Tucker Carlson and Russ Vought Break Down DOGE and All of Trump’s Cabinet Picks So Far

So you ran OMB. before and you don't have to comment. on this. It sounds like you are very. likely to run OMB again. Tell us what OMB is. for those who aren't from. Washington, what. it does and what you would do with. it. So OMB is the nerve center of. the federal government, particularly. the executive branch. So it has the ability to turn on. and off any spending within. the. Office of Management and Budget. Office of Management and Budget has. the ability to turn off the spending.

that's going on at the agencies. It has all the regulations. coming through it to assess whether. it's good or bad or too. expensive or could be done in a. different way, or what does the. president think? And then all of government. execution. So any time you have. cabinet executive branches. conflicting with each other are. working together on something. For instance, you know, the wall. president wanted to fund the wall. We at OMB gave him a plan. to be able to go and fund the wall. through money that was the.

Department of Defense. And to use that because Congress. wouldn't give him the ordinary. money at the Department of Homeland. Security. So it really. Is presidents use OMB. to tame the bureaucracy, the administrative state.

It was really pioneered honestly. by FDR. And then President Nixon also. was really learning from FDR. and how to use it to tame the. bureaucracy. And we would have seen. did he. Create the office? Roosevelt The office. Was formerly the bureau the budget. for the last hundred years, right. And then Nixon. renamed it Office of Management and. Budget. And.

it becomes kind of more of a. statutory thing reporting. directly to the president no longer. within Treasury. And so since then, you've had it. still they're still really. important, viewed by. the country largely as a budget. cutting exercise. But it is it is. The president's most important tool. to dealing with the bureaucracy, administrative state. And, you know, the nice thing. about President Trump is he knows. that and he knows how to use it.

effectively. See, you can't get. any of your domestic policy done. with that. OMB, it sounds like. No, you you will be in a situation. where you will have at best. really awesome cabinet secretaries. who are dealing on sitting. on top of massive bureaucracies. that largely don't do. what they tell them to do. And you have to have statutory. tools at your disposal that. force that bureaucracy from the. White House to get in line. And that is really the main.

thing that OMB can accomplish, in addition to what everyone would. think of from a budget office, which. is, know, you cut spending, you. figure out how to deal with your. fiscal finances and all of that. You're making me anxious. I mean, I can't handle a disobedient. dog. I can't imagine what. a disobedient federal agency looks. like. How how resistant are they. to democracy? They're incredibly resistant. I mean, think about Ukraine. And the president in that first term.

wanted to cut off funding. for Ukraine. Why? Because it's a corrupt country and. we didn't know how it was going to. be spent. It's totally normal. policy process to go through that. the people lost their minds about, but the bureaucracy was literally. just ignoring it. And quite frankly, his political appointees, like John. Bolton, were ignoring him as. well. And what we then did. at OMB was I had been. personally told, look, you know, I. want the money cut off until we can. figure out where it's going. And we got the money off and.

it was like all hell broke loose. within the bureaucracy. He got impeached. Yeah. And so. It did. Yeah. And so you have the ability at that. point to bring them to come to heal. and to do what the president has. been telling them to do. And we can do that in foreign aid. We can do that, all sorts of things. But it's kind of crazy if I mean, everything you're saying I'm. familiar with. But if you think. about it, that's the end of democracy, because. the only authority in the executive. branch comes from the president. The vice president also elected,

but it comes from voters as. expressed through elections. So bureaucrats in the federal. agency, appointees in the federal. agency have no authority. to act independently. That under our Constitution, do. they. Know and this is really the. left has innovated over 100. years to create this fourth branch. of an administrative state. I but you and I might call it the. regime, this administrative state. that. Is. Totally unaccountable to. the president that lets. it move in the direction that it has.

been going. But the president is accountable to. voters or members of Congress. And the system is. designed that way. That's why we say it's. a democracy or a constitutional. republic, because the voters. convey bestow the. authority on their leaders. And so this seems not. only illegal their behavior, but. unconstitutional. I mean, at the most basic level, unconstitutional now totally. unconstitutional. And if you would have seen Woodrow. Wilson bemoan our constitutional.

system, he would have wanted. constitutional amendments. The left stop talking about. constitutional amendments because. they innovated to this new fourth. branch, which is totally. different than anything the founders. would have ever understood. The notion of independent agencies. that think of and in Congress. is designed them to be divorced from. the president. But even the notion of like. This is this is. We're supposed to be technocrats and. experts and we don't have to listen. to what you what you say we work. for. And I like this, Tucker.

People would say, well, we. We work for the office of. the president. What what is that? That it's a win. Where does it get its authority? They get their authority. They have essentially taken. authority. They have no legitimate authority. Have no legitimate authority in the. Constitution. But they are part of this this. fourth branch that I still. believe reports in in. large measure to congressional. leadership and in. the K Street interests.

Right. You have very powerful. interests that direct them. To keep going in the direction that. they want them to go. It's why these bills are written in. such a way that they are anything. you could read, anything into them. Right. When Nancy Pelosi. says we're going to find out what. the bill says. She wasn't actually being. inaccurate. That's their strategy. They passed bills and then they. let the experts fill them in. But over the phone, they put massive. pressure on them to go along.

with their their directions. and their ends. And lo and behold, you. get conservatives, Republicans that. take office, and then you find. that it's incredibly difficult. to wield power, to get them to. deal with all of that muscle memory, to get them to do what you want. And so you've got to have statutory. authority that a president kind of. steps in and says, I am fully. aware of where I sit in the. Constitution. I am fully aware of the tools at my. disposal, and I'm. going to use them on behalf of the.

American people because I just want. a massive agenda setting. election and I'm going to go do what. I said I would do. That's democracy, correct? That is democracy. That is not oligarchy. And when they say we're going to. preserve democracy, we know that. they have been meaning all they they. want to do is preserve their kind of. amorphous oligarchy, administrative. deep state. I don't think that's an. overstatement at all. I mean, I just think I don't even. see the kind of argument against. what you just said. So let's just. if you don't mind walking us through.

what happened in the example that. you gave Ukraine. So you just said the president. comes into office in 2017. and says, why are we saying all this. money to Ukraine? Where's it going? There's no audit. We don't know. It's the most corrupt country in. Europe, one of the most corrupt in. the world. Maybe we should find out. We don't know. Okay. We're cutting off. Don't we know? I think that's what you said. And then the agencies like now. we're going to continue to fund. Ukraine. How do they do that? They ignore the president. in there and in officials.

ignore the president. And I think one of the things you'll. see in this this next Trump. term is policy. officials, his political appointees. that are not looking to get. out of what he has clearly told them. to do. Right. So let's let's assume. that issue is solved. But at the bureaucratic the issue. I think what you're saying is let's. assume that he appoints people who. agree with him and will do what he. asks. Correct. Okay. So, for instance, my staff. was part of the what we call the. policy process, right? Where you would go and.

you defend that and. you would articulate what you're. trying to accomplish. And we had put the hold on the. Ukraine funding. And my guy goes to the. the all of these meetings and he's. like literally the only one in the. room that wants to do what the. president has asked him to do. Everyone's kind of just ganging up. on him. And that. Is. The think of that often for. all of our political appointees. They are surrounded by people. that have no idea. about what the reasons.

and the agenda that the president. has been put in office. And they're just bombarded with. reasons of how can you do this? What are you thinking? Did you know that this is you can't. do this most of the time? That's not true. And so you have to cut through. all of that. and to have the courage of your. convictions. And quite frankly, Tucker, the know how to know, to have read the law, to. get in the granular details. yourselves, to not be staffed. by your inner ear and people. working for you, you this. notion that you can just come in and.

preside is not true. You have to you have to be in. the weeds and to. drive these agencies to be. able to fix where we have, you know, the undergrowth and the. muscle memory that we've had for. decades. So why can't you just. So if the president says again to. refer to your example, I don't think we should be funding. Ukraine. I'm elected. We're going to cut this off. If Congress wants to fund Ukraine, they can go ahead and do that. But the agencies are not going to. fund Ukraine. So.

Why wouldn't you just fire the. people who disobey who who. try to subvert democracy? You've got to know how to fire them. And there are tools to do that. And the president was was innovating. in that space himself with what's. called schedule F. of essentially saying, if you work. for me in your policy, a career officials think you're. attorneys who are writing. regulations, then we're going to. create a new classification for you. And you are you are going to be what. most of the country is, which is at. will employee.

That's where we were headed. But there was also ways. That I don't understand a system. where a president, any President. Obama, Biden, Donald Trump comes in and doesn't. have control of. the executive branch because. constitutionally he does have so. severely. How come you can't fire them? Why is that just not as simple as. saying you're fired? It should be. And this is one of the. the the mountains. of the administrative state. You know, this is that this is how. they have built their their.

their institution by essentially. having. to be incredibly difficult to hire. and fire employees. And so I'll get another example. When the president decided to take. money from defense to build the. wall, we had clear. legal grounds to do it that Congress. had given us. It's called transfer authority. And I told this to the Hill. and obviously this was. controversial. It shouldn't have. been controversial. Congress had given us very clear. transfer authority. I must have had.

At least. Three times someone relitigate that. decision from the career staff. who work at OMB. Are you sure? Are you sure? I think we should oppose. I think this move, guys, the decision has been made. Execute the decision. And you see that everywhere, right? And if you don't. if you don't drive it, you're. going to get better. You're not. going to be able to accomplish. what the president needs you to. How about if he were just to start. the meeting with any. Okay, this is. how democracy works.

The people elect a leader. He carries out their will. Anyone standing in the way of that. is subverting democracy. We will not allow that. Anyone who does that is fired. instantly. Could you do that and. just say you're fired for. unconstitutional behavior? You can do that. Increasingly, when you move towards. a schedule F system, and. then there are other tools in the. toolbox. But under the current system, what. would happen if you tried that, if. you lost lawsuits? Lawsuits? Yeah. But if you fire them all. Look, you've got a lot of tools on.

the table. And it's just so infuriating. Look, it is one of the most. infuriating things that you could. possibly imagine. But I think that the good. news and this is I think the good. news, not just in hiring, firing. the good news at large. is that most of the. time they have been able to get. as far as they can because of just. It is the. Way it is. It's precedent. and laws that are. not drafted precisely, but purposely vague.

And as a result, we can then. do it in reverse. You can have a president who steps. in and says, you know what? There's no constitutional amendment. for me to take control of the. administrative state. I'm going to do in reverse. everything that you have done. And I think that is the great hope. What you need is people who are. able to absorb. political heat. They don't have a fear of conflict. They can execute under withering. enemy fire. They are up to speed and they are no. nonsense in their own ability.

to know what must be done. And they are unbelievably. committed to the president and his. agenda and believe and. truly believe in their bones. that they're not there for their own. agenda. They're there for what. President Trump was elected. to do. And so his commander's intent. matters a great deal. And that's the view that I always. had. Tucker, how do I get in the. minds of the president to think. through what is he trying to. accomplish? And then I'm going to go figure out. how to do it.

Yeah, because once again, he is the. authority and no one else does. because only he was elected. And I just I'm fixated on. this question of like where to. career bureaucrats think they derive. the authority to make these. decisions, like who made them God? I think it's very. No one ever asked that question in. DC or considered a freak if you do. But I think it's a key question. So one of the problems that you had. last time was the media. Explain how that works, how the. media works in conjunction with the. permanent state and the Congress to. thwart the president. Well, I think, number one, they.

are always. framing narratives in messages. that both are lies. and are also designed to. destabilize the Republicans. in control who. want to be for however, that. narrative is being framed. You used one already with democracy, right? If you're not aware that when they. say democracy, they mean oligarchy, You're like, I don't want to be. anti-democratic. That's the whole point is preserving. democracy is what we just did.

You know, if you. If you have a plan to deal with. the administrative state and then. they frame it as authoritarian, you don't want to cast of your own. allies saying, I don't want to be. anti-authoritarian. We saw this in Covid right where. We. Live. They decided if they define. something as anti-science. or anti public health, it causes. our political appointees to just. completely wilt. Right. And so that's I think the. beauty of President Trump is he's. kind of immune to these. these media generated.

narratives that conflict with common. sense reality. that I think is the main one, because that's that is there that is. controlling the skies from a. military standpoint. Right? Like that is their ability to. to to shape the conversation. in such a way that it makes it very. hard. Number two, they're obviously working in. conjunction with with leakers. and individuals. with know how to know, you know, when a hold has been put on Ukraine.

to be able to send. that and have it explode in. the public arena. And so you have to you have to be. prevent leaks. You have to govern. well from the get go to. be able to manage all of that as. best you possibly can. And but I also think there's an. opportunity there because they will. they will they will report on. conflict. They will report on. confrontation. And when you when. they do that, you can get the word. out as to what you're doing. At least you can get the word out on.

on shows like this and in. the new and developing ecosystem. Well, that's kind of it right there. I mean, that was the basis of my. question. I do think things have. changed, right? I mean, if you still. care with The New York Times, The. Washington Post, say, or. ten, Delaney told NBC News. like, I hope you're not working. there. Right, right, right. Do you think anybody still cares. what they think now? And the whole ball. game has shifted, right? Like, I don't even know why you. would do many of these interviews. at all because if you can't get.

you know, you've got to be able to. get your words out without. just complete combativeness. And I think the best example. is remember the Kaitlan Collins. interview with President Trump? I mean, it just constant. interrupting and. misuse of, you know, lies, actually. Right. And so, like, that's the kind. of thing that you're up against. But you. Can shape them. You can. Particularly the print media.

And I think there are you know, I. think it's important to at. least attempt to do that. But you have to make the measure. of the person that you're dealing. with. And sometimes they're just you. know, they're they're complete. activists themselves. You remember when Democrats used to. refer to abortion as something that. should be safe, legal and. rare? Well, they've changed their. view on that. It went from a right to a sacrament. This isn't the pro-choice movement. you may remember, from 30 years ago. This is something much darker.

And that's why we have joined forces. with Preborn. They're a sponsor of the show and of. our speaking tour to do something. about. It's the largest pro-life. organization in the United States, and they are doing what they should. do, which is speaking up against. this atrocity. Killing babies after birth. No one seems to have the bravery to. call that wrong, which it is, but Preborn is calling it out. Their networks of clinics are. positioned in the highest abortion. areas in the country, and they've. rescued 300,000 babies.

When a woman considering an abortion. searches to end her baby's life. Preborn is there. The power of ultrasound, combined. with the love of God, doubles. the baby's chances of being born. A single ultrasound cost 28 bucks, five ultrasounds or 140. bucks, giving women. the information they need to make. the decision that many of them. actually want to make. To have a baby, any gift will help, and all gifts. are tax deductible to donate. securely go to preborn.com/tucker.

or call pound to 50 on. your phone and when asked use the. word baby it does seem. I want to ask you what the Intel. agencies it does seem like one. of the main vectors. of control. is briefings and the number. of people I've spoken to Congress. executive branch like, no, no, no, if you only got the briefing, I think I live there too long. I just don't believe the briefing. You know, maybe sometimes they're. accurate, sometimes they're not. But they're almost always designed. to control the person being briefed. Did you see that?

I did. And I very rarely. ever learned anything particularly. interesting to read. Is that true? Yeah. They didn't tell you who killed. Kennedy? They did not. Right. And so, you know, I think I came away with. the similar skepticism of these. briefings and the information. and the overclassification. in the system. Yes. They classify everything. And you're really reading this. thing. You're like, you realize. that's all just normal. stuff that's out in a Congressional. Research Service. Yeah, it's on Twitter. Right. And so, like so.

I think that's a huge thing. We've got to fix overclassification. in system. But I think they. They both. Create this environment where. it's very exclusive. They are trying to bring you. into their kind of priestly role. So that. No, I, I saw the briefing. If you had seen the briefing, you. would you would you would be okay. with us not having a FISA. warrant requirement. Exactly right. You would be okay with us. Just another $100 billion for. Ukraine. Just we just we can't have.

Ukraine fall. That none of it is is is. is is. Rigorous analysis. And honestly, I think that's the. biggest thing that I was. bemoaning is that the extent to. which rigorous analysis. that I thought would be there, wasn't there. What do you mean by rigorous. analysis? I don't expect people to agree. with me constantly. I want and I want to. I want well prepared memos. that that may that have.

a conviction to them. Yes. And then support them. It's not these are not like. I'm going to plant the flag. Yeah. And then we can we can just. say, okay, who's right, Who's that. Who has better supporting. No, no. It's like. I'm going to give the blob an. exercise to report on something. and the blob is going to kind of. like. Org. It's not a Google spreadsheet, but. it's going to all be a, you know, an. interactive Google spreadsheet to. just spit out something that is a. consensus document. And you're reading this thing,

you're like, This makes no real. claims other than to affirm the. narrative that we just talked about. Right. So what's the point other than to. preserve the status quo? At that point, the point is just to. know what the intelligence community. is writing on, because you're not. going to learn anything from it. I talked to someone recently. in the last few days who works in. the. Intel. Community. I see. who was saying that you can see. people who come to Washington for. the first time in high positions and. either branch before and. after their briefings. And they're like different people.

and they they fall for it, like all. of them fall for it. You know, now we're going to tell. you all the things you wondered. about. We're going to tell you the. truth about the presidents, especially Trump, seems, as you said, immune from this. And he's done it before. But this person said you should. see how much they changed. Like deep inside, once. we let you know, lay the bullshit. on them, they just they're not the. same. Have you noticed that? I've seen it. You know, I think part of the. problem and this is endemic of. not just the. I see, but.

are we don't read enough in general. We don't have our own convictions. We don't search for understanding. ourselves. And so you have people go in. and they're like, okay, I kind of. need this career staff to tell me. what to think. I don't want to look. stupid. Right? And so that has killed us. on our side of the aisle, the conservative side, to say. we don't have people that are. driving policy and bringing their. own opinions and their own history. And so they they are. susceptible to.

feeling like that. And they still they. Still believe that these people have. an authoritative stance on. things and they don't have enough. skepticism that, in fact, you know, there's no the emperor. has no clothes. Right. And then that is the and. you've got to bring that. perspective. They're weakened side is what you're. saying. A lot of these. People I do think that's I do think. that's the case. You know and I you know from the. standpoint of I see the other thing. that they would do is they they. would keep you from being briefed.

Right. The briefing we've already discussed. of what the brief. is and sometimes what President. Trump is saying, I don't I'm not. going to necessarily get the brief. right. But. I would find that I wasn't read into. certain things until they needed my. signature. So once they needed some reason. to get my signature, then all of a. sudden I get this brief. Right, is. that's not the way it should be. If you're trying to provide. oversight and accountability, you need you don't know what you.

don't know. And so you have to be. able to be. have the whole entire. landscape of things that you could. That's that's interesting that we. should do something to prevent. trampling like that. And I find that was very restrictive. unless they needed me. And so I basically said, look, I'm. not going to you are not. getting my signature unless you get. me briefed up. And I want I want access. to all of these things that I need. to be able to provide oversight for. the federal government.

And one of the things that we did, Tucker. Is that. But since the rise. of OMB, their ability to turn. funding on and off had. always been done by a career. individual, not a political. appointee. And so we changed that. And it was like that. It was like the world was going to. end. They said, look, you're going. to destroy the agency. You can't you can't. handle the bandwidth. You can't handle the bandwidth. Chaos will be will be.

unmatched. And we changed it. And next thing you know, everything's flown across our desks. That's interesting. You're not doing that. You know, it was just amazing. And if you don't know and have that. thesis that says this. is what must be done. You could be the most incredible. conservative in the world. You could be the most policy. consistent person with the. president. But you don't know how to put your. hand in the glove and. and use that agency. for the president's behalf.

The president's not going to be able. to be well served at that agency. I saw David Ignatius, who was a longtime water. carrier for the CIA. I don't know if they're paying him, but they should be because he does. their bidding and has four decades. At The Washington Post, I heard him. saying yesterday that we can't. have Tulsi Gabbard at. DNI, director of national. intelligence, because it will cause, quote, chaos because. the Intel community doesn't like. her. And basically, he's making the. argument that we should not have. civilian control of these agencies. because the agencies won't like it.

Just say it. That's what you really. mean. Well, I think that's basically what. he's saying. So that's. again, that's dictatorship is what. he's describing. But. he used chaos as. kind of the threat. Okay. But you've been there. If you really did. everything that was needed in. order to root out the corruption. that defines our government, you. will cause some chaos. You would, wouldn't you? You will certainly read in the.

papers like chaos. Right. That's good for you know, as to. what's what. What just is normal. good government behind the scenes, managing, pushing, pushing. through, whatever. I think it can be done very. wisely in and. done in a way that. you know anyone who had a bird's eye. view into that would be able to say. that's exactly what we put this. administration into office. But yeah, you're going to have to. kick over people's paradigms.

You're going to have to kick over. people's turfs. You're going to have to change. people's understanding of things. that they have invested their whole. life into a view of the world. And none of this is their view. of the world and isn't rooted in the. Constitution in some case, in some. cases, any, you know, version of the. facts. But you're going to that's going to. cause a lot of turmoil. within these bureaucracies and. you've got to fight through it. And then you're gonna overlay the. aspect of, my gosh, you guys are. racists. And, you know, you guys. don't care about us as people.

You know, you're gonna have to deal with. that, too. Right. They are. You know, one. of the arguments that they're using. in the press against me right now, as they say, he. He called for trauma within. the bureaucracies. Yeah, I called for trauma with an. Amtrak. Since the bureaucracies. hate the American people. They want to put a 77 year old. and did a 77 year old. Navy veteran in jail for 18 months. for building four ponds on his ranch. to fight wildfires. That's not the Department of. Justice. That's the.

EPA. You go every agency. And it's not just big government. It's weaponized against the country, of course. And so, yeah. We. We I would want to provide. trauma against that bureaucracy. in a way that frees the American. people from the people that have. assumed that. the type of power that the. Constitution and no law, no public. debate ever gave them. Does that mean we dislike everyone. working at federal agencies and want. them to have a bad life? No, of course. There's a lot of people there who. have come to serve and do.

great public service, and we want to. affirm that. And we want to turn over. the bureaucracies that are. traumatizing the American people. Yeah. And the outcomes are terrible. and they're terrible because it's. corrupt. That's why it doesn't. change. And the. D.C. metro area is the richest. in the country and they don't make. anything. So it's just like that's. the most obvious marker for. corruption I can imagine. Tell us about what. Congressional. confirmation hearings are going to. look like for Trump's appointees.

They're going to be. They're going to be. Exhilarating if you have the right. approach. To them. But they'll. You know, they're going to come out. everything we've got right. You know, everything. they've got with with what they. are able to put. someone in the dock and that. individual is going to have to face. the balance of wanting. to defend everything that they have. done in life and. belief. And at the same time,

you're the thing that's a. little hard about is you're you're. no longer yourself, right? You are yourself, But you are also. going to do a job for a person. So what I think about a particular. issue doesn't mean as much. as what the president thinks. That's correct. Something like that. And so it is it is. a different thing than than coming. on and doing an interview about what. your viewpoints on or. I know that's that's exactly it. It's on a cable news set, right? No. So but I, I. think look, I have I've had.

experience. You know, Bernie Sanders went after. me very, very hard in. my first confirmation hearing. as deputy OMB for essentially. believing in John 316. And it was it. was. He hit you? He attacked you on the. basis he said, I just. He certainly said I was a bigot and. I should not serve in the federal. government because of my Christian. faith and believe in something that. essentially comes down to what's. articulated at sports games with. John 316. And that.

Was it knows who's. Who's the bigot. Who is the bigger right. That's the perfect question. It goes back that most. nominees will not go through what I. went through. But I will tell them, you. will get through it. You will get to the other side and. it will be the most freeing thing in. the world. You will come out through. the end of a process like that and. you will. I find it to be at. that point exhilarating because. it prepares you to. take on an enemy fire. What are they going to what are you. afraid of being a bigot, racist,

Christian nationalist, authoritarian. If you if. You are if you are not afraid. of these attacks and you give. them no credence, no credibility, then you think you will be able. to get through these things. You will be able to. convince enough senators and. you'll be able to serve and you'll. be served more effectively. But but the bright. lights and will be on in these. confirmation hearings soon. How much of it is. like theatrical and how much of it.

is real? Like so you go into a. hearing like that, your confirmation. hearing. Do you know the outcome at the. beginning or do you think that votes. really change based on the testimony. of nominees? I don't think most votes change. at all. I think that, you know, you. may have 1 or 2 nominally some. senators that are trying to, you. know, have you answer something to. their satisfaction. or they're trying to get a feel. for you that they haven't otherwise. But I think increasingly in the in. our the partizan world that we. live in, the Democrats.

are voting now. And it's a matter of making sure, you know, you've convinced and. you've brought in the. Few you get. I mean, what's. Interesting got no Democrat votes. But the Republicans are always. voting for the I mean, Lindsey. Graham will vote for any Democrat. So I'm not going to put you in an. uncomfortable situation. But there are plenty of Republican. senators who are liberal Democrats. effectively, and they vote for all. kinds of nominees. But you don't see that on the other. side. You never see that on the other. side. And they have an appreciation. that they have to attack our.

people at every level. because they know that every level. is the stepping stone for. The next level. Exactly right. They say they don't. make us. Ours is just like the. under. Yeah, exactly. You know, they know we are opposed. to that. That guy would be secretary some. Correct. Well you're a progressive for. example, aren't you? Well certainly. the first term right. I become deputy and next thing you. know, mix goes to the chief. of staff. And so I have an. opportunity to serve as deputy as. director. And so. that. Is a.

They understand government and they. understand the career path that. is is opening for people. And they when they sense. it's not always the case, but when. they sense that this is. a committed conservative, there's a partizan line down the. road. For 35 years, Liberty Safe. has been the number one manufacturer. of safes made in this country. American made from start. to finish. They make high quality gun safes. I've got one vault doors, home. safes, handgun vaults, whatever.

you need to protect the things you. value. And again, I can tell you. from personal experience, these guys. know what they're doing. I use. liberty safes for the things that. I don't want stolen, the things that. really matter. My father's shotguns, the documents. that I've got to have and a lot. more. I can tell you what else but. you need one. Crime rates are way. up in a few of anything you would. like to protect that you. need to protect? Liberty. Safety is the way to do. it. Now, Liberty Safe has over 350. dealers nationwide who specialize.

in delivery and installation. and answering any questions you. have. If you've got somebody to. protect, they've got a way to. protect it. Visit Liberty's safe.com. Pick out what you need and be sure. to use the code Tucker at checkout. to let them know that we sent you. They'll take care of the rest. Liberty Safe is a product we. fervently believe in. Liberty. Safety were always. protected. Isn't it the role of Republican. leaders, particularly now, since. Trump won the majority of the. popular vote, overwhelming majority. of electoral votes,

House and Senate, a Republican, majority of statehouses, three. governorships. That's a mandate. So that means that Republican. leaders that you had guys in. the House and Senate should be. helping. Are they going to? I have high hopes that they. that people are seeing what Trump. just accomplished and are. going to be pulling the orders to. get things done as soon as possible. And I think the jury is out. Right. I think. I want to see and I'm hoping to.

see people looking for. ways to move these appointees. through the process. And sounds like they're trying to. do that. We'll see. But. You know, we we have. To do things not based. on how it has been done recently. Like this whole notion of the recess. appointments. Right. We have some people out there who. saying this is unconstitutional is. not the way it was meant to be. It's totally wrong. Right. It is a. Specific provision in the. Constitution to be able to allow.

a president if he does if he. has to stand up an administration. quickly and he's dealing with a. Senate that won't move quickly. enough to be able to install. his people so that he can actually. function as a government. Right. That is specifically. mapped out. And yet you have. So in the Constitution. So it is by definition, not a. constitutional fair. Fair. So yet you. have Republicans. One of them in particular, and. Wieland right now who's attacking. Trump for even mentioning. Who, said Whalen.

He writes one, he's one of the main. kind of legal luminaries. on the right and. ethics in public policy or one of. those think tanks. And he's out there opposing the. whole notion of recess appointments. for. For. For whatever reason. I don't know other than he thinks. that unseemly and not the way the. founders don't. I mean, this is a whole separate. question and it's a broad brush. But in general, conservative think tanks, with some. exceptions, are not conservative.

They're tools of the left and. sort of repositories of broke down. people with no other job prospects. Why would anyone pay attention to. them? I think they should increasingly not. be right. And by the way, there are some good. ones. And I you know, I love. Kevin Roberts and Heritage. And then there are good people in. some think tanks for sure. But in general, it's like the world. of Jonah Goldberg. It's like, who cares what you think. It the only. Matter to the extent that people. in the arena listen to that. Right. And that is increasingly. they're not being listened to. And I think that's part one of the. reasons why they're so arms about.

it. Right. I mean, the National. Review itself is. that's what is Phenomena. National Review, That was a magazine. in the 50s, right? Right. And I think that's but my point. is the extent to which people have. opposed Trump and. the America first agenda, I think, ultimately is a loss of power. because they didn't get to set the. agenda. They don't get to be the. traffic cop. They don't get to kind of say, this. is this offends my sensibility. anymore. And no, if.

you have a radical constitutionalism. and that's really what I've been. calling for, given this. crazy, unconstitutional situation. that we're finding ourselves in, if you have a radical. constitutionalism, it's going to be. destabilizing. You may find that you can use the. James Madison could have put a whole. lot more recess appointments and. then you would have ever imagined. But it's also exhilarating. And why, if you're trying to. preserve the country, would you make. arguments against that? Why wouldn't you be making arguments. for it? So that's one of the reasons. we just put out a five page.

paper. We'll put out a 40 page. paper. Next to this is the. constitutional grounds for recess. appointments of we haven't just. President Trump hasn't decided to do. it, but if he does, he will be. in the same vein as our founders. It's a little weird. And again, you haven't. Well, as of right now, since. November 18th, Trump nominated. No. Yeah, I think it will be. I hope so. But you haven't been. So I don't want put you in an. awkward spot because if. you are you're going to have to deal. with this. But why would Mitch.

McConnell still as Senate. leader of Republicans, why would he say we're not doing. recess appointments. again? I can't I haven't spoken to. Senator McConnell on it. My guess is that the Senate is going. to want to know. the argument. And and they probably have. been told and may. have been told. And I'm going to just keep it as. positive as possible. That. This is inappropriate. You can't do it. And I want to show them. No, In fact, you can.

It is entirely appropriate. And to win the argument. And then if you win the argument and. then people are saying, no, we don't. want to do this, then it's a. different matter. It's like. It. Just kind of reveals that they're. they're not actually on board with. those particular nominees going. into office. And that's a different issue. So I think that we. don't know yet whether that. will the Senate have an issue? I mean, to some extent, the Senate. knows it has an issue because they.

couldn't move these nominees fast. enough in the first term because the. Democrats were filibustering. everyone. Right. And so. And by the way, you know, a lot of. these hearings and you. read the history books and people. got approved by the Senate in their. day, you know, like the. system wasn't meant to be this slow. And it has been bogged down and. slowed down. And we'll see. You know, Senator Thune, Majority. Leader Thune will have a chance. to put his own imprint on the. Senate. And I want to see how he. does.

Yeah, I've got, you know, high expectations, low hopes. Hope I'm wrong. It'd be one thing if the outcome was. positive, if the country was. thriving. You know, you say, okay, this. system's dysfunctional, but you. don't really need a lot of change. right now, so that's fine. But the outcome is not positive at. all. It's total destruction of the. country we grew up in, so we got. to fix it. Why would you want to. enter back into this? Well, you know, I've always said. the last four years I would never. want to miss out on another chance. to be at the president's side. I find in him to.

be someone who's so uniquely. situated for the moment. And you go back and I've done some. reading on this. You go back and read some of the. Federalist Papers, and they. actually designed the system for. someone like him whose. his his interest would. align with the country's interests. to such an extent to. which. it actually works. Like separation of powers is meant. to have strong, opinionated. conviction and leadership.

that go as fast. as they can and hard as they can. in their direction. And for the system. to then have true separation. of powers. Right. An example of that is, is what he's proposing on recess. appointments. If the Constitution. allows you to do it, why wouldn't. you do it if it's in your interest? And then let's see what Congress. does in response to that. But that's real separation of. powers. It's not like this kind of. fake for, you know, fourth. Branch administrative state where.

none of it works and it's all kind. of cartel behind the scene. where all you get is kind of. different parts of each of the. branch coming together. almost as a blob. And I, I. think he's so unique in terms. of being a historical, transformed, transformative person that. we can actually save the country. And that's really what it comes down. to. The hours late, it's 1159. It's not too late, but it's really. late. And this isn't an election.

where you can just have seesaws will. be up and you'll be down. Now we we if we don't wind. in. And we he's won an electoral. mandate, now it's time to actually. execute. If we if we don't. execute. We may never have this chance again. And so you have the president. who's ready to go now. You need know how people who. can do that and do it. with the attacks that are coming. And they will come. Right. They they will come hardest. at the people that.

they believe are the greatest. threats. And but but that's. what the president needs. The president needs those types of. people or he's not going to be. successful and the country won't be. saved. And I just I think that it's. incumbent on those of us who have. that skill set, who have. have had the experiences. we've had, you know, we're. put here for a reason. We're here because we. God has given us a particular. purpose for a particular time. And it's incumbent us to be. responsible with those moments that.

we're given. So I don't know what. the future holds. I don't know if I. serve or if I continue at my center. to to be championing the. ideas that he's working on. I'm happy with both of those. scenarios. But it's incumbent on us to. to to to give everything. we can to be successful in. this moment, because I don't think. we will get another moment like. this. And if you doubt how serious. the opposition is to the public, not just to Trump, but to the. majority of the country that voted. for Trump, they're trying to leave. him with World War Three on the way.

out. Yeah, I can't imagine. a more desperate or evil. thing for Tony Blinken, who. I think is desperate and evil, in my. view, to do. leave him with a war, a lame duck president trying to. start a war with the world's largest. nuclear power, Russia. What do you make of that? It's incredibly. insidious. Then add to the fact that you can't. put two sentences together and he's. largely not in control of his own.

government. And so you have. almost an unelected president. with individuals behind the scenes. that are doing this. It doesn't surprise me, though. I mean, these are the same people. that have weaponized. the Department of Justice, have the. lawfare. I have a colleague of mine, Jeff Clark, who, you know, has. they're trying to disbar him because. of. The. The care that he had on behalf of. the president to deal with voter. integrity and election fraud after. 2020. And so the system has thrown.

everything at the. warriors that are on the field. You've seen that with Tulsi. You've seen that with Matt Gaetz. I mean, why why. is all of this stuff being thrown at. him? Slander ously. Can I just say I thought. I'm starting to grasp, but since you. mentioned Gates, we. don't. Even accuse. Look. The DOJ leaked. that he was a child sex trafficker. Okay. So at that point, they have a moral, I would say, legal obligation to.

charge him for child sex trafficking. and proven in court. And if they can't shut the F up. But they didn't do that. They did not. They leaked that Matt. Gaetz, a guy they didn't like, his. views were a threat to them, is a child sex trafficker. The minister did hang in the air and. all their repulsive little minions. like Joe Scarborough, like he's a. child sex trafficker. You want to live in a world of the. secret? Police can just slander you. through the media. Like I read in my. Bible this morning that you don't. believe something unless 2 or 3. people are witnesses and.

say and there is none. of that. And in fact. Let's Mosaic Law right. In in. In fact, the the weaponized. Department of Justice said we don't. have the proof to pursue. these allegations. I know. And so then you read in. The story, accused him of it. They accuse it. They make the case. The reporter said, read it this. morning. They and then they say it. should be known that Matt Gates. denies that these allegations. occurred. Of course, he denies it. because they're not true in the. Department of Justice. There's no. accounting of the fact that these. things have been proven not to be.

true, not to be true. And yet people and there's a. tendency on our side and this is. very troubling, it's not just. the left, which is kind. of state regime propaganda. There is a tendency on our side. to believe that if there's smoke, there must be fire. Why do we do that? Why do we why does our. side why does Republican. congressmen, Republican senators. believe that where there must be. smoke, there must be fire only. because this person has been.

a confrontational, courageous. conviction leader. and in a in a true generational. talent, I might add. So that's that. The last point is indisputable. That's just a fact. I mean, Gates is the most articulate. member of Congress. It's like not. even close. Right? So they hate him for that. because he's a danger. I my explanation, of. course, I've noticed that. Republicans believe most. of what they're told. Part of it is I think there's an IQ. gap. If I'm just being honest. Part of it is they believe in the.

system and Democrats don't believe. in the system at all. They don't believe in any system. that curtails their power, basically. But Republicans really believe in it. to their great credit. And so they're like, well, it's the. DOJ. I mean, it's kind of corrupt on the. margins, you know what I mean? There are some bad apples, but most. of them are really great. Really? Why wouldn't the great ones. resigned? Right. Right. I don't I don't think there's any. evidence are mostly great at all. I think they're really dangerous, heavily armed. Maybe that's the answer. I think that is fundamental. is twofold. I think the left.

is made up of revolutionaries. for sure. Right. And, you know, they're Marxist. One if you've read witness, everyone. knows that, right? Like that, that that's. Not a new phenomena. It's become militarized. over and over again. This is written in like 1955, correct? Yeah. Right. So now now what. that looks like is not someone who's. a behind the scenes spy. Now that looks like, you know, some of their members of Congress, right? Like an AOC. They're Marxist revolutionaries are. voting in Congress.

So that's their side. And our side doesn't really grapple. with that. We don't make every. decision realizing like that's what. they think and that's what they're. doing. So I'm not going to listen to. what they just kind of chitchat, conversation I'm going to. to govern and make decisions based. on what I know they are pursuing. Know your enemy. Secondly, we do have. trust in kind of the. media and. the institutions like. Tony Fauci can't be lying, right?

He can't really. he must. Not have been doing gain of function. research if he said. He wasn't it. He's Tony Fauci. Right. Like that's what we were up. against. And it's totally true. And that is the wrong. you got to have a skepticism of all. of these people and their. institutions and their. bureaucracies. Okay. What needs to be done. And just. Just while. Shut up. I'll stop with my stupid. editorial comments. You just.

go through the top 3 or 4 things. that you think this. incoming administration, which has. a rare mandate, should achieve. in order. I believe that there's a lot. of policy issues downstream. the border inflation, wars across the world, all of them are downstream. of one reality, and that is we don't the. American people currently are not in. control of their government. And the president hasn't been. either. And so we.

have to solve that. We have to solve the choke in the. weaponized bureaucracy and. have the president take control of. the executive branch. So my belief for anyone who. wants to listen is that you. you have to the president has. to move executively as. fast and as aggressively. as possible with a. radical constitutional perspective. to be able to dismantle. that bureaucracy in their power. centers. And I think there are a. couple of ways to do it.

Number one is going after the whole. notion of independence. There are no independent agencies. Congress may have viewed them as. such. SEC. Or the FCC, CFP, the whole alphabet soup. But that isn't that. is not something that the. Constitution understands. So there may be different strategies. with each one of them about how you. dismantle them. But as an administration, the whole notion of an independent. agency should be thrown out, particularly with the Department of. Justice, in which there is literally.

no law. All it is is precedent from the. Watergate era that. the attorney general and those. lawyers don't work. for the president. And who do. They work for? They think that they work for. themselves. They think if they. Are, they have the power to kill. people just because they awarded. themselves that power, the power to. kill people. I mean. They believe that they have the. power for for. all of the prosecutions. and that the president doesn't get a. say in any of that.

And that we have to go. at that as hard as we possibly. can, whether that's the military. We have a whole military industrial. complex of generals. And Tommy Tuberville kind of exposed. this this last year with a fight. about life. But it really became a fight. about whether we have. a essentially. A. Military that is. not subject to civilian leadership. So you can. Apply the concept of of of. destroying independence. And every agency I even saw it.

in, in aspects of OMB with regard. to who gets to make the decisions on. on statistics. Right. Like there are little pockets. of independence that have to be. just. You got to we got to remove. those. Right. They're unconstitutional. Number two, would you include the. Fed in that? So I am. Not a huge fan of the Fed. I can't I can't. look at the Constitution. and the massive. decades long decisions that they.

have made. Totally undemocratic. and and see that that. Is a. Place where there deserves to be an. exception. For. I don't even understand who. controls the Fed. I mean. And where does their. authority come from? God? Do they are they speaking directly. to God? Like, what is this? No, because they're wrong and. they've been wrong. You know. For decades. Right. Right. Let's go to zero interest rates for. 11 years, see what. Happens and see what happens. So President Trump hasn't run on. that. And so I'm not going to speak. But I'm just interested, as you've. Looked into the question of.

what authority does the Constitution. bestow and to. Whom? No. And I give you an example. If you go on if you are watching. news you're going to have seen in. the last two years. ads saying oppose. the Fed's regulations. on Capital Bank capital. Right. Well, who are they supposed to call. it? They're not calling the congressmen. Congressmen. It has no power. The issue is like the call to action. is against the Fed. Well. I'm sorry. You're kind of out of.

luck. And. What? Yeah, what's. What's the lever we would used. influence? There is no lever, Right. And so. They they. Have existed with this notion that. they have this priestly ability. to make decisions. And in fact, I don't actually think. they're that good at it. I think people like President Trump. are, in fact, better at it. And there's no reason. that they should be exempt. from the normal. democratic process. And if Congress wants to come along. and pass rules, it says, you know, this is how we want the money supply.

to go, all of that is in their. purview. But I think, you. know, this is not some exception to. the rule. Doesn't mean in any way. that, you know, President Trump has. any interest in doing anything in. this area. But I don't think it I don't think. it's the exception that proves the. rule on independence. being something that is important. downstream to the CDC, the. new age. I think everything that people like. Bobby Kennedy. They have been. running on and others is about. no, you're not some priestly. role. You are politicians yourself.

You just don't have to face voters. Right. So independence is, I think, first and foremost. Number two, bring back the. notion of empowerment. And this is something that of way. of empowerment, the ability to. not spend money for 200. years. Presidents have the ability. to not spend a congressional. appropriation. That has always been the. constitutional system. It had been brought it had been a. paradigm that had been brought from. from the UK in how we understood. the constitutional principle is.

certainly the power of the purse. means that Congress gets to set the. ceiling. You can't spend without a. congressional appropriation, but you. weren't ever meant to be forced to. spend it, and it has become a floor. So 200 years presidents. are using empowerment. They get money for something, president says. I don't think it's a. good idea or I certainly can do. it better. Or I have events that are. happening overseas that caused me. not to want to spend on the gunboat. when I want to get some. treaty done, all manner. of executive decision making that.

would be a part of that in. to in in the 1970s, at. the lowest moment of the presidency. Congress steps in and to some extent. the courts and say. they passed the the Empowerment. Control Act which was really the. Empowerment Elimination Act. And in that from that moment, they had destroyed separation. of powers on spending. and on fiscal issues. But it was beyond that. It wasn't just about dollars and. cents. It was about control of the. bureaucracy. So that law effectively.

meant the executive. branch. The president's agencies. have to spend every dollar. they're sent by the Congress. Correct. And and and I believe as. a budget guy, that was the original. sin on why we can't do. anything fiscally from that. moment on. It's also why we get. omnibus bills because if I only need. you to get my your signature. and I lose all of my ability to. throughout the rest of the fiscal. year to push and pull. and not spend and. have to make different decisions.

I just got to get your one. signature. So I'm going to put. everything in that one bill, Right. Thousands of pages and I'm. going to push it through at the most. the hardest time for you. politically. You might have some. diplomatic visit that you're taking. on. Yeah, totally. And so empowerment is. vitally important not just to save. the country fiscally. It is vitally important to be able. to wrest control of the bureaucracy. because when you combine. Congress giving the agencies. vast authority to interpret.

the laws that they passed, overly. broad, make law, essentially. make law, essentially, that has no. repercussions on the people who. voted it right. They don't have to vote on what the. right blender's ethanol. That's right. And then you say that your funding. is going for congress. and the president has no ability. Sorry, Mr. president. You don't have to. That's illegal. You can't. You can't turn off my funding. now. Congress, imperial. congress still exists. Just a lot more subtle. So that's number two. Bring back empowerment.

Number three is is. Dramatically going at restoring. at will employment as as far. as you can a lot of ideas. on the on the on the on the on. the agenda but. So all these companies are always. telling you how much money they're. giving to charity. We're so charitable. But what are the charities they're. giving to these brands that you. buy that you have in your house? You don't even want to know? Very often they're charities that. don't. The same values that your. family has. Sometimes they're charities that. don't like your family at all.

But when you use pure talk, which. is a cell phone company, a lot of us. use, you can be certain that. your money is going to charities. that you yourself would give to. veteran led companies. For example, to date, pure talk has gotten rid of $10. million in debt held by. veterans. They've spent tens of thousands. more every month to help prevent. veterans suicide. That is, give 50 grand to micro. works which give scholarships to. veterans learning the trades after. they leave military service. ET cetera, etc..

So you've seen companies once again, we're not going to name names Bud. Light, but to do business. with lunatics. again, charities. that run contrary to your worldview, that despise your worldview. But with pure talk, you don't have. to worry about that. This is a company that supports. causes that you can support. Pure talk gives you the same great. cell service that America's most. dependable 5G networks provide. for half the cost. They also support small businesses. with excellent and affordable. business plans. They are powering us here at TXN. so we can vouch for it and they.

can probably save you money to find. out could appear talk.com/tucker. today switch to a company. that aligns with your values. pure talk when you sign up at pure. talk.com/tucker you. get an additional 50% off your. first month We recommend it. always go back to them permanently. super quick So what was the idea. during Watergate of forcing. the president. And to spend all the. money the Congress sends him. Like, why would you want that? You only want it from the standpoint.

of control. If you want to be able. to say you're going to spend what I. tell you and spend that. It is nothing more. than an institutional. Desire to. force the president to spend X. amount of money. But again, it's. never just about that. It's always about where they. have tried to innovated from really. the progressive era. Like they wanted congressional. government. That was the that was. the the the title of Woodrow. Wilson's book.

He wanted a system where essentially. the agencies largely. worked out of the. Congress or associated with. Congress, not unlike what you would. see in the House of Commons, right. Where their cabinet lives, in their house of parliament. And it's largely, you know, the. monarch, the executive, over time becomes toothless. That's essentially what they have. wanted and have pursued at every. turn here. And you saw that on steroids. with them using.

the events of Watergate to. promulgate new paradigms and. ways of of binding. the constitutional system from. working. So everything post-Watergate is. largely you can just make. an assumption it's not the way it. was meant to work. And so you have our guys defending. post-Watergate paradigms. instead of trying to think through, okay, well, let's go back let's. go back to what the founders would. have actually envisioned. Amazing. Okay. So to your third point and thank you.

for this, by the way, since your. third point, that the. president has to be able to. fire people who are subverting. democracy, why can't he? How did federal bureaucrats wind. up with a kind of super. tenure where no matter what they do, you can't get rid of them? Like I don't understand. They work for the public, right? Laws that have been passed perhaps. not challenged, that laws. that have been passed that give them. bargaining power, that give them.

certain processes that have to. be followed before they can be. dismissed. But I think in that and it's. certainly made it very, very hard, hard to hire and fire, the current. system needs. to be changed, but it also. can be used to deal with. these same kind of actors if you're. willing to do it. And I don't want to get. into all of the tools that are. available right now, but they exist. One of them is the, you know, the. reduction in force. I mean, you you can in Vivek.

has talked about this. I mean, you can proceed on. the basis of what is. good for the efficiency. and the effectiveness of the agency. to be able to dramatically. lower at. a macro level the size. of the work force. And that will give you certain. legal abilities to begin. to move people off of the payroll. So there's a lot of things that are. being creatively discussed in this. space, but it has to be front. and center schedule after the.

President Trump has already run on. That seems to be like a day one. thing he has already. instituted in his first term. We just didn't get to get it across. the finish line. Every agency has to go in. categories. How many of his. employees are policy. and therefore subject to at will. employment? I put 90%. of OMB in that category. because I wanted A. it was true, and B, I wanted. to set a high bar for the rest of. my colleagues and agency heads.

that this should be viewed. maximally. You're willing to fire your own. staff, which is a long way of saying. you're willing to relinquish some. power because personnel manpower. is power. And it's always not just about. firing, although there certainly has. to be mass layoffs and firings, particularly across some of the. agencies that we don't even think. should exist. But what I found was that you get. better staff work when people. are now in their. mind realizing, okay, I'm. not immune from all accountability. And I would tell people, you know,

you have to have these conference. calls were in mid-October and. explain, you know, what we're trying. to do and a lot of a lot of. people were very upset, as I guys. were. We're Republicans. We don't believe in these in. these, you know, these laws that give you these. protections that we think make you. less good at your job of serving. a particular president. And so it's just, on its face, outrageous, like everyone else in. the country that faces the. vicissitudes of the job market. I've been fired so many times with a. lot of kids and I'm not.

whining, but most people have been. had moments like that was like, wow, I'm out of money. Why are the people that we pay. with our tax dollars immune. to the pressure that the rest of us. feel? It's like so crazy. That doesn't mean that you. Can't tell your boss what you think. Like, that's that's the most crazy. thing in the world, right? Like what? Yeah. I mean, you know, I worked for. some five. Worked for some pretty. awful. Rotarian people, by the way, over the years and the last people I. work for very nice to me I will. say, but like their really strong.

views on a couple of topics and I. only kept my views on those to. myself at dinner. Yeah, they're my bosses. I mean I don't really understand, like what, what How. does an entirely separate set. of rules apply to. our employees? The public employees are. housekeepers. This is how I think of them. They work for us. And when they. When your housekeeper. works for you, you get to fight or. steals from you. You get to fire. her, correct? Yeah. And there's no other way to run any. business, any government. But it's like on what? What grounds.

did they get to be treated better. than every other category of. employee in the world? Yeah. And they're also some of the sucky. host employees. As the son of a federal employee, I. can tell you some of them are great. Most are not great sub great, which. is why we have so many contractors. running federal agencies, correct? Totally. And that's. Why Deloitte, you know, at NSA. right. Now. Because most NSA employees like suck. and they don't come in because of. Covid. They take three hour lunch. breaks are like not effective. Am I telling the truth here? You are telling the truth.

I know. That's why you've got to. have a massive effort. to dramatically reduce that so that. the good ones rise to the top and. everyone else is is. fine in other work. Okay. Sorry to get so wound up. No. So. You know, and then the last thing. is. Is dismantling. All of the the. Specific things like. overclassification, the. FBI background checks, all of the things that deny. information to the political class. that are the political appointees.

that prevent them from doing their. job. Okay. But this is where people start. getting murdered or getting cancer. or whatever they're doing. to maintain control. Because if you. start threatening, I think this is. why they're terrified of Tulsi. Gabbard. You start threatening to expose. things to let the public know what. its government is doing. You're going to be exposing crimes. because they're committing crimes. I know that for a fact. I know that you know it, too. So that's like kind of a scary. mission, is it not? It is. It is one. That causes you to count the costs.

But the notion. that you did. This, I love it. It's the reality. And I think this is I would encourage. everyone to think this way. There is no place in America. where you're going to be protected. from the walls closing in on you and. your family. And the. only the extent to which that may. not be true yet is the which you. know Kevin Bacon. degrees of separation. You don't have someone that's. immediately in proximity to. the FBI raiding their house. or being the victim of lawfare.

I mean, I know two people very, very closely who have been. in jail. I know. Me, too. You know, for people. that have multimillion dollar. lawsuits. And so they're common. And the only way to stop. that from happening for people that. are in this community trying. to rebuild from a storm or run. their coffee shop, the only way to. keep it from happening is for those. of us in the political arena. to stand tall and and. and unabashedly.

and to to lean forward. no matter the costs. And that's the moment that we live. in. And so it's not meant to be. provocative. It's just meant to know. that if you are. not loud and proud, that's the wrong. way to think about it. But if it is. aggressive and public. and articulate in. how you go about it, it. will make it so that more and more. people can come along beside. you and make it so that the.

president has enough people that are. willing to take on the system. And I believe that he has a growing. number of people that are like that, and it will make it very difficult. for them to move against individual. actors. And I you know. The nice thing about being out of. office is you get to read. and kind of. wide and understand what happened, you know, and to have new. perspective. And I'm just blown away by the. number of people that they went. after individually, like.

like wounded individuals. And we never heard about them. I didn't hear about them until after. the administration through Adam. Levin Jr, Mark. Moyer. These are individuals that blew the. whistle on corruption and their. agencies conspired with their. political appointees to. make them go away. And I don't think they'll be able to. get away with that this time around. and in some. Cases really hurt them. They wasted 3 or 4 years. You know, they're dealing with stuff. in their families. Life happens and you're dealing with.

the Intel agencies. multiple, working behind the scenes. together, never giving. you due process. And and. I think that is we know their. playbook and we. we we know not only what. to look for, but how. to be prepared to. ensure that that cannot happen. And again. I've noticed and I don't think I'm. imagining it, that a huge. percentage of people who criticize. the Intel agencies.

Wind up with kiddy porn on their. computers. One of the reasons I don't use a. computer, I. don't think that's because. disproportionately for why you. would. Use a computer. You know, first of all, you know, you can't respond to anything. without being fired. Right. And so. We have. To have a totally different view. about going into government. But the Intel agencies are not. allowed well, on. most of them are not allowed to. operate domestically, period. But they were never allowed. They do it, but they're definitely.

not allowed to play in American. politics to influence election. outcomes. And they're absolutely. doing that. How do you stop that? Well, I think you need to have. people that are there who are. fearless and obviously Tulsi and RFK. and, you know, Intel. But there are you know, there are certainly health aspects. of national security, Matt, being at DOJ. Those are the types of people that. you need to get under the hood. and to push as much as you possible. You've got to shut their funding.

off until they can prove to your. satisfaction that things are. And then But. Wait, we're not even allowed to know. what their funding is. We don't know what the CIA's budget. is. Well, we don't even know. When you're within government, you. can know those answers. And so those individuals can. You can know the size of the black. box. Correct? Right. So. I have never been in government, but. I've certainly been around this a. lot. They're huge. Yeah. Yeah. Now what? So why do we have black budgets? It's a great question, Tucker.

I mean, just dramatically more. transparency needed. And I would say it's one of those. areas where. not unlike the overclassification. There. Are, there are there are things. we need to know a lot more about. And I can't tell you what's the. optimal level of of. transparency on that front. But the extent to which you can't. have as a citizen. an understanding of what the size of. your i c community is, that's kind of a problem.

I just think you're ensuring. corruption and the. Size of these these buildings. Like you go around and you realize, wow, that that alphabet. has an enormous. institutional presence that. the country has never even heard of. about. Has a real estate footprint, real. estate on what you can imagine. I, I lived as a child. in with my brother in a house in. Georgetown in high school that was. owned by CIA. So there's just a lot. You go out to Northern Virginia, Tysons Corner, you know, take. Chain Bridge from D.C.

and some of the Virginia. And like, how many of those office. buildings are owned by. the CIA or some other Intel agency? Like a huge number. And so the why can't we know that? I don't understand. We need to know a lot more and we. need to demand that we know. more. Like how how is Congress? And yeah, they can go into a skiff. and they can be given a brief. The base are supposed to happen on. the House and Senate floor and you. can't you're providing. no ability to be able to.

share with your voters. and us as voters. whether we ever vote for this. Did we ever vote for this military. industrial complex, this Intel. community? The extent to which it's sprawled. all over the country? Like who who got a say in that? It doesn't seem like the Intel, I would. Say, is rather undemocratic. Well, the Intel. committees, the oversight committees. in Congress, whose job it is to. oversee, restrain, keep the. Intel agencies within constitutional.

bounds. I in my whole life in DC. from 1985 until now, I've never seen. a single member of an Intel. committee who wasn't in the pocket. of the Intel agencies. That's my perception. Have you? I don't want to. I will just say this. Devin Nunez was. kind of a. a unique character in his. ability to provide leadership. in that. And they came. after him with everything they got. and he survived. And I think he's a model not unlike. When you said they I mean, the.

Intel. The Intel agencies, the forces. that are, you know, some out of. government nongovernmental. organizations about. Yeah. And working with the. Intel he's. Running it through foreign countries. I mean it's never like some guy. at Langley, you know and so. Why don't we have more Devin Nunes. is that that would be the question. that I would have is what what. fear factor is there. that and I'm not I'm not making. an accusation of anyone. I'm just saying that with with all. Congress and with.

all non-government organizations, even our and there's there's this. point where you're like, if I. don't if I go after these. individuals, this issue said. this this, this this area of. corruption or this policy set. And I saw it right after Mar-A-Lago. was raided and we came out really. quickly and said, you know, the FBI. should be radically reformed. I think I thought should be, you. know, exploded into a. thousand pieces. Right? Yeah. There. Why why do we have such fear.

that that is such a provocative. position? Because you don't own the. government. Right. And so that is the surf. That's what we've got to go after. And I think it's a systemic issue. that we've got to tackle with. everything we've got. I couldn't agree more and you don't. have to respond. But I would just. say, you know, if they're members of. the, you. know, Intel committees providing. oversight of the intelligences, they. shouldn't be allowed to serve if. they have spouses who work in the. Intel community. Sorry, that's like such an obvious. conflict that it's pretty ridiculous.

that that could exist. And yet it does. So what. Tell us, on a much happier note. Sorry for the dark digression. What exactly are Ellen and. Vivek going to do, do you think, with this doge enterprise? Well, I think they're bringing an. exhilarating rush to the system. of creativity. outside the box, thinking. comfortability with risk. and leverage and.

Where they are comfortable. Both those guys are coming from. Amazing ideas and the reason I love. it is, I mean in some. respects this does feel like an. intractable problem that we're up. Yes. Yes. I don't think it is, but I think it. feels that way. And we're bringing people that, you. know, are trying to get to Mars. So I'm pretty sure they can handle, you know, the ability for us to. balance our books and run. a government that's that's much more. efficient. So I think that the things that I've. heard them say.

are things like. really going after it from. a deregulatory perspective. All of the recent court cases. that have said. and chopped at the feet of sort. of this administrative state, you. know, you don't have the ability to. just come up with new major. questions, you know, rank. agency, rank and file agency. You've got to have actual specific. language from Congress. You don't have the ability to get. the deference for every position. that you've taken as just. because you're a federal agency.

These have been. Big. Tax cuts at these. at at the administrative branches. And so I think what they want. to do is to use those as the. basis for a massive deregulatory. agenda and, you know, game on. I also think they want to. look for as much that you can do. to start cutting costs without. Congress or with Congress, but to be really aggressive in some. of the areas that I've mentioned in. parliament would be, you know, a. huge part of the idea ability to.

just not spend the money. And so and then, of course, you know, being as. radical or aggressive as you. can in eliminating. and reducing employees. of, you know, full time employees, individuals and going after. contracts that may not make make. sense. So I, I think that that's where they're. headed. And I think it'll be an. enormous boon to the. country. Can you do it from. So neither one of them is going to. become a federal employee himself?

That's my understanding. Correct? That's my understanding. Well, I. Mean, they're not also say that. So how do you do that from outside? Well, I think that you you. know, they. Will be working with the agencies. that do this. I think they'll be. working with OMB, whoever is in that. role. They'll be working with. Treasury, who's ever in that role, and they will be rallying the theory. of the case. I mean, I think. ultimately that's what's most. needed. Tucker is a. specific theory of the case about. what can be done. That's right. And then you give it.

to the people in and hopefully. that's been a two way conversation. But you give it to the people that. are on the president's executive. team and his administration and they. run with it. And then you've got Dodge out there. providing a political support for. just to publicize the ideas, I mean, the U.S. government at this point, it's like a it's like a bankruptcy. or stage four cancer or something. It's like so overwhelmingly bad. that you don't see a way out of it. At least that's how I feel when I. assess it from the outside. Like, how would you even fix. something like, well.

We haven't had any. spending reductions in like 20. years, right? Like. But we're bankrupt. We're bankrupt. And there's just this notion that. nothing can be done about it. We still passed $100 billion Ukraine. taxes. It's like even if you thought. it was a good idea, you can't afford. it. Like, you never have the. affordability conversation at all. Is is. That true? It's totally true. Like literally no one ever. talks about affordability, what we. Can do and the consumer and heads of. state show up and like demand money. from us.

And nobody ever says, you know, I. like your country or I don't or. whatever. I think you've got a good. point. Love to help you, but we're. just out of dough. Like nobody even suggest. that or dare think that. Like, what is that? They just assume the gravy train is. going to keep on going. I deal with the most within the. military. Right. But like. What? What's that like? Well, they, they, they, they. Well, you've got some road miles on. you, but you've done some stuff. Well, you know. I want to understand these things. I want to understand these systems.

and these institutions, why people. say that what they do. And there's just. It there's no. Understanding what there's. no fiscal conscious at all. with regard to the individuals. It's like, nope, we've got to. perform a particular function in the. world. I read that somewhere in my. educational system I now believe. it doesn't matter whether that was. never voted on, doesn't matter if. that's kind of anathema to what our. founding fathers would have. envisioned. And so we are going to maintain. our presence everywhere in the.

country. I, the military, get to define my requirements. about what's necessary to win. that military objective. You civilian don't get to ever. question my requirements. Those requirements now automatically. cost X amount of money. and we wonder why we can't ever have. any cuts to defense. And we wonder why. Then defense spending becomes. the pretorian guard for the. non-defense spending. Right. Okay, I know what you're talking. about, but will you flesh that out a.

little bit? Because I think you've. hit on one of the keys. So for that, for what? We have been unwilling to cut. any non-defense spending, the. bureaucracy, which is the, quote, discretionary spending. members have a vote on it every. single year. They don't have a vote on. entitlements. Those are on autopilot. They have a vote on the bureaucracy. So everything they hate about. government their members are voting. on, We haven't been able to. have cuts to non-defense, not because Republicans are. unwilling, although many of them are.

unwilling as well, but because. there has been a view that those. two things have to be constantly. considered together. And the Democrats insist. and Republican hawks. insist that defense has. to be growing at X percent. to deal with the threats in the. world. And that requires. you to then bring. additional non-defense spending. to be able to be for that political. coalition. And ultimately,

if you get. Your average Republican member, they. ultimately care a lot more about. the defense stuff than they do about. the bureaucracy. Can you say that again? Ultimately, you have your average. Republican member who cares more. about the military industrial. complex than they do about the woke. and weaponized bureaucracy That is a. pressing. They care more about. flexing their power abroad than. about fixing their own country. I think that's right. That's I know that's true. That's how I know I know them. They have zero interest in anything. that's not zero.

But they have very limited interest. in what's happening in the United. States in the, you know, 100,000. people dying of drug abuse every. year. That's bad yet so bad. My heart bleeds. The invasion of more than. 10 million foreigners into our. country without permission. You know, that's so bad. Yeah, you got to seal the border. But what they really care about. is toppling some. government they don't like or moving. missiles to this military base. or whatever. And why is that? Well, I think it goes to the. unhealthiness of the Republican. coalition for like 50 years,

but particularly in since. 1989. Tell me what that means. So you're you're you're. kind of national Republican, National Review Coalition. Your fusion is Republican. Coalition was. anti-communist. Yes. It was social conservatives, traditional conservatives. And it was kind of fiscal. libertarians. Right. That was your coalition. Absolutely. And it worked. Until, you know, a certain level. when we had Soviet Union. But when we don't have the Soviet.

Union, it it. kind of takes on a. life of its own. And now you have to keep us. everywhere in the world to be. able to justify all of the. institutional buildup and the. The complex that has been built. up. All of these these, you know, defense industrial companies and. things like that. And Pat Buchanan actually talks. about this in his book where he. says, look, this was a specific. strategy hashed out to the. Department of Defense. by some of the neocons at the time.

to be able to continue to justify. the largest from a defense. standpoint that we continue to be. tied down to. that. I also think, you know, is is so that's a big. part of, I think, why your average. Republican that grows up thinking. like, okay, I'm going to be. pro-defense, I'm going to be. free market economics and I'm going. to be a social conservative at best, right? Those that's like that's what. you grow up to be.

100%. And you don't actually then think. through, okay, what does that mean? Does that mean I have to then be for. every war that's been hatched does. that right? Do I not to be for. making. A. Defense that we can actually afford. Does that mean that I think that. from an economic standpoint that. we're not actually citizens before. we're consumers? Like there's just a lot of unhealthy. in all of those? Yes. And it's not a national coalition. I mean, famously, you see this in. the Democratic Party where you've. got, you know, Hispanic immigrants.

alongside transgender. activists, and they clearly have. nothing in common. Everyone says that, but fewer. say the obvious on. the Republican side, which is that. social conservatives aren't. natural pro-war people. Most of them are Christians, for one. thing. So why would they be in favor. of killing innocents like they're. not? Actually, they they're. believers in a religion that. specifically prohibits. that specifically and repeatedly. So I don't know how they've hung.

together for so long. I mean, obvious. But my position on this, I find them. repugnant, murderous. So that's my view. But I don't think I'm alone in that. Why are Christians, conservatives. naturally defense hawks? That's what I'm saying. I'm just defense US war hawks. Like what? What happened in that? Well, how. Did Christian conservatives wind up. and I don't want to get too controversial. because I don't want to hurt you, but because I want you to get this. job. But yeah, I'll just I'll. I'll just stop there. Yes, I agree. without being too specific about it. But there are all kinds of acts of. violence against.

Christians around. the world that it's almost always. against Christians. I have noticed. that Christian leaders, including. the Speaker of the House, like defend on Christian grounds. And I just don't think obviously I. find that evil. But even if I was in favor of it, I. would recognize like, that's not. something that can last for long. because it doesn't make any sense. Right. Well, I do believe this is why we we. we need to be less doctrinaire. on the right. Gosh. And to thinks actually think, you know, and.

Read those books you were mentioning. earlier, read. And to be thinking through and ask. the questions and trying to learn. more and realize like, you know, a. history book may have been written. at a time to just to. to with a particular political. benefit and meaning to it. And so maybe we don't take. everything. You know, I don't know. Maybe some skills we learned in. school. Right. And just. Common sense, intuition. This is this is something. that I think is something seems off. It's off.

And that's that's a God given. skill that we have. We were born with it. I think it was given by God. But even if you don't believe in. God, we're born with it and, you. know, use it. In some of the attacks on r f k, they say, well, this hasn't been. proven. There are gaps in our understanding, our scientific understanding. That's like their bureaucratic way. of saying, yeah, your. intuitions, right? We just haven't proved it to be able. to. Well they train you not to use your. intuition. It's like, wait a second. I remember being in high school. reading an abnormal psychology.

textbook that I bought at the school. bookstore that. had an entry on autism. It was like two paragraphs long as. this esoteric disorder. whose origins were in certain of. whose parameters were unclear. But it was. And I remember thinking, Wow, that sounds awful. And, you know, 35. years later, it's like a central. feature of life in America. Like, what the hell? And you're trained. And by the way, I don't know what. has caused a massive spike in. autism, but there has been one, right? And so it takes a lot of. training to get people to ignore.

that. And I do think the training is all. designed to get you to ignore what. you what is obvious. I think it is. I think that that's the systems do. it. People get into these and they. that's where you kind of get to the. paradigm level. I'm not going to do. anything that would hurt national. security. I came to D.C., I'm not going to do. anything. It hurts national. And I think that's how we lose. people when they go into the skiffs. Just to go back to our earlier. discussion, and. you've got to have courage to say, look, what happens if. what happens if your time in office. you missed a big issue.

like my has a new issue to me. I admit it. I'm trying to I'm trying to read and. trying to read the means book. I listen to your podcasts. You know, it's a new issue, but. like, if I didn't get my head. wrapped around it. Future generations will have to. indict me. For me being. irresponsible on an existential. issue facing our country. So I don't think most people think. like that. But in general, I think our. Republican coalition. Is. Unhealthy and has been for. a long time because we have. And if we are that the.

country will be too secular, too imperialistic and global and. too economic. And I come out of the free market. Economist Lane Right. That's where I got my start. But we're not consumers. like the notion that the end of all. economic good is consumption. And so consumers get the veto on. everything. It's not actually what a. citizen in a country and a nation. are. And so in in. Each of those, I'm certain you I. feel like you're saying something. really important. And I just want to. make sure that it's fully explained.

What do you mean by that? China can gnomic to economics. So. So you're not a socialist. I know you're not. No, I'm a free market kind of. Right? Of course. Sure. So but I don't believe that just. because. Facebook. Is a corporation, that. means that they get to not. have to answer questions about how. big they are, what they use, what. the impact is on our country. Whether they reckon my kids brains. Amazon giving me, you know, same day service on a book. or you know a product.

is awesome. I love it. But that doesn't mean that. everything that Amazon does. Is. Something that we shouldn't be. thinking through and that our, our. Our our. normal. Disposition of free market economics. may make us bad at. assessing companies. once they get too big. Well, it does seem like there are, as you said a second ago, we need to be less doctrinaire. And I, as someone who grew up around.

as a conservative around. conservatives, there were these. pillars, you know, hawkish on. defense for. free market and. to a much lesser extent socially. conservative, which no one in DC. actually took seriously at all. And they had total contempt for. people like you. I assume we didn't grow up in DC. I did not. Thankfully, the son of an. electrician and schoolteacher. Yeah. So this is exactly the kind of. person that everyone in DC despised, like some Christian electrician. Please shut up. That was their view. Sorry. I'm sure you know that, but it's a. fact. I was there, so.

But. But on the free market stuff, if you asked any questions at all, it was like, Shut up socialist, and you don't want to be a socialist. because that hasn't worked. And it was embarrassing, but they. kind of maintained control. of people on behalf of some of the. worst interests in the world. by invoking that. that slur. You're a socialist or. you're a socialist, did you not? I'm talking about. Yeah, I mean. They do in the foreign policy, you. know, that's a very useful. idiot for Russia or, you know. What they call you? A useful idiot. for what? They're saying that about Tulsi?

They said that Tulsi, Right. Yeah. Yeah, I've lived that. Yes, you've seen that. I have, Yeah. In every one of these things, when. they don't want to have the. conversation, they shut it down with. the slur. Of course. And that's. But on the economic questions, I. think I've been cut almost. hesitant to draw obvious conclusions. because I don't believe in. government controlling. the economy right now to a greater. extent than it does. I just could not good at it and it. just it abets corruption. So I'm against that. But. it doesn't mean that we have to,

like, be in favor of usury. Right. Right. Like, why is it good. to charge 20%. interest on a credit card? Do I have to? Not along with that. just because I'm a conservative. And that's where of the coalition. was working. You'd have a lot more. interesting conversations. Yeah. You know, you'd have your. Christian conservatives being upset. with that, having debates with the. free market coalition to say like, where's a place that we can land. in, in ways that. previously the conversation wasn't. because in this to say okay that's.

that's something that would come out. of the mouths of of. of our of our adversaries. and we need more of that I think. And you're going to see it in trade, right? Like yeah. Trades like the one big domino. that president I think finally has. now, you know, toppled with his. election. But there will be a sizable number. of Republicans that are very. grudgingly going along or. opposed to what he wants to do. with what I think is a no brainer. policy with regard to, you. know, universal tariffs and. higher tariffs for China.

And I want the money to be able to. balance the books, but I also want. this country to be a manufacturing. producing hub. And what I found, Tucker, is. that even I can win arguments. with. Those who. I who. Are free traders because. they they themselves have ceded the. ground of independence. You know, if you. If you are if you're comfortable. with other countries making your. stuff that may or. may not be important from a national. security standpoint or just period,

because we won't want to have to. wait for six months to have a, you. know, a free trader. You know, if you want independence, you got to make it here. If you don't want to have to rely on. China and have. She shut down his whole economy. because he's dealing with the Covid. Of course. Then then the answer. is independence. And how do you get to making things. more here and just. I also zoom out from a standpoint. If my parents are paying my rent, I'm still a child. It doesn't matter how old I am. Right. Right. And like there is a there is a. balance in every community. We're not all going to be carpenters.

or plumbers. Electricians, right? Like you're not going to be. independent as a person or a. community across the board, but you would kind of hate it if we. didn't have any carpenters in your. community. Right? You'd hate it if you didn't have any. plumbers in your community. And we've gotten to the point as a. country where. we don't make this stuff anymore. And that's a real problem. And I think it's just kind of an. intuition way of getting. at something that. has been suppressed for decades.

But has been suppressed. And there are specific institutions. that have made it their mission to. suppress it. One is The Wall Street. Journal, the other is the American. Enterprise Institute, which for my whole life, 55. years have been sort of leading. standards in the right wing. firmament. You know, they AEI, Wall Street Journal like people. really care on the right what they. have to say and I can't wait for. both them to collapse. I will celebrate. I really will celebrate when they go. under. I mean that. But like, why haven't.

People who want to put the country. first, its actual interests first, built their own institutions to. rival The Wall Street Journal. And I don't get it. This has been my life's work. for the last four years. And hopefully, you know, over the. next 50 is if. I'll live that long. How old are you, Rob? Excessive. Well, you're being the major thing. now, so it's possible. You know, get let's get that. And you look. I think this is what is needed. as new institutions is why we. created the Center for Renewing. America, because we wanted to make.

sure there was a home to give. elites, both in D.C. and in the grassroots. The this is actually how you do. what's necessary to be done. So, like, if President Trump gives a. speech in the first term term, where. are you from your show or. articulating something that must be. done? We felt there needed to be an. institution actually take that. and turn it into the. regulations for. translating into actually public. policy. And that it has to be.

some exceptions exist. I mean, Kevin is doing a great job. at Heritage, but that's the. exception rather the rule. My my view is that you've got to. create new institutions that. are are scrappy, are. hungry. It doesn't take them two weeks to. write a paper. It takes them one day. to write a paper. You get it out there and if that. paper is not read, you go and you. like get it in front of people so. that they understand it. And then when they have read it and. you feel, why haven't you acted on. it, what's, you know, like you have. to work it hard.

And that's going to come from from. not sitting around a board table at. a prestigious organization that's. going to come from people. who are hard and battle tested. and really awesome in their mind. as to what they what they think and. what they know. I mean, since we moved toward an. economy where, like, you can't. really do anything without a. billionaire on your side, I've. noticed luckily, you know, good people now have Elon. Musk. He's a billionaire, which is great. But in big picture, it's super bad to need a billionaire.

to do anything meaningful. And you wonder, are Republican. donors coming around. to the idea that, you know, America. needs to be saved and. and that what we've been doing isn't. working? Do you think they see this? Look, there's a lot of awesome. conservative donors. There are. You would know and. many of them are coming to our. banner. Over time, I think the issue. is, you know, do they know. about your organization, the impact? And there's a lot of grift on the on. and that's the problem is like.

you've got to kind of show yourself. there's. So much it's. Unbelievable. You kind of have to acknowledge that. there's a lot of grift out here, but. at the same time, do everything you. can to just get up in the morning. and do your job and do it. effectively. And then people come. where I feel like the issue is, is. that with everyone, you're educating them on the same. journey that I think you have. I think you've talked about it and I. know I have of of. this trying to like what's. what has been off about conservatism. for a while and been I think. the reason why we have lost and been.

on the edge of tyranny and. and sometimes there are there are. there are folks that still have. viewpoints on that. Like when we took Ukraine, we were. the first organization out to oppose. Ukraine funding. That was risky, right? Because you Putin had just. invaded and gone over. And we don't we didn't want that, but we knew where this was headed. And that was a long time for. us to educate also. Can I just ask now? I'm being like mean and bitter, but why would anybody. who thought that was a good idea.

have power ever again? Why shouldn't that be a litmus test? I do. I do believe the Ukraine. should be a litmus test for the. national security team for sure. Well, it hasn't been, unfortunately. Well. It's certainly in terms of like. getting a read on where someone is. and then you can have whatever. conversations you want to have with. them. But like that was obvious to me. I was a stupid cable news host, not a national security expert. But I've been around it a lot. I'm just trying to apply common. sense. Like that was so obvious. in February of 2022.

This was going to hurt the United. States in very serious ways. And it. Has. And it has. And so over time, that coalition that that. conversation we're having about what. conservative needs, what is. conservatism need to be to save the. country, not protecting. your little niche within that, but. to save the country. You were given resources to. do nothing else but to save the. country. And that's what your donors are. giving that conversation. And the idea is why, when you come. to one of our events with our.

donors, I hand out books. like I want, I don't want. you just necessarily read our policy. paper. You know, I'm going to do. that anyways. I want you read in worker chambers. I want you reading. Rusty Reno. This return of the strong God's. right, I want you reading this. stuff. We're giving out Pat Buchanan books. I want the whole conservative. movement to be going deep in these. books so that you're both. enlightened in courage and you. come out of fighting for us, whether. you are the practitioner here. in DC.

The thunder on the outside. And that is a and that's a long. term project, honestly. But I think it's one that's. absolutely vital. Last question. In retrospect, one of the. things I'm most guilty about was. being used by. Bill Kristol in particular. But just as a young man, I was. used by the forces that control. Washington to attack. both Ross Perot and especially Pat. Buchanan. You know, whatever. They are human beings. They have. flaws, you know, obviously. But big picture, they were.

right about a lot of stuff, correct? Yeah, they. Were absolutely right. They were. They were. Yeah. And this has been this has. been an undercurrent that. has been popped up at times, but. it's largely suppressed by the. Republican establishment. and their intellectual Pretorian. Guard, National Review and others. And Pat Buchanan was a major. opportunity for it to punch through. And then Donald Trump really punched. through, and now it's ascendant. And it's about us going back. and trying to think through like,

what is what are some of these. things? What is this what these. viewpoints mean? Like, where were they right or. wrong? What does it look like in health? What does it look like with AI? What does it look like in all of. these different areas? But I think it's primarily. remembering that we're not we're. individuals with souls. We're a nation. We're not just an economy. These are the kinds of kind of first. building blocks that if you get in. place, then you can have a much more. coherent, convincing and. satisfying public policy life.

But ultimately, you know, I think. it's like Whittaker Chambers, married to Pat Buchanan and married. to someone like a Donald Trump. I think that that movement. over time is something that. I'm trying to find out, how. to give it flourish in life and. institutions and and. will ultimately we will be. successful in saving the country. Man If you wind up with this. administration, I will sleep better. I mean that. So thank you, Russ. Appreciate it. Thanks for having me, Tucker.