Latest / The Fourcast / The War Room Co host: 'Trump government need to be pushing more'

Transcript

The War Room Co host: 'Trump government need to be pushing more' · The Fourcast

0:00
Hello and welcome to the forecast from Washington, DC.
0:03
As always with Donald Trump, one major news story a day isn't
0:07
really enough. Ukraine signed a mineral and
0:08
natural resources deal with the US perhaps taking the president
0:12
a step closer to fulfilling his promise to secure peace there.
0:16
But now his national security adviser, Mike Walls, is set to
0:19
step down. So what do the American public
0:21
think about the latest twists and the Trump 2.0 drama?
0:25
And what about the MAGA faithful?
0:27
Well, one person tapped into the aspirations and the anger at
0:31
times of Donald Trump's most ardent supporters is Natalie
0:34
Winters. She Co hosts the War Room
0:36
podcast with right wing provocateur Steve Bannon.
0:39
She is also the White House's correspondent for that
0:42
organization but was denied membership of the professional
0:45
body representing Washington. Correspondent Natalie, Welcome
0:49
to the forecast. Hi, thank you so much for having
0:51
me. Mike Waltz, the national
0:52
Security advisor, is gone. Did he jump or was he pushed?
0:55
I think that there has been sort of the original sin riff in
0:59
Trump world between the more neo con start the war with Iran camp
1:03
and the more MAGA grassroots. Let's not get involved in any
1:05
more certainly kinetic foreign conflicts.
1:08
And I think that that fundamental divide is something
1:10
that Mike Waltz is more the neo con side versus I think you have
1:13
more than JD Vance is a little more less interventionist.
1:15
So I think that perhaps that debate comes to a head and I
1:19
think my side of the aisle, the MAGA people are probably a lot
1:22
more pleased that it's the Neo Con faction that's going than it
1:25
is the MAGA faction. Although interesting that Pete
1:27
Hexer, the Secretary of Defense was, you know, pride, a place
1:29
right next to Donald Trump yesterday.
1:31
And I think only last night he posted on social media that, you
1:34
know, Iran in caps. If you don't behave more or less
1:36
I'm paraphrasing, you know there will be military action against.
1:39
You and we're against military action in Iran and have been, I
1:42
think since since the. Day one Pete Hexer also be
1:44
kicked out. Well, have they done anything?
1:46
I mean, look, we, I think there's an interesting debate to
1:49
be had about the strikes in the Red Sea when it comes to Yemen
1:52
and the Houthis. So I would say that's a that
1:54
story right there is a perfect example if your audience wants
1:57
to understand these sort of, I think feeling abused by the
2:00
Europeans, the idea that we have to underwrite in the
2:03
international defense world order, right?
2:06
What is going on in the Red Sea? Well, no offense, it's mainly
2:08
you guys who are affected by the trade routes there.
2:10
Sure, everyone is, but it's more so you guys we have one is at
2:12
24,000. It's 2 battle carriers worth of
2:14
people there. I think France has someone.
2:16
There. But we didn't ask your
2:17
administration to bomb the Houthis.
2:19
I think that was their decision. Yeah.
2:21
And I think the MAGA contingent was a little more skeptical of
2:23
that. I would say don't escalate it
2:25
anymore, but I think there there's sort of a PTSD, no pun
2:29
intended, from stuff like that because it always seems to
2:31
snowball in the same way that when governments amass power,
2:34
they never relinquish it. I think when you start drone
2:36
striking people in the Middle East, I think we have a very bad
2:39
cultural affinity for turning those into.
2:40
Forever. But is that the rift in the
2:42
administration between the Margaret crowd, who says, you
2:44
know, America, you know, on its own, you know, America first,
2:47
America alone, and then the other crowd, you call them the
2:50
neocons, who want much more robust American military
2:52
engagement around the world? That and I also think you have
2:55
to factor in the sort of tech bro oligarch newly, I would say
3:00
not so ideological, just I think motivated by money market access
3:04
and wanting to feel like they have the president's ear, who I
3:06
think are probably more on the neo con side of things.
3:08
But I think that's only because they don't conceive of the
3:11
United States as a country, as a place where sovereignty matters.
3:14
They view it as sort of this special economic zone.
3:16
Borders are, you know, kind of replaceable.
3:18
It doesn't really matter. So I think they're more in the
3:20
neo con camp. And do you think the Trump is
3:22
siding with the neocons and is he wrong to do so?
3:25
Is Trump siding with the globalist billionaires and is he
3:27
wrong to do so? I think you have to go issue by
3:30
issue on that. I think there are some vectors.
3:33
I think if we were to escalate conflicts in Iran, I wouldn't
3:36
say that that's necessarily siding with the globalist
3:38
billionaires. I don't really know if they care
3:39
as much. What's.
3:40
Going on but on the on the. Neocons.
3:43
Yeah. Yeah, sure.
3:44
Is that the good thing for him? You know, is that the right
3:46
thing for? Him, I think from our more MAGA
3:48
grass roots perspective, no, we've been, I think talked about
3:51
being very measured there. And I think frankly, it's what I
3:53
guess JD Vance was ironically getting into in that Signal
3:55
group chat, right? Mainly Europe that is affected
3:58
by this and the United States taxpayer, American working class
4:01
members, they don't want to be footing the bill to subsidize
4:04
the defense of your countries. If it's such a big deal, then
4:07
you guys can pay up, whether it's Ukraine, the Middle East,
4:09
you name it, it's not our. Problem And on Ukraine, the deal
4:12
that has now been signed, the minerals deal as they call it,
4:15
it's kind of quite much more fair to Ukraine than the
4:17
previous deals. Again, is the maggot crowd happy
4:20
with that? Because it's giving Ukraine
4:21
quite a lot of stuff and they're quite happy to sign.
4:23
It from day one, we have been skeptical, I think, of the
4:26
mineral deal only because to me it seems like you're leaving the
4:28
door open, if not starting a whole, should I say, snowball
4:31
rolling down the hill of United States involvement.
4:34
This idea of, you know, foreign peacekeeping troops or potential
4:37
United States presence, kinetic or otherwise.
4:40
I think it's an unfortunate. Yeah.
4:42
Because I think empirically, anytime you've had the United
4:45
States on the ground in Ukraine, covertly or overtly, it has not
4:48
ended well. It's always ended in regime
4:50
change. That being said, from the lens
4:51
of recouping the, you know, 200 plus billion dollars that we
4:55
have underwritten to go into that, it's nice to have some
4:57
return on investment, but I wish I could just wind the clock and
5:00
have not done any of it. But actually the return on
5:03
investment is down the line. So for 10 years, actually,
5:05
America, none of that money will from minerals will come to
5:08
American coffers. It'll all stay in Ukraine.
5:10
It'll be reinvested into Ukraine.
5:12
So it's a long term plan. It's almost like a little
5:14
Marshall Plan for Ukraine. Yeah, again, are you?
5:17
OK with that. Well, I think I just answered
5:19
your question. I think that if it stays at what
5:23
it is, where we we are recouping our investment from it, sure, 10
5:26
years, 15 years, OK, whatever, that's negligible, fine.
5:29
But I'm just saying, I think our audience has this sort of
5:32
backlash and just is very skeptical of any time we broaden
5:36
our footprint around the globe, that it always turns into
5:39
another forever war, another forever conflict.
5:42
And we're we're over that. We're done getting involved in
5:45
these skirmishes about borders that don't matter as much,
5:48
right? It's the Mearsheimer idea,
5:50
right? The difference of priorities and
5:52
burdens to different countries. We're the United States, we're
5:55
not as close to Russia and Ukraine as the rest of Europe
5:57
is. Certainly it's not as you know,
5:59
the whether or not you're speaking Russia or Ukraine or
6:01
you know, the the Russian speaking border, that matters
6:04
more to the people in Russia and Ukraine than it does the United
6:06
States. And Ukrainian civilians who've
6:09
been suffering enormously, you know, thanks to Russian
6:13
missiles, you know, much more than Russian civilians have been
6:15
suffered, you know, suffered because of Ukrainian missiles.
6:19
Is that OK with you? I mean, is that OK?
6:21
The basic idea that there's a civilian population being
6:23
pummelled by, you know, a neighboring power?
6:25
I think independent of, you know, Russian fired missiles
6:29
against Ukrainian, Ukrainian fired missiles against Russia,
6:31
the people have the most blood on their hands are the legacy
6:33
media, frankly, the Biden machine who have been fomenting
6:37
the war there and continuing it and giving this.
6:39
Started because Russian tanks invaded.
6:41
Ukraine, I said, excluding the actual people firing, yes.
6:45
The idea that Ukraine ever really had a chance and that the
6:48
Biden regime needed to plow 200 plus billion dollars led to
6:53
needless and senseless death. They did not invade under
6:56
President Trump. You think they should have just
6:58
folded over Ukraine when the Russians walked in?
7:00
I think. We have for not having
7:02
surrendered. I can tell you really love this
7:04
idea that everyone in Magaworld is quick to blame the Russians.
7:07
No, I'm. I'm just.
7:08
Saying that, I'm just saying, you said.
7:10
I blame Joe Biden. I blame American weakness and
7:14
the idea that he invaded under. He did not invade under
7:19
President Trump, right? But he did invade.
7:22
That could have been, you know, yes.
7:23
So what if you were Ukrainian? How would you have responded to
7:26
that? You can fight back.
7:28
My issue is that you are straw manning the approach of what the
7:32
United States, and negligibly our western allies took.
7:37
If every dollar of our aid packages actually ended up in
7:41
Ukraine, we'd probably be having a little bit of a different
7:43
conversation right now. The idea that sending 250 plus
7:47
billion dollars in the United States with whatever small
7:50
paltry amount European nations put up to, we can't track that.
7:53
Just a collection of we did. Actually.
7:55
The European nations in aggregate sent almost exactly
7:59
the same amount of money as the US, if not slightly.
8:01
So you said nations versus 1 country?
8:03
EUI mean you know the. Collectively.
8:05
Yeah, but it's a big country and the EU together is a.
8:07
Collectively versus the US that cares a lot more about Ukraine
8:10
because it's a lot closer to you guys and there's a lot more I
8:13
would say important to you. It's closer to you guys.
8:16
All I'm saying is that on the front of these funds, there's no
8:20
auditing mechanism. We don't know actually where
8:22
they're going. If I asked you, can you actually
8:24
tell me 100% certified veracity that all these funds ended up
8:28
where they actually did? No, we have so much reporting
8:30
that they've ended up, whether it's the black market going to
8:32
money laundering stuff, who knows where.
8:34
That's not a Russian talking point, it's true.
8:36
Do you think it's important for you and you know and your your
8:40
audience that there's an independent Ukrainian nation
8:43
state at the end of all this? Sovereignty matters, but United
8:49
States sovereignty matters more. So if that is going to somehow
8:53
impede whether it's by making us weaker on the world stage
8:55
because we're drawn out in some other foreign conflict to boost
8:58
Ukrainian sovereignty, then no, I don't think the sovereignty of
9:01
Ukraine matters as much if it's going to make our ammo and
9:04
weapons piles be drawn down and be lesser than they would when
9:07
we need to be gearing up to fight the Chinese Communist
9:09
Party. So it it does matter.
9:12
In an ideal world, yes, countries shouldn't be able to.
9:15
Just invade their country. China is inevitable.
9:17
So I think the Chinese Communist Party operates, I mean, they're
9:20
very obviously Sun Tzu in their axioms.
9:22
The idea that the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy
9:24
without fighting. That's the most heavily cited
9:27
quote throughout their PLA military doctrine.
9:29
They prefer infiltration as opposed to invasion.
9:32
And their views if if the world, if the war turns kinetic,
9:35
they've already lost. So there's obviously a lot of
9:37
pressure to abstain from anything going that direction.
9:40
That being said, I think you're seeing them get considerably
9:43
more aggressive. They just seized, what was it,
9:44
Sandy K, some Filipino island just a few days ago, while, you
9:50
know, the United States is doing other things.
9:52
So they're definitely accelerating.
9:53
But I think the economic war threat is much more considerable
9:58
when you look at what happened on the Belton Road and you look
10:00
what happens with made in China, 2020, 2025, all of that.
10:04
So I think the kinetic stuff is maybe an older paradigm that I
10:08
wouldn't necessarily superimpose on what she is trying to do.
10:11
Let's talk about the terrorists then, because the tariffs, I
10:13
mean, obviously massive shock to the financial system in Europe,
10:17
you know, in China where, you know, we've got we're in the
10:19
middle of a kind of active trade war between the US and China,
10:22
the two world's biggest economies.
10:24
But also here, you know, people who really supported the
10:27
president who thought that this was their guy in terms of
10:30
deregulation, lowering taxes, which he may still do.
10:33
But on tariffs, they're freaking out.
10:35
You know this, the White House has been called everyday by
10:37
people who say this has got to stop, it's too chaotic.
10:40
It's messing with our with our bottom line.
10:42
This is not good for America. It's not good for the dollar.
10:46
Yeah, it's not good for the stock market.
10:48
And you don't want to fight in the bond markets.
10:50
That is a fact, isn't it? Well, he's the president for the
10:52
working class. He's not a president for the
10:54
billionaire elite. So yeah, what was it?
10:56
Maybe one minute after they saw that he had won Pennsylvania,
10:59
then suddenly all these Silicon Valley tech oligarchs started
11:01
calling him. Putting that aside for a second,
11:03
I think you have to look at what he's trying to do with the
11:05
tariffs. I think it's myopic to look at
11:07
it. It's just this decimate the
11:09
stock market. No, what he's doing is in the
11:11
same way that we were talking with the international defense,
11:13
he's fundamentally restructuring and countering and competing
11:16
with what the Chinese Communist Party has done.
11:18
You say trade war. I don't know.
11:19
I'm curious to think to see when you think that the trade war
11:22
started. It's not a trade war.
11:23
That's victim blaming. the United States.
11:24
The Chinese Communist Party has been the one waging that what we
11:27
call the seven deadly sins, whether it's currency
11:29
manipulation, foreign expert state subsidies, you name it
11:32
against. The idea is to bring jobs to the
11:34
Rust Belt of America. You know, all these people who
11:35
were in the in the Rose Garden on Liberation Day, you know,
11:38
auto workers in Detroit and places like that, You know, is
11:41
there any proof that those jobs will actually come back to those
11:45
people who deserve to have jobs but haven't had the right kind
11:47
of jobs? Because if you're a big American
11:49
company that's now losing money because you're no longer, you
11:52
know, creating things cheaply in China, you're just going to use
11:55
robots to produce the same stuff in in Michigan or in Wisconsin.
11:58
There's high value added manufacturing jobs that the
12:00
people want. I don't think that that's, I
12:02
think it's a far gone conclusion.
12:03
The idea that there are no manufacturing jobs to bring back
12:06
home. We're not just talking about, I
12:08
think when people think, you know, 1950s or whatever style
12:11
working on a lot. No, it's high value added
12:12
manufacturing jobs, but it's not even, it's not just about that.
12:16
I think COVID showed us the importance of reshoring
12:18
manufacturing, but it's more about decoupling the rest of the
12:22
world from the Chinese Communist Party predatory economic
12:25
policies, whether it's the Belt and Rd. initiative made in China
12:28
25. And I think really the
12:31
devolution, if not outright degradation of Western countries
12:34
into essentially raw material suppliers to China, which has
12:37
become the factory powerhouse of the world we're all beholden to.
12:40
Them. But getting back to, you know,
12:41
you talked about the globalists and the billionaire elite.
12:43
I mean, these are people who supported Trump.
12:45
They were at the inauguration. They were given in a private
12:48
place, you know, inside the Capitol building.
12:51
These were his friends or they thought they were his friends.
12:54
They gave him a lot of money, literally flew down to Mar a
12:56
lager and gave him money for his inauguration committee.
12:59
So are these not, you know, don't they listen, deserve to be
13:03
listened to legitimately, just like, you know, the MAGA working
13:06
class supporters. Well, they can have a seat at
13:07
the table, but it's about a debate.
13:09
And I think that's why you have outlets like War Room in the
13:11
briefing room. That's why you have different
13:13
factions. I know the the legacy media.
13:15
There's a long Atlantic piece talking about this idea of
13:17
fusionism, the idea that the sort of more MAGA grass roots
13:20
working class right needs to sort of conjoined forces with
13:23
the more tech bro oligarchic right.
13:25
That's never going to happen. There's fundamental, I think,
13:28
disagreements, particularly on sovereignty.
13:30
That's sort of the the rail head of it and it all trickles down I
13:33
think into a different conception of what this country.
13:36
That's the alliance behind Trump, isn't It's very rich
13:38
people, you know, on 5th Ave. and in Silicon Valley, and it's
13:41
people are not so lucky, you know, who live in the.
13:43
Real big 10, I don't think that they came to the Trump
13:46
administration and to the MAGA, you know, worldview because they
13:50
actually believe it. You saw it with the H1B debate.
13:53
They view this country as a special economic zone that they
13:55
can maximize for profit. We in the MAGA world view this
13:58
as a country, a nation with sovereignty and borders where
14:01
your citizenship should mean something and you should not
14:03
have to compete against people on every letter, amalgamation of
14:07
visa, H1BO1F1, blah, blah blah, let alone the illegal
14:10
immigration. So there's fundamental
14:11
differences that I don't think are possible to reconcile unless
14:14
they come on our tent because I can tell you our mag of people
14:16
are not budging. So they they came on because
14:19
they realized what President Trump this ascendant movement,
14:23
the power that our audience generated.
14:25
So they then write what is it the $1,000,000 checks to sit
14:27
behind him. We in the war room have been
14:29
adamantly. So they're entirely
14:30
opportunistic, you're saying? Of course it is, and you can see
14:33
and. These So what about someone like
14:34
Elon Musk, Elon Musk in who was given a very, you know, very
14:37
warm goodbye yesterday in the Oval Office very close to
14:40
President Trump. Your boss, your friend Steve
14:43
Bannon has called him a very evil person.
14:45
I think that was, you know, but you know, Musk and Bannon are
14:47
both part of the MAGA family, if you like.
14:51
Well, first of all, I think this idea that having ideological
14:54
differences or debate is this inherently pejorative thing is
14:56
not true. I think it's wonderful.
14:58
That you celebrate the fact that they disagree with each other.
15:00
I think it's wonderful. We love debates, we love
15:03
discourse. But I also take every tech
15:06
oligarch, I think individually setting Musk aside for a second.
15:10
For me, I think Mark Zuckerberg is probably the worst of them.
15:13
I think it's insulting to our intelligence, the idea that
15:15
they're doing these limited Hangouts of like, oh, we revised
15:17
our fact checking and oh, sorry, we maybe stole the election.
15:20
Maybe we didn't, I don't know. Here's a one page letter.
15:23
Maybe take our apology. That's weak and our base doesn't
15:25
accept that. To the Musk point, I think that
15:27
he is a different case. I think the ideology behind Doge
15:31
really is sort of the evolution, if not I think the actual
15:34
kinetic ground force of what Stephen K Bannon started, which
15:36
is dismantling and deconstructing the
15:38
administrative. I think going in and getting rid
15:41
of USAID, to me was personally one of the highlights of the
15:43
Trump administration, a shock to the system, a jolt to the system
15:47
that is the bureaucratic entrenched state that runs this
15:49
city. Although actually an amazing arm
15:52
of soft American power, isn't it really?
15:54
Well, here's what I would say, I'm sure.
15:55
You're, I guess, who's going to take over that particular
15:57
position. It'll be China.
15:58
Well, let's see, what are you going to tell me that USAID
16:00
helped? You know what was it PEPFAR in
16:01
Africa or a bunch of poor starving kids in Africa eat?
16:04
Well then what about the fact that what was the upwards of 90%
16:06
of African countries have signed on to the Belt and Rd.
16:08
initiative. So if USAID is the evidence that
16:11
you want to give the United States soft power is not
16:12
working. It's not, it's not soft power.
16:15
There are many people who would, you know, even people on the
16:17
right who would beg to difference.
16:18
You think United States soft power has been successful?
16:20
I think it has. 10 years, I think it hasn't in many ways.
16:22
It's just, you know, it's, I mean you don't get complete
16:24
loyalty right if you, if you exercise that.
16:27
Well, I wouldn't take signing on to China's Belt and Rd.
16:29
initiative as something that I would say, oh wow, we've been
16:31
really great on convincing countries to stay in the Western
16:33
sphere of influence. So just on, on the economy, I
16:36
mean the numbers that came out yesterday were pretty troubling,
16:38
weren't they, in terms of, you know, quarter decline, oh point
16:42
3% down. It was 2.4% at the end of the
16:46
last quarter, at the end of last year.
16:48
Do you think the Marga voters, the Marga family, is OK with
16:52
what might well be a recession down the line?
16:54
Is that a price they're prepared to pay when they were promised
16:57
that things would just be better and better as soon as you got
16:59
into office? Well, I don't know about the
17:01
recession fear mongering, but I. Think but these are but these
17:03
are numbers. You get 2 negative quarters, you
17:05
get a recession, right So. Well, I think we have a lot of
17:07
those under Joe Biden. No, no, no.
17:09
Let's talk. Let's talk about this
17:11
administration. No No 2.
17:13
Quarters of downward, we had that under Joe Biden.
17:16
So I'm just saying we should apply standards fairly.
17:18
And at the time there was a recession, it was caused for all
17:20
sorts of reasons. And, you know, I'm not making
17:22
excuses for Biden's economic record.
17:24
I'm just wondering whether the MAGA crowd that voted for
17:27
President Trump because they were told by him that the
17:29
economic lot would get better will be OK with what might well
17:34
be a recession. Well, I think we'll see.
17:37
I think we're in the midst of negotiating trade deals that are
17:39
going to fundamentally restructure and reorient hope,
17:42
hopefully, hopefully successfully the entire kind of
17:46
trading dynamic that exists here in the United States.
17:48
So yeah, maybe it's short term gain and that's probably not a
17:50
very politically salient or powerful message, but it's true
17:55
pain. Sure.
17:56
I think it's maybe just adjustment.
17:58
I know we're parsing our words, but I think that the 100 days
18:02
mark coming at this time where we're still limits of
18:04
negotiating a lot of these deals.
18:05
I mean, you've seen how fickle the stock market has been.
18:07
If we were doing this show tomorrow or yesterday, it would
18:09
have been at a different point. But there's a fundamental
18:12
underlying volatility if you look at all the indications of
18:15
consumer confidence, investor confidence.
18:18
Well, I would take volatility over a continuation of the
18:21
abysmal and horrid status quo that we've had not just under
18:24
Joe Biden, but for the last decades that have led us to a
18:26
$37 trillion deficit. Something had to give.
18:29
We were living on borrowed time. And if it was the tariffs that
18:31
we. Needed.
18:32
But also just on that, which is interesting, you know, you did
18:34
live on, on borrowed money, I mean huge amounts of money being
18:37
borrowed, but America's been in a very lucky position of having
18:40
the gold credit card. You had the gold card and even
18:42
if you never repaid your debts, you know, you got more and more
18:45
money. Now you may agree or disagree
18:46
with that economically, but you had that luxury.
18:49
That's the luxury that comes with having the dollar as a, as
18:51
the reserve currency that is now in danger.
18:54
So when you lose that gold card and you downgrade it to a silver
18:57
card or something even, you know, or bronze card or a wooden
19:00
card, you're going to have to repay those debts on a much more
19:04
regular basis because they'll be short term.
19:06
That is going to be tricky for this country to do.
19:08
Well, I think this goes back to what I was talking about, both
19:11
in terms of the kind of borrowed time converging with the idea
19:14
that what President Trump is trying to do.
19:15
And frankly, you see these tariffs coming out of his desk.
19:18
Peter Navarro's who's been a extreme, extreme China hawk CCP
19:22
hawk. What you're in terms of talking
19:24
about the United States standing in the world dollar supremacy.
19:27
I think we've done more to destroy the hegemony of the
19:29
United States dollar by allowing China into the WTO, allowing the
19:33
Chinese Communist Party to rise even the idea of stealing what
19:36
is it Russian assets and giving it but.
19:37
Other countries will rise up the world is not just made for
19:40
America by. I think you and I are both smart
19:42
enough to admit that Chinas rise did not occur in a vacuum, that
19:45
happened due to decades of very elite multibillion dollar
19:49
political warfare operations buying off elites in my country
19:52
and yours favourable trade deals.
19:54
They should enter the WTO and they manipulate all that stuff.
19:57
Yes, they've gained the system, but they're also, but it's not
20:00
just that they've gained the system, but they're all
20:02
incredibly hard working and they're really smart.
20:06
And I think that's something that America sometimes misses
20:08
when it looks at China. Yes, China has gained the
20:10
system, but China's also got there to a large extent.
20:14
By its own merit, that doesn't say you.
20:15
Well, when you say by its own merit, I think you also need by
20:18
slave labour and repressing. But there's all that China.
20:22
But there's all that too, I. Think that's a euphemistic spin
20:24
for why China's. There's all that too.
20:26
But then the reason why they're the world's second largest
20:29
superpower, second richest economy, soon to be the richest,
20:33
is not just because of those, you know, the camps, those
20:36
concentration camps are weakest. It's also because they work
20:40
hard. They, you know, have good ideas
20:43
into good businesses. $0.15 a day.
20:45
No, they are. They are where they.
20:46
Wage the wage levels. Because they have absolutely
20:50
infiltrated every single country in the entire world from the
20:54
United Front work department. They've obviously targeted West,
20:57
western, western elites. That's why you see the apoplexy
21:00
over what's going on with the tariffs.
21:01
That's why they launched the Belt and Road.
21:02
That's why they launched made in China 2025.
21:05
That's why they have all their goals to con culminate in 20-30
21:07
to be essentially the new global superpower.
21:10
And what Trump is doing is pushing back because if you
21:13
don't, they will take over the whole that they already have.
21:15
Do you? Think pushing back will work?
21:17
Do you think America will win this confrontation with China on
21:20
trade? I think it's multifaceted.
21:22
I think trade is part of it. I think what the Trump
21:24
administration did in the first term in terms of going after
21:27
these United Front Work Department influence groups,
21:29
such as the multibillion dollar political warfare operation that
21:32
emanates out of Beijing, it's run by the highest CCP members.
21:35
They subpoenaed or rather sanctioned them in the first
21:37
term and went after a lot of these influence OPS.
21:39
That's something that I would look to doing again.
21:41
I think for the first time ever, you saw Panama under the
21:44
negotiations of Secretary Pete Hagseth, actually D list D
21:47
affiliate from the Belt and Rd. initiative.
21:49
I think that's a trend that we should push for and try to to
21:52
hope seeing. But China's rise did not happen
21:54
in a vacuum. The people are hard working,
21:56
they're brilliant, They play Smash Mouth as Stephen K Bannon
21:59
always says, they're Marxists, they're communists, they care
22:01
about their country. I get it.
22:02
They're allowed to be nationalists, apparently.
22:04
And they're you can't. But it's because the rules that
22:07
they have created that are so fundamentally unfair and the
22:10
enforcers they pay, they get to pick judge, jury and
22:13
executioner. And President Trump, love him or
22:16
hate him, I think your audience should fear a world in which the
22:18
Chinese Communist Party replaces the United States.
22:21
And thank God that he is a president who was not bought off
22:23
by the Chinese Communist Party, because there are not many
22:25
presidents who would have actually tariffed China at the
22:27
rate that he did. But I just wonder whether on
22:28
China what this is really about. It's not even about trade and
22:32
about tariffs. It's about the fact that China
22:35
is competing with America in a way that most Americans hadn't
22:38
thought was possible even until 10 years.
22:40
Unfair competition. Why doesn't the president take
22:43
those American conglomerates, those companies that they chose
22:46
to go to China to produce Barbie dolls in China?
22:49
That was American companies choosing to do that.
22:52
Why are they not taken to task force?
22:54
They should be, I think they should be much harder on
22:56
companies that have outsourced. But that's what they're trying
22:58
to do with the tariffs, right? That is the core issue that the
23:02
American ruling class, which is what President Trump both and
23:05
his persona and his policies represents.
23:08
Giving a middle finger to those people who have allowed the
23:10
outsourcing of these jobs, which represents not just jobs, but
23:13
livelihoods and dignity. Pushing back on these
23:16
corporations that are choosing Chinese market access despite
23:20
the human. Rights.
23:20
But it's the ruling class that is running the show again.
23:22
You've got, you know, the big, the big on Wall Street, the big
23:25
cheeses in Silicon Valley. Trump himself.
23:27
And they're calling him to drop all the tariffs.
23:29
Has he dropped the? Tariffs wrong to do that, you
23:30
said. It's the tariffs, much like so
23:34
many of his negotiating tactics, that is not the thing itself.
23:38
It's a broader goal where that sure, there's an interregnum
23:41
period where you have to have some back and forth and
23:43
negotiate. But I think this idea that the
23:45
United States should not, should not leverage or flex it's muscle
23:49
diplomatically, financially, fiscally, and have this like
23:52
weird perverse equity mindset where we need to act like we're
23:54
an inferior backwater third world country on the world
23:57
stage. It's not true.
23:58
We have some muscle. We may as well throw it around
24:00
because what we're doing is not working.
24:02
And if it were working, to those global elites, tell me why
24:05
President Trump has now won 3 elections on on campaigning,
24:09
Let's call it 2-3 on the idea that the current system, the
24:12
status quo, does not work. I'm brilliant.
24:16
Interesting. Just on the three elections.
24:19
I mean he won two elections and people believe that you know the
24:23
election in 2020, he still believes that that was rigged.
24:26
That is not that is not sure, is it?
24:28
I mean, let's be honest, 2020 election. 3 elections, maybe 4.
24:33
Steve Bannon says 2028. OK, what do you think?
24:35
Should he run again? I mean, the Constitution doesn't
24:37
let him. Should he?
24:38
I think I will take Steve Bannon's line here because he's
24:41
working on on AI want these Commission that's too formal a
24:44
term. But a lot of our most, I would
24:45
say brilliant legal minds bringing them together, focusing
24:48
on how we can make that happen. But I think right now they're
24:50
focusing on on the trade stuff. So.
24:52
You think that is a possibility? Trump in 2020. 8 Don't take my
24:55
report. Who wasn't Margo Martin, one of
24:57
the tops advisors was on stage who said Trump 20 I'm quoting
25:01
them. She went on stage, she said
25:02
Trump 2028, and the crowd erupted in applause.
25:06
And how would that work do you think?
25:08
I don't know why. I guess we'll have to see.
25:10
Well, as a, you know, as a journalist, talk me through the
25:12
different scenarios here of how it might work.
25:15
I've heard one idea that, you know, JD Vance is the top of the
25:17
ticket. Trump runs as a Vice Vance wins,
25:21
they do a flip. That is 1.
25:23
See, there you go. You know, You already know.
25:25
I don't know. I think that.
25:26
They will. Do you think that's plausible?
25:27
Do you think JD Vance would want to give up the top job for
25:30
Donald Trump? I don't know.
25:32
You'll have to ask the vice president.
25:34
Do you think the American public would put up with it?
25:36
I think the American public loves President Trump and I
25:40
think that the Republican Party, the idea that he has.
25:43
Some people love him, some people love him.
25:45
I mean. The majority, as he just won an
25:47
overwhelming victory. Love him and love the idea that
25:51
we have a president that puts America first.
25:53
Do they love JD Vance as much, do you think?
25:56
I think so. I think there's this weird media
25:57
obsession that he's not popular. I think it's hard to compete
26:00
with President Trump. But I think JD Vance has a very
26:02
brilliant mind. I think he, in terms of talking
26:05
about that sort of tech bro, more MAGA fusionism idea, I
26:09
think he represents someone who kind of straddles both worlds,
26:12
which though I do think in some ways is kind of inherently
26:16
improbable and implausible. I think he toes that line quite
26:19
well. I think it'll be very
26:21
interesting to see the, I won't say civil war, but the sort of
26:24
inevitable conflict primary potentially, or who knows, maybe
26:27
it'll be Trump. Again, do you personally think
26:29
that he should run for a third term?
26:31
President Trump, yeah, I think he should do what?
26:34
His legal advisors. Political advisors.
26:37
Yeah, that's a cop. What do you think?
26:39
As a citizen, as a voter, as a journalist, What do you?
26:41
Think if he were running in 2028 I would vote for him.
26:44
Just finally, what's really come across is that, and I see this a
26:47
lot from people, you know, in the Margaret campus, that you
26:49
feel aggrieved that America has been a victim, that it's been
26:54
bullied by, you know, China and, you know, the Europeans have
26:57
scammed you. But America's been incredibly
27:00
powerful and incredibly rich for really most of the last 8
27:06
decades with a few blips. So I wonder where all this
27:09
victimhood comes from, because it doesn't make sense to us in
27:12
Europe. Well, I think to use the term
27:13
America there is quite monolithic.
27:15
I think the ruling class, the 1% has done absolutely great,
27:18
especially during COVID. I think especially in divide and
27:21
the transfers of wealth that we've seen are are insane.
27:23
But I think America's working class, though they have
27:26
underwritten the system that has led to that abundance of wealth,
27:29
that superpower flourishing on the world stage.
27:32
I don't really think that they have necessarily seen but the
27:35
reverse of that come back, whether it's in the form of
27:38
wages that are livable, cities and towns that are not over one
27:41
run with crime. And I think most importantly,
27:43
you've seen a fundamental degradation of the value of what
27:46
it means to be an American citizen with just the copious
27:49
amounts of illegal immigration. That's one front.
27:51
But the idea that anyone who just crosses the border is
27:53
suddenly an American, it's a cultural issue and the legacy
27:56
media continue continues to miss that.
27:58
Why don't they talk about the wage depression, the depression,
28:00
deflation, the idea that American culture is being
28:03
destroyed and replaced? They don't talk about it, so
28:06
they're going to keep losing if they refuse to talk about it.
28:08
Do you ever see yourself questioning what this
28:11
administration does? All the time.
28:13
I think the mass deportation numbers need to be higher.
28:15
I think the E OS on the law firms going after their
28:17
government security clearances and contracts are great start.
28:20
But I think they need to have formal and proper
28:21
investigations. I think DOJI won't.
28:24
I don't know exactly what the time frame would be.
28:26
I would say I've been disappointed in the lack of
28:29
investigations, announcer, jury, grand juries and panel,
28:31
whatever. I think you need to see more
28:33
actual, dare I say the word, retribution coming from some of
28:36
these departments. I think we have.
28:38
Your criticism? They haven't done enough.
28:40
Yeah, I think they need to be pushing more.
28:42
Most people think they've done too much.
28:43
For an audit to Ukraine, they should build, see Caught 2 in El
28:46
Salvador and deport more people. Yeah.
28:49
So yeah, we criticize that this idea that we're these sycophants
28:52
is not true. We just outflank them, I think,
28:55
from the right, particularly on immigration, particularly on
28:58
retribution. It's been really interesting
29:00
talking to you and. You're not scared.
29:02
No, no, I'm terrified. No, what's so interesting is
29:06
that when you, when I'm talking to you, I know you have great
29:09
sources in the administration and you're a journalist, but
29:12
you're speaking as if you're a spokesperson for, you know, for
29:16
your audience. Well, maybe for parts of the
29:18
administration. I'm not, I think.
29:21
But that's how you sound. Well, I think you sound like a
29:24
spokesperson for someone who hates Trump.
29:27
Well, I've just been asking the questions.
29:29
Well, look, I have views, I have beliefs just like you do.
29:33
I wear them on my sleeve. And the idea that someone is
29:36
only biased because they are supportive of an America First
29:40
agenda is just absurd. Everyone in that press briefing
29:45
room is further to the left than I am to the right.
29:48
They use that briefing room like a little area to wage
29:51
information warfare against that administration.
29:54
You feel like an outside in that briefing.
29:55
Room. That's an understatement.
29:57
I get so much Flack for being in there as a propagandist.
30:00
I've rattled off time and time again all the ways that I've
30:03
criticized the administration for what they need to do,
30:06
whether it's on the immigration or DOJ vertical.
30:09
And I'm sorry, but that press corps who thinks that they're so
30:13
talented, they missed what was the largest story of, I don't
30:16
know of how many of the last decades, decades that Joe Biden
30:20
and that room was so small. You tell me how you miss a
30:22
president who's barely sentient, doesn't know what's going on,
30:26
and I'm sorry. I would think of press corps
30:28
that is so for open borders and mass migration and the idea that
30:31
the American working class needs to compete with a bunch of
30:33
foreign labor, that they would be able to handle a few new
30:36
media journalists flopped in there, and they're beautiful
30:39
building that's hidden behind walls and you need ID to get in.
30:41
I've heard all their rhetoric and narratives about that, how
30:43
that's racist and inefficient. So I think that they should be
30:46
able to handle a few new media people, I think.
30:48
How friendly to you? On a case by case basis, some
30:52
people are very nice. Some people I think that I'm
30:54
think I'm a crazy, you know, hot headed MAGA type.
30:58
This idea that the media is not allowed to have opinions, I just
31:02
think is again, idealistic. It's not true, it's not true.
31:06
And who, who in there would you point to and say is unbiased?
31:10
What outlet do you think I should model myself after in
31:12
terms of not having a bias it? Should be yourself.
31:15
But I'm I'm serious, what outlet in there do you think is
31:17
actually unbiased, if there are any?
31:19
I couldn't possibly comment. Natalie Winters, thank you very
31:21
much indeed. Thank you.
31:23
That's it for this edition of The Forecast in Washington.
31:25
Until next time, goodbye.