of this is about power and not expecting. history to go your way. So you know the thing where Obama. paraphrases you know was it Martin. Luther King? The idea that his like arc. of history is long but it bends toward. justice. 100% not true history does not. have a single arc and it doesn't bend. and justice is justice is something that. you fight for. I mean not that Martin. Luther King didn't know that or do it. but it's but the notion that history is. somehow on your side and that if you can. just somehow correct the parameters a.

little bit then the juices of history. will flow the right way. The Democrats. have got to get out of that. That's just. not the way things work. One of the. things they have to learn from Trump is. that power matters and when you have the. levers of power you have to use them in. the short term in the time that you have. and to pick up one of your points they. have to be more aggressive about using. government agencies and about making. government agencies work faster. There's a way that Obama and Biden fell. in love with the procedures themselves. and like praised themselves for.

following all the procedures but like. the procedures are actually there to get. things done and not to prevent things. from from from getting done. Third thing. um. there has to be coming out of November, there has to be a trajectory which. indicates that transformative action is. possible. And I think that begins. practically with investigation and. prosecution of some of the very soft. target corrupt people around the. President of the United States. Because. if you do that, you're showing that you. actually care, that you that you're. capable of some form of directed action,

but also you're bringing closer to the. center of the conversation issues like. corruption and bribery and wealth. inequality. Which when you have real. power, you can then pursue. But if you. don't have some kind of thing that. you're planning to do right after. January with your majority, that sim-. that signals that you're different, that. you're not corrupt, that you aren't just. controlled like the other party is, um. then you're going to have trouble down. the line. >> You know, I I um I have a book coming. out in about a month called The Day. After. And in that book, it's it's all. about this idea of power and how. Republicans have abused it, how.

Democrats have been too afraid to wield. it, and finally what Democrats can and. must do if they're fortunate enough to. get power back. But one theme that I. talk about is that exact idea of. Democrats are in power and there seems. to be this automatic deference paid to. the institutions and not to the. outcomes. And so, there's this focus on, okay, well, we're here in, you know, in. government and so now we have to pay. homage constantly to the filibuster and. the parliamentarian and uh norms and and.

and processes as opposed to just saying, these things are there in theory to. actually um to actually achieve some. outcomes, but but that gets lost. Like. we we lose the forest for the trees at. some point in the process and it and it. just becomes, well, now we have to. defend the filibuster because without. the filibuster, all hell will break. loose. And if that means we can't get. anything done on the governing side, so. be it, so long as our precious. filibuster is still intact. >> Yeah. I mean, I I there's a. there's a structural explanation for.

this, which I'm going to give a like out. of empathy, um but also cuz I think it's. true. A comparison would be the '20s and '30s. in Germany. and the Social Democratic Party in. Germany, which was a bit like our. Democrats. Like the Social Democratic. Party in principle was about the future, but because of the existence of the. Nazis, they had to defend the status. quo, right? And so then they get caught. in this position where, "Hey, in. principle we'd like to make the future. better, but for the time being we've got. to defend things exactly the way they.

are because look there are the Nazis, right?" And I just want to say that's a. psychologically understandable position. to be in. And that, you know, to put it in right, like that's the. position our Democrats have been in. since Tea Party basically, where the. Republicans have got them trapped. because the Republicans say, "Hey, we're. radical. We could like throw the baby. out with the bathwater any day now." And. so it's your job to protect the. bathwater, right? And so then the. Democrats the Democrats buy this and. they say, "Okay, the Republicans could. destroy everything. It's our job to. protect the bathwater the whole time.".

And that's kind of comfortable because. you feel like you're doing the right. thing, you know, the procedures, the. status quo, da da da. But before you. know it you're in a rut and you've. forgotten that you were supposed to be. the party of the future. And so now. we've reached a critical point where you. can't say, "I'm defending the status. quo." Cuz nobody believes in the status. quo. The status quo is dead, right? Nobody believes in it. And so you can't, you know, you some of the Democratic. Party is not where I am on this. obviously, but you can't say that. because everybody will hate you if you. do. And so you have no choice but to. jump over your own shadow and say, "All.

right, we're the party of the future. again. We're going to do radical stuff.". >> You know, you had described a lot of. these um popular policy positions, taxing the wealthy, um making sure that. healthcare is actually affordable. Um. you know, the the list goes on and on of. what Americans would like to see. And it. strikes me that a lot of these. positions, if not most or all of these. positions, are positions that Democrats. have historically espoused. Like it is. not popular to heap, you know, tens of. tens of billions of dollars every year.

in in subsidies to fossil fuel. companies. It's not popular to deny the. existence of climate change. It's not. popular to strip healthcare away from. people, to strip food assistance away. from people, to gut public education. And yet those are the things that they. do constantly. And so it would lend. itself to reason that when you have one. party espousing these egregiously. unpopular policies and the other side. who is on, you know, the other side of. that issue, that the. the default position would be that more. people would flock to Democrats. And so. is it just a testament to the rank.

incompetence of the Democratic Party. that even when all of these issues are. on their side, they can't seem to have. to win elections and and to find. themselves in the majority in any. part of government right now? >> Um so again, I'm going to be a little. I'm going to be a little empathetic. because we don't live in a country where. um this the playing field is level, right? So the the the media playing. field, in my view anyway, is wildly.

right-wing in a way that distorts these. conversations in a fundamental way. And so the. the notion that we should have that that. we all have that we should have better. healthcare, people agree with that. But. if I say healthcare is a right, so much. ideological work has been done for so. long across so many popular media. channels that that position is going to. bump up against a lot of resistance. It. shouldn't, in my view, like healthcare. is a clearly a right. Um and we could. start from there. So they but the. the the media playing field isn't level.

and the wealth playing field is also not. level. That it's so there there are. entrenched interests who are working for. the things like, you know, fossil fuels is a classic example. It's. one of the wildest things that one can. do to invest in fossil fuels right now. because it's going to literally destroy. the. the basics of the world that we take for. granted. >> Yeah. >> And yet we're doing it, but largely. because there's a lot of money to be. made there and and our politics, and. this is where I want to land, it cuz it's an issue that everybody. agrees on that really has to be done.

Our politics is not insulated from. money. It's just not. I mean, like from. Canada, where I'm sitting now, or from. Europe, or from other democracies, it's. just bizarre the degree to which money. penetrates our politics. And so, what I where I would where I would land. is to say, if we had the dark money out of. politics, if our campaigns were public. financed and so on, I think the party. that's called the Democrats would win. everything because your argument would. then hold. But that's not the system. that we're we're living in. And so, the.

Democrats have to bite the bullet, and. some of them are thinking along these. lines, and say, if we ever have power, we're going to get the money out of. politics, even though it'll make our. lives a little more complicated, too. We're just going to do it. We're going. to be the party that leads that, right? Because if you don't do that, it it. ultimate ultimately things are going to. get clogged up cuz it's not just. bureaucracy, it's also special. interests, it's well-funded campaigns, it's big companies that are holding. things back. >> We we have seen instances where. Democrats have tried to. practice good governance in the past. I.

I think in that instance, it's important. not just to try and lead by example, but. to make sure that it applies to. everybody because, for example, as we. look at redistricting and. gerrymandering, we have these democratic. weapons, so to speak, of California, of. of New York, where these independent. redistricting commissions are in place, and yet because it's not a national. standard, um it's allowed the Republicans to gain. a huge edge on on blue states because. while we're practicing good governance.

and making sure that everybody has fair. districts in all of these places where. we could garner a lot of a huge. advantage, instead you look at places. like Texas that just has gerrymandered. maps on top of gerrymandered maps. You. look at places like Florida, again, same. deal, gerrymandered maps on top of. gerrymandered maps. And so, in these. instances where Democrats do try to. practice good governance, I think that. the fatal flaw that they um incur here. is that they do it by thinking, "If we. just do it ourselves, we'll set a good. example, and we'll be rewarded by the.

people for that." Not recognizing that. when you put yourself at that. disadvantage, this disadvantage in and. of itself is going to be crippling for. you. You're not going to win because the. other party is not going to be. interested in playing by the rules, and. they're going to take They're going to. squeeze every benefit they can out of. that asymmetry. >> So, I want to push this in a slightly. different direction because while I. agree with you about all of that, and I would add the point that.

there's been a lack of long-term. thinking. The factors you're talking. about have to do with Republican control. of state Republican control of state. houses, which was a long-term project. which they successfully implemented. The. Republicans understood the necessary the. necessity of appreciating our the. federal character of our system, and. they invested intellectual and financial. resources in getting hold of state. houses, and state houses control. elections, not just state elections, right? And so, that That was a project. of theirs which was not seen and not and. not and not answered. So, I would add. that to the list of of of grievances or.

problems. That said, I want to I want to. add that. um the Democrats are who they are right. now, and I don't expect them to change. without people. inviting them to change, right? So, I. mean, I look I look forward to your. book, but the it's it's it's a matter. not just of showing like their internal. contradictions and their and their. weaknesses. It's a matter of pushing. them. And I think the elections in.

November, if they're going to work out, have to be a matter of people pushing. the Democrats towards more radical. positions. Um the That's where I think. the the thing hangs because if they they. win in November and they say, "Oh, we. won. That's because everything we've. done so far has been okay and now we'll. make a few gestures about. affordability." Then I think we're. really in trouble. Like that's the thing. that I fear the most because then the. Democratic Party fails to function and. we don't have any viable political. parties. So, I think the thing that we. have to think about in November is not.

are the Democrats going to win? In my. view, they're going to win. What we have. to think about is. what they do with that victory and. whether they take drastic radical steps. afterwards which will tell people they. have in mind something significant that. they're going to do down down the road. And what I'm trying to say is we can't. we're not going to get them there just. by debating. They they have to be gotten there by um. massive voter turnout, by. demonstrations, by other organizations.

who are making these arguments. They're. being who they are in in in June 2026, they're not going to get there on their. own. >> I I I completely agree and I think um I. think A, this moment right here is the. moment to have. have that argument, to let them know so. that we don't waste time doing what I. think would be the would be the the. default reaction which is, "Okay, now. that we have power, we can start doing. commissions. We can start really giving. this a good think. We can try and. convince ourselves by having, you know, all of our teams go out and do and do. their meetings and come back in 6 to 8.

months with their findings and decide. whether we want to implement something.". I feel like that's the default position. for a lot of Democrats and I think that. you're exactly right by focusing on this. stuff now so that if and when we get. power again, we don't waste any valuable. precious time dawdling over it and and. talking about it but rather just doing. it is going to be. uh it is is going to be um crucial here. >> I'm going to I'm going to add criminal. prosecution. So, >> Yes. And and I'm I'm glad you said that. and I and I'm I'm sorry to interrupt but.

that's actually a great point and I. wanted to jump in on this. And I want to. get your opinion. I'm going to I'm I'm. to ask a general general question here. and then and then you you you can add on. to this but. a lot of what we saw. in the aftermath of Trump 1.0 was a. return to normalcy. I think we can all. agree that that didn't I mean it. objectively didn't work. Like we we are. not more normal. There was not some. yearning long-standing desire. to to just go back to the status quo. We also watched as Merrick Garland sat.

on his hands for most of the the Biden. administration as opposed to. aggressively prosecuting the misconduct. from Trump 1.0 and offering something of. a. deterrent effect. And so. do you think that had Merrick Garland. moved quickly and aggressively to take. on Trump that we would be in the. position that we're in today? And then. just more broadly I just want to hear. your your thoughts on the idea of of. prosecuting misconduct and corruption as. we move forward from what we're seeing. right now.

>> Uh so short answer. Yeah yes. I mean the. there are two there are two kinds of. conclusions one can draw from the last. from those four years. One is that you. shouldn't try to prosecute cuz it's too. complicated, you know, and and and and. people don't like it per se. And the. other is that you should do it and you. should just be more determined about it. And I'm definitely in the second camp. I. So if you are here's where I think they. went wrong at a theoretical level. If. you're going to say, "Okay, we're the good guys in the sense that.

we're the defenders of the rule of law. and the Constitution. And the. Republicans are the wild and crazy. people." If that's your position, then. you damn well better defend the rule of. law and the Constitution when you got a. chance. You can't be if you're going to. you can't then compromise on that, right? Like if if that's your fallback, that's your bullwark, that's where you. are, then you've got to hold tight to. that and not just be like, "Oh well, you. know, things will things will work themselves. out.". >> Otherwise you just look weak. >> Yeah, but also you you make things you.

make things worse. I mean, you make. things It's not neutral. You're making. you're you're participating in the. >> Trump Trump looked at that and got. emboldened by virtue of the fact that he. was not uh he was not held to account. I. mean, there's no doubt that the. lawlessness is is multiples levels. higher in Trump 2.0 than it was in 1.0. And and I'm in the same camp as you. Had. action been taken to to hold these. people to account um in Trump 1.0, we. wouldn't be here. He wouldn't think, "Oh, if if my opponent is this unwilling.

to hold me to account for what I did the. first time, sky's the limit.". >> Yeah, it's more than that, though, because since he wasn't prosecuted and. convicted, he could raise tons of money. Since he wasn't prosecuted and. convicted, his whole story His whole. story is like, "I'm an outlaw. The rules. don't apply to me." Right? Oh, well, looks like his story's true because. nobody made the rules apply to him in. any meaningful. way. But I'm going to I'm going to add. something from outside the US here, which I think is very important. We We do know that these democratic.

small d democratic comebacks are. possible. But in in the recent cases where they. have succeeded, Poland in '23, Hungary. in '26, the person running the campaign. said, "I'm going to prosecute the people. who have broken the law." And that's a. very important message for two reasons. The first is that it communicates to. people that you're not in law law land, that you actually are going to dig into. stuff, right? But the second reason is.

that it deters people from committing. more crimes, which is relevant in the US. now because whether or not we have a. decent election in November depends. partly on whether people think it's. going to be safe for them to do criminal. things on Trump's behalf. And if you're. talking about prosecuting, you're giving. a rea- you're giving people a reason not. to take part in criminal conspiracies to. overthrow the elections in November. 2026. So, that legal language is there. not just out of principle and not just. to change, you know, the current.

practice of the country, but it also has. to be there to deter things from. happening that could otherwise happen. >> Yeah, I think that's an excellent point. Um look, I know that you are a historian. and your job is to is is to. make sense of of how history kind of. informs the present. And so, not. necessarily your job to make predictions. about the future, but in so far as. you're comfortable making a prediction, what do you think America looks like in. late January of 2029 based on the. trajectory that we're on right now?

>> Um so, about I mean, just about. predictions, I think historians can be. invited to make them as much as anyone. else since like everybody else seems to. be wrong all the time about everything. There's nothing wrong I mean, right? Like. think Try to think quickly of a. political scientist being right about. something about the future or, you know, like anybody. Um So, it. What I would I mean, I don't mean to. dodge, but. what I think is that we are heading. towards an axial moment, which is.

November. And that for with the critical thing is. do the Democrats win with a big. coalition and are they ready to act. afterwards? If that's the case, I think. there's a pretty decent chance the. American Republic survives and. and that there's a decent and we'll have. a more or less normal election in '28. and we'll get a decent president. But, if if the Democrats win and they don't.

have an aggressive agenda. and they discredit themselves, you know, before they even take power in January, which is all entirely possible, then I. think we're in a very bad situation. because no matter how unpopular Trump. is, if people think, "Well, he's you. know, he's terrible, but the other side. are completely ineffectual, you know, they just won power, but they didn't do. anything." Um if the Democrats don't do. the things they can do, and this by the. way is why investigation and corruption. are low-hanging fruit, because you can. seem to be doing something about.

something people care about, right? So, you go after people who are making money. because of Trump. Sure, Trump can pardon. them or whatever, or he can veto your. legislation, but that just identifies. him with the corruption. It creates some. daylight between you and him on the. corruption issue, which is what you. want. So, the Democrats have to go after. the low-hanging fruit. They have to do. aggressive, obvious things. Um they have. to announce they're going to do them. Like it the day after the election. If. we go that way, then I think we're going. to be okay. But if we go the other way, where the Democrats states we've been. talking about say, "Okay, we won. Forces. of history are on our side. Now we're.

just going to like kind of wait till. January. We're going to pretend. everything's normal." Then I think we. then I don't I'm my negative scenario is. that then the US becomes dysfunctional. Like I'm more worried about the. dysfunctionality of the republic than I. am about Trump succeeding in some kind. of plot to make the whole country. authoritarian. That's what he would. like, but what I worry about is that if. we have Trump levels of dysfunctionality. continuing. um and no effective resistance inside. Washington D.C., we'll be in a different.

national conversation, which will be. more about why am I paying taxes at all. for this. Why am I involved at all in. this? That's the That's my negative. scenario for 2027, 2028 is that. Americans like Trump keeps doing worse. things. He He does things that don't. work. He tries to use the military in. politics. It doesn't work, but the the. fact that it doesn't work doesn't mean. that people. like America more. They just kind of. throw up their hands and say, "Well, okay. Why are we in this thing, right?". That's That's what I worry about. That's.

my negative scenario. >> Yeah, I think the when we see mass. disillusionment, kind of along the lines. that we saw in 2028 and beyond, when we. see this kind of mass disillusionment, I. think the parties that that are going to. lean into that are parties that exhibit. autocratic behavior. And that's And you. know, the fact that Trump won again in. an era of such disillusionment already. is a testament to exactly that. I want. to finish off with one question. international and you had mentioned. Hungary in in this year. Was that a. surprising development for you to see.

and how unorthodox in a historical. context is watching an illiberal state. like Hungary was. turn into well, what I presume will be a. much more liberal democracy? >> I want to remark before answering that. question that it's not just a comparison. that Hungary and the US. overlap. Like there's a reason why. Trump and Trump Jr. and Vance etc.

all wrote love letters to Orban or in. Vance's case actually went to Budapest. and told Hungarians that God needed them. to vote for Orban. There's a reason why they did that and. that is because they all belong to a. transnational network of the far right. which shares money and memes. It's. mostly Russian money which was filtered. through Hungary and now that's going to. stop. But I I make this point because we. I think we.

fail often to see how cosmopolitan or. how international the far right is. That. the stuff that Trump is doing none of. almost none of it's original. It's. mostly laundered Orban stuff or or some. of it's laundered Putin stuff. None of. it's original and like in that sense. these guys are. they're not like they're they're not. American in that sense. Like they they. believe that they belong to a kind of. international oligarchy and that's how. they act and then they pretend that. okay, this is all somehow about American. nationalism or whatever. So I just want. to make that point that a before we get.

to the lessons that Democrats might. draw, we should note that the fact that. Hungary lost that that Orban lost in. Hungary. isn't just it's a sign that democratic. oppositions could work but also it was a. body blow to the Trump people. Like it. was it's for them it was an important. moment marking their own decline. Um and. we should notice that. We should notice. that that was a huge loss from their. point of view of their guy. On the positive side, it's not unusual. It doesn't always happen, but it's not.

unusual for there to be Democratic. comebacks. And it's a very pertinent. question. Um David Schimer wrote a really good. op-ed about this in New York Times about. a year ago now. Um there's there's scholarly literature. on this about how Democratic comebacks. happen. And I think you know, since. we're Americans it can help sometimes to. look back and sort of take a broader. view of this stuff. Democratic comebacks. depend upon number one you have to have. a big coalition from center right to far. left, which means that you've got to get.

along with people who you might not. agree with about everything. And you. have to do it in practice like in. demonstrations, in organizing and stuff, not just in theory. Second you should. that that is what you need. You need. that thing. If you can't have that. thing, so it's like the way these things. work it's center right to far left plus. like some sponsors against for against. foreign oligarchs, native billionaires, and the far right. I mean I put it in a. very primitive way, but like that is the. clash. And you can only win that clash.

if you can hold that coalition together. Second thing is personal politics really. matter. In both Poland and Hungary, the. guy who ended up winning the campaign. spent a huge amount of time actually. engaging human beings. So America's a. big country and it's harder, but there's. still a lesson there, which is that if. you go out and actually talk to people, you'll learn stuff and you'll learn how. to talk to people in a way that maybe. not all of our. our leading Democrats have. And the. final thing is you have to have a strong.

message and stick to it it as the leader. of the coalition of the political party. It doesn't matter even so much exactly. what the message is, but you have to not. be boxed in as the opposition. You have. to have your own affirmative message, and that affirmative message tends to. involve how we're going to prosecute. people. It tends to involve like a. willingness to assert that you're going. to use power when you when you get power. because people respect that and listen. to it. Like being against is not enough.

In order for that coalition to actually. get across the finish line, there has to. be somebody who at the end of the day. says, "I am positively going to do these. things, and it's going to have costs for. the other side when I do these things.". >> Tim, for those who are looking to follow. your work, where can they go? >> Um well, there are a whole bunch of. history books, um but we're and you. know, Bloodlands and Black Earth and. Road to Unfreedom, um you kindly. mentioned On Tyranny, On Freed um my. philosophy book On Freedom is my. positive vision of where the United. States can go.

Most of my writing um about day-to-day. stuff is on my Substack. So, that's. where you can find me. >> Great. Well, I'm going to link that. right here on the screen and also in the. post description. For those who are. listening on the podcast, I'm going to. put it in the show notes. Thank you so. much for the work you do and uh and for. taking the time with me today. >> It's been great. Thanks for having me. >> To listen to the audio version of this. episode, click the link right here on. the screen and make sure to subscribe. And of course, to see more video. content, that subscribe button's on the. screen as well. >> [music].