March 16, 2025 • 30 mins
Newt talks with Sean Spicer, former White House Press Secretary, about his recent appointment to the board of the US Naval Academy by President Trump. Spicer shares insights into his career, including his military service and his tenure in the White House. He recounts his legal battle against the Biden administration's unprecedented dismissal of service academy board members and reflects on the media's portrayal of political narratives. Their conversation also covers Spicer's current endeavors, including his podcast, “The Sean Spicer Show” and his role as co-host of “The Morning Meeting” on 2way.tv Additionally, Spicer praises the current White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, for her poise and leadership, and discusses the challenges and strategies in managing the White House press corps.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
On this episode of News World.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
My guest today is former White House Press Secretary and
very good friend Sean Spicer. These days, he's a very
business person. He's just been appointed to the board for
the US Naval Academy by President Trump. He's co host
of the popular show The Morning Meeting along with Mark
Alpern and Dan Turantine on the Two Way Platform. He
hosts his own podcast, The Shawn Spicer Show, and he's
(00:28):
just recently launched his sub stack. In fact, he's so
in the man. I'm delighted that he would make the
time just to join us. Shawn, thank you and once
again joining me on News World. But I'm really grateful
you take the time.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
You ask I come. That's how it works.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
And by the way, congratulations on the President appointing you
to the board of the Naval Academy. I mean that
has got to be a really solid sense of something
you've spent your whole lifetime doing to serve the country.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
And there's obviously a bit of poetic justice in that
I talked to the President about this the other night.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
As people may recall, on the way out the.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
Door, it was funny when I left the White House
they had asked, do you want to do anything, and
I'd said, I'll serve on the board of the Naval Academy.
There wasn't an opening at the time, so they put
me on the White House Fellow's Commission. Eventually, one of
the Obama people's term was up and they named me
to a new term. And then when Biden came in,
I resigned from the White House Commission on Fellows because
that's what you do, it's a White House commission. And
(01:30):
on September one, midday, I get a text or an
email rather from the director of Personnel for the Biden
White House and said, at six o'clock tonight, either you
will resign or we will fire you from your term
the Naval Academy. I said, no, you can fire me
if you want. And then America First Legal, the outside
group that Stephen Miller had found it, called me a
(01:50):
couple of days later and said, would you be willing
to put your name on a lawsuit saying that Biden
didn't have the right to do that. Myself and Russ Vote,
the current O and b director, were the only two
people agreed to do that. And remember he fired everybody
Naval Academy West Point Air Force So we filed this lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
You'll love this because this is the best part about it.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
The media kept saying we were going to lose the lawsuit,
and sure enough, we lost the lawsuit. And for those
people listening on audio, I do that in air quotes
because my term was going to end in fifty nine days.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
Now. I'm no legal scholar.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
But I don't see the court adjudicating a lawsuit like that.
In fifty nine days. We went up to the appeals process.
The Biden administration continued to argue that they had every
right to fire anyone they wanted, and the court affirmed
that at the appeals level. So once again the media said,
Spicer and Vote lost the lawsuit. Well, here's the bitter irony.
(02:44):
When Donald Trump comes in, he just starts firing everyone.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
Now, this is what I.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
Love about the story. I get a call like five
Fridays ago, and it's a Washington Post reporter and he says,
mister Spicer, I wanted to know if you had any
comment about the Kennedy Center. Why what do you mean?
He said, Well, President Trump has fired everyone from the
Kennedy Center. I said, okay, good for him, I'm glad
he did it, and he said, have you not seen
their response? And I said, you know, I follow a
(03:10):
lot of people on Twitter, but I don't follow the
spokesman for the Kennedy Center. And he said, oh, well,
let me tell you. Then the spokesman said that they
have no recourse because.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Of Spicer v. Biden.
Speaker 4 (03:21):
And now, look, as a guy whose legal experience spans
watching all the versions of law and order, there was
something kind of cool about literally being like, holy smokes,
they're literally citing a case the Kennedy Center.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Folks.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
They wrote this subsequent Washington Post story a couple of
days later that said, you know, why can.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
President Trump do what he's doing? Because of Spicer v. Biden.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
They keep trying to outdo Trump. They go after him
to kick him off the ballot. At backfires, they fire
all the people who were Trump supporters. And remember, just
for context, I left this part out. Unfortunately, never before
in the history of the United States has anyone from
the Service Academy's been dismissed without cause, and even then
couldn't find it. So when Biden did this, it was
(04:02):
wholly unprecedented. So they created this mess. And when Trump
goes around and fires everybody. Just remember, for all of
you will want a little ammo to your leftist uncle
or cousin. It was Spicer v Biden. Biden did this
for the first time in history, firing people. And so
if you want to blame somebody for what Trump is doing,
blame Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
That's great. It's also a great personal story.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
It's just fun because sometimes you know, when this lawsuit
came about, I thought to myself, I was still serving
in the military. It probably wasn't the smartest military officer
move in the world to put your name. Now, granted
I was a civilian, so just to be clear, people
in the military still talk and they see it. But
at the end of the day, I did it because
it was the right thing to do. What he did
(04:48):
was wrong, and obviously it was really bittersweet when the
President called me a couple of weeks ago and said, hey,
I'm reconstituting this.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
I'm honored to put you back on.
Speaker 4 (04:56):
And you look at the names that are on there,
right Congressman Derrick Van Orden, Navy c Ronnie Jackson, congressman
from Texas, who's his physician, one star admiral, and then
it's like enshawan Spicer, but.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Talk for them about your own military service. I mean
it's not like you will wander to end from the road.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Reyquift.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
Yeah, I've served twenty six years and the Navy, but
a CEO and an officer in charge depending on you know,
the unit. I graduated the US Naval War College, have
a master's in Strategic and National Study. So I mean
I've served for over twenty six years commanded some pretty
decent sized units. Have a nice little salad on my
chest of awards that I've been honored to receive, So
(05:33):
I've done my time. But you know, there's a lot
of stiff competition for boards like this in terms of
graduates who have gone on and done great things, who
have served the country and obviously want to go back
to the alma made. I didn't graduate from the academy.
I graduated from the War College.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
But it's a huge honor.
Speaker 4 (05:49):
I know how many people ask the President to be nominated,
and I greatly appreciate him reappointing me to that position.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
I'm curious because you've got a unique perspective having been
in the world White House, and I remember a time
seeing you when I would visit and you'd be in
the middle trying to get ready for the press score.
What do you think about the level of change that
Caroline Levitt has brought to bear on the White House
Press score?
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Absolutely phenomenal.
Speaker 4 (06:15):
There's a few things, one like I told the President this,
by the way, the other day, I said, Man, I'm
sure whatever decision making process you went through to pick her,
it was well worth it, because she has done a
phenomenal job. She has a ton of poise in leadership
at the podium, commands attention, really has a command of
the issues as well, And so I think she's doing
a phenomenal job.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
But to go in and shake it up.
Speaker 4 (06:37):
Remember when I was White House Press sar, I brought
in skype, so I allowed reporters from around the country
that couldn't be in DC to ask questions on the screen.
And that time they went nuts. They said, this is unprecedented, ridiculous.
And my point was I wanted ideas issues like I
got asked about water rights and federal land use and
issues that would never come up in the briefing because
(06:57):
all they cared about was Michael Flynn in Russia. The
point was I wanted a to do that to give
local reporters an opportunity, but be also to infect the
briefing room with issues that real Americans care about that
might not make it to Washington. And what Caroline has
done by bringing in more new voices is absolutely phenomenal
and well timed. And then the idea of also shaking
(07:19):
up the White House pool. What people don't understand is
that the White House establishment left wing legacy wants to
control what you see, read, and hear every day, and
so they do these pool reports, which means the Oval
Office or Air Force One are obviously small areas. So
they choose thirteen people and there's a print reporter, a
radio person, a TV person, a wire person. They go in,
(07:42):
they capture what the President says or does through their
lens and then report back out to their other thousands
of colleagues. This is what happened, right, So they decide
what's important. They add color, right, so the president was
doing this, this is what happened. They decide what the
mood was. It was tense, it was I mean, whatever
it is, and then they tell everyone, So if I
(08:03):
get to be the arbiter of what you see, read,
and here.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
Then I control the narrative.
Speaker 4 (08:09):
And what Caroline has done is open that aperture up,
allow more voices to go in and be part of
the pool.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
So not cut it back, just to be clear, actually
grown it.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
So now you have the same New York Times in
Washington Post, but you've got an additional person. It's almost
like an additional witness to a crime scene. Now they
get to hold them accountable and say, actually, the President
was jovial, he was excited, he was bouncing off the
walls to announce this program. But there's now a degree
of accountability that there hasn't been in the past. If
I can, I want to tell you one really interesting
(08:39):
inside baseball story because this shows you the power of
the White House correspondence. When we won in twenty sixteen,
there's a group of us that met with them in
New York at Trump Tower and they said to us,
here's how the briefings work. You will get up, you
will give your opening statements, you know, the President's schedule,
whatever you want to say, and then you will start
by calling on Thissociated Press, the front row, who they
(09:02):
decide who sits where it's the wires, the Associated Press routers,
the New York Times, NBCABC, and then it kind of
works backwards, and they said, you will call on the
Associated Press first, and then you will go down the
first row, the NBC's the Washington Post. And then if
there's time, you can entertain the low life folks in
the back of the room, bring them into the conversation.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
And after you've gone on for said amount of time, the.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
Associated Press reporter who's sitting in that seat will say
thank you very much. That signals the end of your briefing.
I said, okay, thank you. So the first briefing I
held on that Monday, the first person I called on
was Daniel Halper, New York Post. Now I know to
most people in America, they didn't care, they didn't notice
what I did. And the faces on the folks in
the front row was unbelievable. And then I went on
(09:48):
and on and on, and at forty five minutes in
Julie Pace of the Associated Press looked up and said
thank you very much, signaling what they thought was the
end of my briefing.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
I look down and I said, no, thank you, Julie.
I'll go on.
Speaker 4 (10:02):
I'll tell you when my briefing's over, and I went
on for another forty five minutes. And the goal there
was to signal to them that you're not in charge.
This is a government broom. This is a government briefing.
We'll decide when it's over, not you. Donald Trump's in
charge now. And I think that Caroline has really, in
her own way, brought a stamp to that room to
(10:22):
make it very clear in a different way several years later,
that she's in charge, that the Trump Administration's going to
lead this agenda, not them, And I think it's phenomenal.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
I went by the other dan.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
She said, if I want to come in sometime, I
can occupy the seat of the unusual member and ask
a question.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
I said, do I have to tell you know what?
Event said?
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Now you show up, we'll get you a seat. But
at her age, her confidence is unbelievable.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
And it's funny you say that, because obviously we have
had a lot of great entrepreneurs in this country. You've
done fantastic things at young age. If we're going to
be honest about this, like at twenty seven, are you
kidding me?
Speaker 3 (10:59):
I could not have held my own in that.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
I was a comms director on Capitol Hill under your
tutelage when you were speaker working for a rank and
file member. I mean, I couldn't have had the poise
and the command of issues that she has at that level.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
I don't know that I could have done it at
thirty seven.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
She's remarkable.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Yeah, and it just speaks what a bright future.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
I'm very impressed that every morning you guys are doing
this two way and you find interesting things to talk about.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
You managed to maintain a balance and it's very cordial.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
What makes it unique streams on my YouTube channel and
if people want to watch, and it's live. We take
questions from anyone in the world. We gotten questions from
France and China. The difference between the morning meeting and
a lot of shows is that we're not trying to
win you over. So when you go on cable, it's
a six or seven minute cable hit. I want to
beat up on the opponent. I want to tell him
(12:04):
why I'm right. Donald Trump is doing better. You guys
are bad blah blah blah. Dan and I Dan being
the Democrat, he worked for Hillary Clinton. He's got a
ton of stature, a ton of time and grade. Is
that we're explaining the process. I'm not trying to win
over people if you like Donald Trump, Moore, or the
Republican Party or the conservative movement more. I'm excited. I
hope that I do that well. But my goal is
(12:26):
to explain why things are happening. This is the mentality,
This is the decision making process, so that people have
a better understanding of their government and the process by
which decisions are made, and maybe how to influence them.
So as you know, it's not schoolhouse rock, and people
need to know. This is really how government works, how
decisions are made, how politicians think.
Speaker 3 (12:48):
And I think we add an element.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
To the discussion that just doesn't exist in the ecosystem anymore.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Orever, and I have to say, I find Halprin to
be so widely network that his morning newsletter is one
of the first things I read every day.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
Well, people trust Mark to tell them things.
Speaker 4 (13:08):
I joked with Mark at one point, like I spent
several hours in front of the Mueller Commission or whatever
the heck it's actually called, and I was always impressed
by how they would look and say, you know, on
February third, you were in a meeting. There were four
people there someone exited from the right hand side.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
I mean, I'm like, holy smokes, it's.
Speaker 4 (13:25):
Like big brother. When halbrind interviews you for you know,
his books or whatever. He doesn't come to just ask.
He comes with his a game and he's like, look,
when you were in this meeting, you coughed a few
times and then you made an utterance. And he's so
well sourced because people trust him that he's not going
to reveal sources and that he's going to try to
get the story straight. And that's very different from so
(13:47):
many of the folks that like Politico or axios, who
are just looking for clickbait.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
You inventioned working in the house when I was a speaker.
Do you share my sense though? What Mike Johnson's pulling
off with virtually no margin is on imaginable.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (14:02):
We do a thing on the morning meeting where we
pick winners and losers, and all three of us, including
Dan the Democrat, so that the winner was Mike Johnson
because you know this, it's hurting cats to begin with
what he's been able to pull off without ear marks.
And I mean, you remember the delay days, it was
sort of like how much for your vote? That's obviously
an extreme, but there are a lot more tools at
the disposal. Politically now, it's not that way, and so
(14:25):
he's really instilling a sense of team that didn't exist.
And that's the big difference is that people are like,
I get it. Tom Massey, even who's voting against these things,
isn't doing it out of spite.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
He's not mad at anybody. He's not. He philosophically disagrees
with the vision of government, which to some degree I respect.
Speaker 4 (14:44):
He's not doing this because he doesn't like Donald Trump
or he's mad at Mike Johnson. He's, you know, a
principal guy that sees things differently. I don't agree with
him entirely, but I'm just saying I don't think that
he's doing this for some kind of political gain. He's
weathered the primaries before, and again I don't agree with
necessarily what he's doing, but it speaks to Johnson that
(15:05):
he's able to keep all these people together without a
bunch of carrots and sticks and browbeating them, etc. And
I think the other point that I would make where
it's going to benefit him is look at the Democrats
where they are.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
They are in utter, utter disarray.
Speaker 4 (15:20):
And when you talk about the Republican conference, the idea
that Johnson can go to them now and say, guys,
we stuck together.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
We were a team. And look at these jokers.
Speaker 4 (15:29):
They're off making paddles at Arts and Crafts Time, and
then they're mocking Schumer openly.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
I mean, this is not a party that has his
act together. It's really rudderless.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Plus I were sitting actually on Johnson's box for the
President's addressed to the Congress, so we're directly above the Democrats.
They couldn't applaud Trump. They couldn't apploud a thirteen year
old cancer survivor. They couldn't applaud mothers and survivors. And
you're getting the same thing right now. I mean they lockstep, vote, no,
get beaten.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (16:01):
And here's the thing is that you know good begets good.
If you're Johnson, you look at them and say, guys,
we stuck together, and look at what they did, like
it's pathetic.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Dick Martlin called me one time about nineteen eighty three.
He was Reagan's chief polster, and he said, the most
important thing is winning, because a president who wins is
seen as strong, and therefore it's easier to win the
next one because he's seen as strong and there was
a lot to that. I mean, I didn't fully appreciate
at the time because we were fighting over Texas, but
(16:31):
they did win. And I think Trump has a similar knack,
And in his case, I think he has ironically vastly
more intense prestige than Reagan did. He doesn't have as
broad a prestige. The loyalty to Trump among those who
like him is astonishingly deep.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
The thing that I keep saying.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
I gave a speech earlier this week and I said,
because of four years out of office, I think Trump's
going to be the most consequential second term president probably ever,
definitely in modern history, because the opportunity when you have
one term, you just keep rolling over. If you're the
Press secretary on January twentieth, you're the pres secretary on
the twenty first, and on the twenty second and.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
Twenty third, and when you have ability to.
Speaker 4 (17:10):
Stop and think about what I call the three p's,
the people, the process, and the policies, and you go, Okay,
if I get to do it again, what am I
going to do? Who are the people I'm going to
surround myself? With and keep away to what are the
policies that I'm going to advance and not and then
the process, what do I have to do to make
sure I get my policies through. Who are going to
(17:31):
be the opposition forces, who are going to be my friends?
What are the obstacles that we're going to face? And
because of that, they have come out of the gate
just killing it. And this is the difference is that
you think back eight years ago, we didn't have a
team in the house. Mark Meadows led the opposition to
the repeal of Obamacare, and you had people who subsequently
(17:52):
came onto the team and didn't do it for battery.
It just didn't think it was the right decision. But
like now, to your point, Speaker, Johnson's got everybody on board.
I mean Andy Harris, the congressman from Maryland who's the
chair of the Freedom Caucus, is publicly saying, hey, I've
never voted for a debt ceiling increase.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
I've never voted for a cr but I'm willing to
do it now.
Speaker 4 (18:11):
They believe in the vision they're bought in, and I
think this is just absolutely spectacular.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
If Trump can sustain this and if he can win
the twenty sixth election in the House. I think he
will go on to be just below Washington and Lincoln's
probably rivaling FDR as the third most consequential president in
American history. And he will have changed the government at
a level that it would have been unthinkable prior to Trump.
Speaker 4 (18:38):
But you know what's the funny. I fight this like
on a daily basis. Trump is willing to have fights
that people haven't been willing to have, like this effort
to root out government. And you know this, I mean
the Grace Commission Reinventing Government, Sarveins Oxley, and we talk
about it over and over again, and now it's happening.
I just get so excited because we have allowed the excuses,
(19:02):
and sometimes for the right reasons, because he didn't have
the alignment of the parties.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
It's not entirely because of lack of will.
Speaker 4 (19:09):
But this time we've got a partner that's willing to
go out there and fight the fights in a way
that just hasn't existed in the past.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Part of it is that he grew up in New
York real estate where people were very tough and they
fought all the time. If you've read the art of
the Comeback, which is I think his most important book.
As he explains it, he almost went broke and as
the greatest opening it says, I was nine hundred million
(19:35):
dollars in debt to the banks personally, Atlantic City was
ceasing to be profitable, the Iraq campaign was leading to inflation,
and my wife just called to say she wanted a divorce.
He said, this is the moment when you either get
depressed or you plan a comeback.
Speaker 3 (19:52):
I've got the Art of the Deal. I've done that.
But you're right.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
The Art of the Deal is very helpful in understanding
his mindset. If you watch him, for example, we Ukraine
and Russia. It's straight out of the Art of the Deal.
You know.
Speaker 4 (20:03):
It's funny though, just from a strategic standpoint that I
find hysterical. And I think you were the one who
said it a long time ago to me, and so
I'm just just to be clear, I'm stealing it, although
as I've learned the second time that you use it,
you don't have to attribute.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
It once you as Sean Spicer said.
Speaker 3 (20:20):
Yeah, exactly, thank you. But I think that one of
the things that's interesting is that so much is.
Speaker 4 (20:26):
There in public meaning the book is there, the art
of the deal is there, the art of the compact,
you're there, go read it. And so many times when
people are talking to me, I'll say, not long ago,
new Gingert said, you know, it's all there and the
art of the deal, and yet people just don't want
to read it. And I'm like, it's like the playbook
is staring you in front of the face. The map
is there, and you don't want to look at it.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Part of it is they can't believe somebody is actually
like this. This is a guy who has survived recessions economically.
I mean, he understands all this stuff, probably as well
as any president of American history. But in addition, I
must say I just read jd. Vance's speech explaining the tariffs.
It is the best most coherent explanation I've seen so far,
(21:08):
and it's pretty straightforward. They want manufacturing in the United
States period.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (21:13):
I mean this again goes back to this whole idea.
I was talking about this in the morning meeting this morning.
At some point, the easy political thing, the absolutely easiest,
is Trump just to kick it down the road, to
say you're right, let's just let Canada keep high tariffs.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
Let's let Europe keep high teriffs.
Speaker 4 (21:28):
Let's just keep doing business that way so that US
companies don't have the same market access that they do
to our market.
Speaker 3 (21:34):
That's the easy political answer.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
The hard answer is to actually do something that will
result in a long term beneficial result for the United States.
Bring more jobs back, bring more manufacturing back. We're dismissing
the fact that Taiwan Semiconductor Apple Pondas moving the civic
from Mexico to Indiana.
Speaker 3 (21:55):
This didn't just happen, and I don't think.
Speaker 4 (21:58):
That people fully a pre that like, yes, it might
not happen tomorrow, and if it was easy, you would
just snap your fingers and say move back, drop your terriffs.
But he's right that there's not just one potential outcome.
India can drop its terrorists, Canada can take its dairy
tariff down and let us milk flow in a lot easier.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
There's two sides to this coin.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
This is a guy who for thirteen years had a
popular TV show, the essence of which was You're fired.
The personality that's able to pull that off for thirteen
straight years. The idea that they're going to bluff him,
I mean he knows he's the biggest market in the world.
He knows they need him, he doesn't need them. His
(22:56):
comment about the Europeans went after American whiskey, so he
went after European wines and champagne and made the comment,
this is going to be great for American winemakers, of which,
by the way, he's won.
Speaker 4 (23:09):
That didn't get lost to me either. I'm like, I
believe you own one of those.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
I'm particularly watching Putin and to a lesser sensujianping, because
Trump actually doesn't bluff.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
No, no, he scares the crap out of him.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
And at some point, my guess is in the very
near future, Putin is going to decide that he announced
today that he really wants to get to a ceasefire.
Of course, he's setting terms that are crazy, but again,
in the tradition of New York real estate, that's where
the deal starts. Do you tell me you're insane demand,
I'll tell you my insane demand, and eventually we'll get
around to a deal. But he has got Putin now
(23:44):
talking about having a truce.
Speaker 4 (23:48):
Here's the beautiful thing about this. A week ago, everyone goes,
why is he doing it? In the way that he's
doing it, and da da, da da, and everyone wants
to focus on the process and the noise who's sitting,
where as opposed to the outcome. In a week from now,
we are sitting with a ceasefire hopefully more than that.
Speaker 3 (24:06):
Isn't that a good thing?
Speaker 4 (24:07):
That people are not dying, that destruction is not continuing,
And yet it's Yeah, but you guys realize where Mike
Walt sat. He's supposed to sit in the seat that's
four over, not three over. And that's not the tradition
in the norm of how things are supposed to work well,
how things are supposed to work hasn't worked out so well.
So maybe we try it his way and actually get
(24:29):
something out of it.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
My biggest concern is the twenty sixth election, and my
biggest concern there is getting the tax cuts and the
deregulation through early enough, hopefully by May June at the latest,
so that they can take effect so the economy is
booming by next summer. What's your sense, particularly in trying
to deal with the Senate, which has very deep resistant
(24:52):
and Johnson's on board and also understands that passing one
really big bill is a lot easier with his margin
than trying to pass two. But in addition that there's
a time problem. Do you think in the end the
Senate will go along or what do you think is happening?
Speaker 4 (25:06):
Look, I think this week is sort of like the
trailer to the movie that's coming. Everybody got on board,
they understand, and it's for a variety of reasons. Once
to your point earlier about winning gets people excited, they go,
let's win two. There's a bit of political scare. Part
of the reason they screwed with Massy is not because
they thought they could beat them in the primary. That
was a tell to everyone else stay in line, or
we're coming after you. And it's not just the primary.
(25:28):
And that's where some of the media gets it wrong.
You don't want to walk down the street in Louisiana
or South Dakota or wherever and having all these people
be like you sold us out. It's not just about
the election. It's about actually living and I think that's important.
The second thing that I will tell you I did
my first race in nineteen ninety four with you in
the contract with America and Connecticut second District. I have
(25:50):
never seen a political operation like they're building right now
and they get it, which is, yes, we're not running
for reelection, but we need to maintain the House and
therefore the amount of money and political mechanics that is
going into having the apparatus to defend and grow a
House majority. I think the Senate's going to be fine,
not fine, but I think we'll actually pick up seats.
(26:12):
I think that it is historic and monumental, and no
one is seeing this coming. The Democrats are depressed, they're
not excited. And not only are they putting up points
on the board on the House side, but they are
building the political apparatus financially and otherwise to be able
to defend and grow the House majority.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Well, and you'll be able to watch Senate Democrats retire.
They're creating vulnerabilities, whether it's.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
Shaheen or Michigan.
Speaker 4 (26:35):
I think you're gonna have a great race in Georgia,
especially if Kemp jumps in.
Speaker 3 (26:39):
I don't know that he will or not, but they
need to defend the Dems.
Speaker 4 (26:42):
You got Shaheen in New Hampshire, you got the Michigan seat,
and now you've got a seat in Georgia.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
Assofs in cycle.
Speaker 4 (26:49):
Look, I think Republicans are in great shape in the
Senate to probably grow maybe by one or two seats,
and then in the House, as long as they have
points on the board and a lot of money, they're
going to do.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Okay, I understand you're talking with Caroline Lovett, the CURL
White House Press Secretary on Friday on your show. Why
don't we listen to a clip?
Speaker 4 (27:08):
You know, most people don't care or know about the
White House Correspondent Association. They've had a stranglehold on the
White House briefing room for decades. You and your team
decided to take it on. So explain why you did
that and why it matters.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (27:24):
Well, as you know, the White House Correspondence Association is
truly become a monetized monopoly over the White House and
the coverage of the President of the United States in America.
This is a group of journalists who have been covering
the White House for decades. They started this organization because
(27:44):
the presidents at the time were not doing enough press conferences.
I don't think we have that problem anymore under this president.
So the priorities of the media have shifted, especially with
this new digital age, and the White House Correspondence Association
has really been an inclusive group, exclusive group of journalists
who cover this White House. They have not really welcomed
(28:06):
other people, new media, independent journalists with open arms. And
so we thought it was time to expand the coverage
and determine who gets to be part of that thirteen
person press pool, who gets to ask the President of
the United States questions in the Oval Office? A board
air Force one. And since we have started this new
process of determining the daily rotation, so many new voices
(28:29):
and outlets who have never been part of this small
and privileged group of journalists have been able to access
those very unique and privileged spaces and cover this presidency.
And that's very important.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
And how was it to talk with Caroline about the
job you used to do?
Speaker 4 (28:45):
It was awesome, Right, So many people interview her about
what the president's views are and I love that, but
to have a conversation with her pre Secretary to presscretory,
it was really cool.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
I want to thank you. This is great fun. You're
remarkably knowledgeable and well.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
I learned under the best Well.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
Reagan was a terrific teacher. I really cherish your friendship.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
I want to thank you for joining me, and I
want to let our listeners know they can find your podcast,
The Shawn Spicer Show on Apple Podcasts or YouTube. They
can watch the morning meeting by signing up a two
way dot tv, and they can follow everything you're doing
at Shawn Spicer dot com or join you on substack
at substack dot com at Shawn Spicer and I'm just
(29:25):
very grateful.
Speaker 3 (29:26):
That you give always honored to be with you.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
Thank you to my guest, Shawn Spicer. You can get
a link to his podcast, The Shawn Spicer Show on
our show page at.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
Newsworld dot com.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Newsworld is produced by Ginglish three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our
executive producer is Guarnsey Sloan and our researcher is Rachel Peterson.
The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley.
Special thanks to the team at ginglidhtree sixty. If you've
been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple podcast
and both rate us with five stars and give us
a review so others can learn what it's all about.
(30:02):
Right now, listeners of newts World consign up for my
three freeweekly columns at gingrichpree sixty dot com slash newsletter.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
I'm Newt Gingrich. This is Nutsworld.
On this episode of News World.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
My guest today is former White House Press Secretary and
very good friend Sean Spicer. These days, he's a very
business person. He's just been appointed to the board for
the US Naval Academy by President Trump. He's co host
of the popular show The Morning Meeting along with Mark
Alpern and Dan Turantine on the Two Way Platform. He
hosts his own podcast, The Shawn Spicer Show, and he's
(00:28):
just recently launched his sub stack. In fact, he's so
in the man. I'm delighted that he would make the
time just to join us. Shawn, thank you and once
again joining me on News World. But I'm really grateful
you take the time.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
You ask I come. That's how it works.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
And by the way, congratulations on the President appointing you
to the board of the Naval Academy. I mean that
has got to be a really solid sense of something
you've spent your whole lifetime doing to serve the country.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
And there's obviously a bit of poetic justice in that
I talked to the President about this the other night.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
As people may recall, on the way out the.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
Door, it was funny when I left the White House
they had asked, do you want to do anything, and
I'd said, I'll serve on the board of the Naval Academy.
There wasn't an opening at the time, so they put
me on the White House Fellow's Commission. Eventually, one of
the Obama people's term was up and they named me
to a new term. And then when Biden came in,
I resigned from the White House Commission on Fellows because
that's what you do, it's a White House commission. And
(01:30):
on September one, midday, I get a text or an
email rather from the director of Personnel for the Biden
White House and said, at six o'clock tonight, either you
will resign or we will fire you from your term
the Naval Academy. I said, no, you can fire me
if you want. And then America First Legal, the outside
group that Stephen Miller had found it, called me a
(01:50):
couple of days later and said, would you be willing
to put your name on a lawsuit saying that Biden
didn't have the right to do that. Myself and Russ Vote,
the current O and b director, were the only two
people agreed to do that. And remember he fired everybody
Naval Academy West Point Air Force So we filed this lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
You'll love this because this is the best part about it.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
The media kept saying we were going to lose the lawsuit,
and sure enough, we lost the lawsuit. And for those
people listening on audio, I do that in air quotes
because my term was going to end in fifty nine days.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
Now. I'm no legal scholar.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
But I don't see the court adjudicating a lawsuit like that.
In fifty nine days. We went up to the appeals process.
The Biden administration continued to argue that they had every
right to fire anyone they wanted, and the court affirmed
that at the appeals level. So once again the media said,
Spicer and Vote lost the lawsuit. Well, here's the bitter irony.
(02:44):
When Donald Trump comes in, he just starts firing everyone.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
Now, this is what I.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
Love about the story. I get a call like five
Fridays ago, and it's a Washington Post reporter and he says,
mister Spicer, I wanted to know if you had any
comment about the Kennedy Center. Why what do you mean?
He said, Well, President Trump has fired everyone from the
Kennedy Center. I said, okay, good for him, I'm glad
he did it, and he said, have you not seen
their response? And I said, you know, I follow a
(03:10):
lot of people on Twitter, but I don't follow the
spokesman for the Kennedy Center. And he said, oh, well,
let me tell you. Then the spokesman said that they
have no recourse because.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Of Spicer v. Biden.
Speaker 4 (03:21):
And now, look, as a guy whose legal experience spans
watching all the versions of law and order, there was
something kind of cool about literally being like, holy smokes,
they're literally citing a case the Kennedy Center.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Folks.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
They wrote this subsequent Washington Post story a couple of
days later that said, you know, why can.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
President Trump do what he's doing? Because of Spicer v. Biden.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
They keep trying to outdo Trump. They go after him
to kick him off the ballot. At backfires, they fire
all the people who were Trump supporters. And remember, just
for context, I left this part out. Unfortunately, never before
in the history of the United States has anyone from
the Service Academy's been dismissed without cause, and even then
couldn't find it. So when Biden did this, it was
(04:02):
wholly unprecedented. So they created this mess. And when Trump
goes around and fires everybody. Just remember, for all of
you will want a little ammo to your leftist uncle
or cousin. It was Spicer v Biden. Biden did this
for the first time in history, firing people. And so
if you want to blame somebody for what Trump is doing,
blame Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
That's great. It's also a great personal story.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
It's just fun because sometimes you know, when this lawsuit
came about, I thought to myself, I was still serving
in the military. It probably wasn't the smartest military officer
move in the world to put your name. Now, granted
I was a civilian, so just to be clear, people
in the military still talk and they see it. But
at the end of the day, I did it because
it was the right thing to do. What he did
(04:48):
was wrong, and obviously it was really bittersweet when the
President called me a couple of weeks ago and said, hey,
I'm reconstituting this.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
I'm honored to put you back on.
Speaker 4 (04:56):
And you look at the names that are on there,
right Congressman Derrick Van Orden, Navy c Ronnie Jackson, congressman
from Texas, who's his physician, one star admiral, and then
it's like enshawan Spicer, but.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Talk for them about your own military service. I mean
it's not like you will wander to end from the road.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Reyquift.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
Yeah, I've served twenty six years and the Navy, but
a CEO and an officer in charge depending on you know,
the unit. I graduated the US Naval War College, have
a master's in Strategic and National Study. So I mean
I've served for over twenty six years commanded some pretty
decent sized units. Have a nice little salad on my
chest of awards that I've been honored to receive, So
(05:33):
I've done my time. But you know, there's a lot
of stiff competition for boards like this in terms of
graduates who have gone on and done great things, who
have served the country and obviously want to go back
to the alma made. I didn't graduate from the academy.
I graduated from the War College.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
But it's a huge honor.
Speaker 4 (05:49):
I know how many people ask the President to be nominated,
and I greatly appreciate him reappointing me to that position.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
I'm curious because you've got a unique perspective having been
in the world White House, and I remember a time
seeing you when I would visit and you'd be in
the middle trying to get ready for the press score.
What do you think about the level of change that
Caroline Levitt has brought to bear on the White House
Press score?
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Absolutely phenomenal.
Speaker 4 (06:15):
There's a few things, one like I told the President this,
by the way, the other day, I said, Man, I'm
sure whatever decision making process you went through to pick her,
it was well worth it, because she has done a
phenomenal job. She has a ton of poise in leadership
at the podium, commands attention, really has a command of
the issues as well, And so I think she's doing
a phenomenal job.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
But to go in and shake it up.
Speaker 4 (06:37):
Remember when I was White House Press sar, I brought
in skype, so I allowed reporters from around the country
that couldn't be in DC to ask questions on the screen.
And that time they went nuts. They said, this is unprecedented, ridiculous.
And my point was I wanted ideas issues like I
got asked about water rights and federal land use and
issues that would never come up in the briefing because
(06:57):
all they cared about was Michael Flynn in Russia. The
point was I wanted a to do that to give
local reporters an opportunity, but be also to infect the
briefing room with issues that real Americans care about that
might not make it to Washington. And what Caroline has
done by bringing in more new voices is absolutely phenomenal
and well timed. And then the idea of also shaking
(07:19):
up the White House pool. What people don't understand is
that the White House establishment left wing legacy wants to
control what you see, read, and hear every day, and
so they do these pool reports, which means the Oval
Office or Air Force One are obviously small areas. So
they choose thirteen people and there's a print reporter, a
radio person, a TV person, a wire person. They go in,
(07:42):
they capture what the President says or does through their
lens and then report back out to their other thousands
of colleagues. This is what happened, right, So they decide
what's important. They add color, right, so the president was
doing this, this is what happened. They decide what the
mood was. It was tense, it was I mean, whatever
it is, and then they tell everyone, So if I
(08:03):
get to be the arbiter of what you see, read,
and here.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
Then I control the narrative.
Speaker 4 (08:09):
And what Caroline has done is open that aperture up,
allow more voices to go in and be part of
the pool.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
So not cut it back, just to be clear, actually
grown it.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
So now you have the same New York Times in
Washington Post, but you've got an additional person. It's almost
like an additional witness to a crime scene. Now they
get to hold them accountable and say, actually, the President
was jovial, he was excited, he was bouncing off the
walls to announce this program. But there's now a degree
of accountability that there hasn't been in the past. If
I can, I want to tell you one really interesting
(08:39):
inside baseball story because this shows you the power of
the White House correspondence. When we won in twenty sixteen,
there's a group of us that met with them in
New York at Trump Tower and they said to us,
here's how the briefings work. You will get up, you
will give your opening statements, you know, the President's schedule,
whatever you want to say, and then you will start
by calling on Thissociated Press, the front row, who they
(09:02):
decide who sits where it's the wires, the Associated Press routers,
the New York Times, NBCABC, and then it kind of
works backwards, and they said, you will call on the
Associated Press first, and then you will go down the
first row, the NBC's the Washington Post. And then if
there's time, you can entertain the low life folks in
the back of the room, bring them into the conversation.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
And after you've gone on for said amount of time, the.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
Associated Press reporter who's sitting in that seat will say
thank you very much. That signals the end of your briefing.
I said, okay, thank you. So the first briefing I
held on that Monday, the first person I called on
was Daniel Halper, New York Post. Now I know to
most people in America, they didn't care, they didn't notice
what I did. And the faces on the folks in
the front row was unbelievable. And then I went on
(09:48):
and on and on, and at forty five minutes in
Julie Pace of the Associated Press looked up and said
thank you very much, signaling what they thought was the
end of my briefing.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
I look down and I said, no, thank you, Julie.
I'll go on.
Speaker 4 (10:02):
I'll tell you when my briefing's over, and I went
on for another forty five minutes. And the goal there
was to signal to them that you're not in charge.
This is a government broom. This is a government briefing.
We'll decide when it's over, not you. Donald Trump's in
charge now. And I think that Caroline has really, in
her own way, brought a stamp to that room to
(10:22):
make it very clear in a different way several years later,
that she's in charge, that the Trump Administration's going to
lead this agenda, not them, And I think it's phenomenal.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
I went by the other dan.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
She said, if I want to come in sometime, I
can occupy the seat of the unusual member and ask
a question.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
I said, do I have to tell you know what?
Event said?
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Now you show up, we'll get you a seat. But
at her age, her confidence is unbelievable.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
And it's funny you say that, because obviously we have
had a lot of great entrepreneurs in this country. You've
done fantastic things at young age. If we're going to
be honest about this, like at twenty seven, are you
kidding me?
Speaker 3 (10:59):
I could not have held my own in that.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
I was a comms director on Capitol Hill under your
tutelage when you were speaker working for a rank and
file member. I mean, I couldn't have had the poise
and the command of issues that she has at that level.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
I don't know that I could have done it at
thirty seven.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
She's remarkable.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Yeah, and it just speaks what a bright future.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
I'm very impressed that every morning you guys are doing
this two way and you find interesting things to talk about.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
You managed to maintain a balance and it's very cordial.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
What makes it unique streams on my YouTube channel and
if people want to watch, and it's live. We take
questions from anyone in the world. We gotten questions from
France and China. The difference between the morning meeting and
a lot of shows is that we're not trying to
win you over. So when you go on cable, it's
a six or seven minute cable hit. I want to
beat up on the opponent. I want to tell him
(12:04):
why I'm right. Donald Trump is doing better. You guys
are bad blah blah blah. Dan and I Dan being
the Democrat, he worked for Hillary Clinton. He's got a
ton of stature, a ton of time and grade. Is
that we're explaining the process. I'm not trying to win
over people if you like Donald Trump, Moore, or the
Republican Party or the conservative movement more. I'm excited. I
hope that I do that well. But my goal is
(12:26):
to explain why things are happening. This is the mentality,
This is the decision making process, so that people have
a better understanding of their government and the process by
which decisions are made, and maybe how to influence them.
So as you know, it's not schoolhouse rock, and people
need to know. This is really how government works, how
decisions are made, how politicians think.
Speaker 3 (12:48):
And I think we add an element.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
To the discussion that just doesn't exist in the ecosystem anymore.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Orever, and I have to say, I find Halprin to
be so widely network that his morning newsletter is one
of the first things I read every day.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
Well, people trust Mark to tell them things.
Speaker 4 (13:08):
I joked with Mark at one point, like I spent
several hours in front of the Mueller Commission or whatever
the heck it's actually called, and I was always impressed
by how they would look and say, you know, on
February third, you were in a meeting. There were four
people there someone exited from the right hand side.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
I mean, I'm like, holy smokes, it's.
Speaker 4 (13:25):
Like big brother. When halbrind interviews you for you know,
his books or whatever. He doesn't come to just ask.
He comes with his a game and he's like, look,
when you were in this meeting, you coughed a few
times and then you made an utterance. And he's so
well sourced because people trust him that he's not going
to reveal sources and that he's going to try to
get the story straight. And that's very different from so
(13:47):
many of the folks that like Politico or axios, who
are just looking for clickbait.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
You inventioned working in the house when I was a speaker.
Do you share my sense though? What Mike Johnson's pulling
off with virtually no margin is on imaginable.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (14:02):
We do a thing on the morning meeting where we
pick winners and losers, and all three of us, including
Dan the Democrat, so that the winner was Mike Johnson
because you know this, it's hurting cats to begin with
what he's been able to pull off without ear marks.
And I mean, you remember the delay days, it was
sort of like how much for your vote? That's obviously
an extreme, but there are a lot more tools at
the disposal. Politically now, it's not that way, and so
(14:25):
he's really instilling a sense of team that didn't exist.
And that's the big difference is that people are like,
I get it. Tom Massey, even who's voting against these things,
isn't doing it out of spite.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
He's not mad at anybody. He's not. He philosophically disagrees
with the vision of government, which to some degree I respect.
Speaker 4 (14:44):
He's not doing this because he doesn't like Donald Trump
or he's mad at Mike Johnson. He's, you know, a
principal guy that sees things differently. I don't agree with
him entirely, but I'm just saying I don't think that
he's doing this for some kind of political gain. He's
weathered the primaries before, and again I don't agree with
necessarily what he's doing, but it speaks to Johnson that
(15:05):
he's able to keep all these people together without a
bunch of carrots and sticks and browbeating them, etc. And
I think the other point that I would make where
it's going to benefit him is look at the Democrats
where they are.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
They are in utter, utter disarray.
Speaker 4 (15:20):
And when you talk about the Republican conference, the idea
that Johnson can go to them now and say, guys,
we stuck together.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
We were a team. And look at these jokers.
Speaker 4 (15:29):
They're off making paddles at Arts and Crafts Time, and
then they're mocking Schumer openly.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
I mean, this is not a party that has his
act together. It's really rudderless.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Plus I were sitting actually on Johnson's box for the
President's addressed to the Congress, so we're directly above the Democrats.
They couldn't applaud Trump. They couldn't apploud a thirteen year
old cancer survivor. They couldn't applaud mothers and survivors. And
you're getting the same thing right now. I mean they lockstep, vote, no,
get beaten.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (16:01):
And here's the thing is that you know good begets good.
If you're Johnson, you look at them and say, guys,
we stuck together, and look at what they did, like
it's pathetic.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Dick Martlin called me one time about nineteen eighty three.
He was Reagan's chief polster, and he said, the most
important thing is winning, because a president who wins is
seen as strong, and therefore it's easier to win the
next one because he's seen as strong and there was
a lot to that. I mean, I didn't fully appreciate
at the time because we were fighting over Texas, but
(16:31):
they did win. And I think Trump has a similar knack,
And in his case, I think he has ironically vastly
more intense prestige than Reagan did. He doesn't have as
broad a prestige. The loyalty to Trump among those who
like him is astonishingly deep.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
The thing that I keep saying.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
I gave a speech earlier this week and I said,
because of four years out of office, I think Trump's
going to be the most consequential second term president probably ever,
definitely in modern history, because the opportunity when you have
one term, you just keep rolling over. If you're the
Press secretary on January twentieth, you're the pres secretary on
the twenty first, and on the twenty second and.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
Twenty third, and when you have ability to.
Speaker 4 (17:10):
Stop and think about what I call the three p's,
the people, the process, and the policies, and you go, Okay,
if I get to do it again, what am I
going to do? Who are the people I'm going to
surround myself? With and keep away to what are the
policies that I'm going to advance and not and then
the process, what do I have to do to make
sure I get my policies through. Who are going to
(17:31):
be the opposition forces, who are going to be my friends?
What are the obstacles that we're going to face? And
because of that, they have come out of the gate
just killing it. And this is the difference is that
you think back eight years ago, we didn't have a
team in the house. Mark Meadows led the opposition to
the repeal of Obamacare, and you had people who subsequently
(17:52):
came onto the team and didn't do it for battery.
It just didn't think it was the right decision. But
like now, to your point, Speaker, Johnson's got everybody on board.
I mean Andy Harris, the congressman from Maryland who's the
chair of the Freedom Caucus, is publicly saying, hey, I've
never voted for a debt ceiling increase.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
I've never voted for a cr but I'm willing to
do it now.
Speaker 4 (18:11):
They believe in the vision they're bought in, and I
think this is just absolutely spectacular.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
If Trump can sustain this and if he can win
the twenty sixth election in the House. I think he
will go on to be just below Washington and Lincoln's
probably rivaling FDR as the third most consequential president in
American history. And he will have changed the government at
a level that it would have been unthinkable prior to Trump.
Speaker 4 (18:38):
But you know what's the funny. I fight this like
on a daily basis. Trump is willing to have fights
that people haven't been willing to have, like this effort
to root out government. And you know this, I mean
the Grace Commission Reinventing Government, Sarveins Oxley, and we talk
about it over and over again, and now it's happening.
I just get so excited because we have allowed the excuses,
(19:02):
and sometimes for the right reasons, because he didn't have
the alignment of the parties.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
It's not entirely because of lack of will.
Speaker 4 (19:09):
But this time we've got a partner that's willing to
go out there and fight the fights in a way
that just hasn't existed in the past.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Part of it is that he grew up in New
York real estate where people were very tough and they
fought all the time. If you've read the art of
the Comeback, which is I think his most important book.
As he explains it, he almost went broke and as
the greatest opening it says, I was nine hundred million
(19:35):
dollars in debt to the banks personally, Atlantic City was
ceasing to be profitable, the Iraq campaign was leading to inflation,
and my wife just called to say she wanted a divorce.
He said, this is the moment when you either get
depressed or you plan a comeback.
Speaker 3 (19:52):
I've got the Art of the Deal. I've done that.
But you're right.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
The Art of the Deal is very helpful in understanding
his mindset. If you watch him, for example, we Ukraine
and Russia. It's straight out of the Art of the Deal.
You know.
Speaker 4 (20:03):
It's funny though, just from a strategic standpoint that I
find hysterical. And I think you were the one who
said it a long time ago to me, and so
I'm just just to be clear, I'm stealing it, although
as I've learned the second time that you use it,
you don't have to attribute.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
It once you as Sean Spicer said.
Speaker 3 (20:20):
Yeah, exactly, thank you. But I think that one of
the things that's interesting is that so much is.
Speaker 4 (20:26):
There in public meaning the book is there, the art
of the deal is there, the art of the compact,
you're there, go read it. And so many times when
people are talking to me, I'll say, not long ago,
new Gingert said, you know, it's all there and the
art of the deal, and yet people just don't want
to read it. And I'm like, it's like the playbook
is staring you in front of the face. The map
is there, and you don't want to look at it.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Part of it is they can't believe somebody is actually
like this. This is a guy who has survived recessions economically.
I mean, he understands all this stuff, probably as well
as any president of American history. But in addition, I
must say I just read jd. Vance's speech explaining the tariffs.
It is the best most coherent explanation I've seen so far,
(21:08):
and it's pretty straightforward. They want manufacturing in the United
States period.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (21:13):
I mean this again goes back to this whole idea.
I was talking about this in the morning meeting this morning.
At some point, the easy political thing, the absolutely easiest,
is Trump just to kick it down the road, to
say you're right, let's just let Canada keep high tariffs.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
Let's let Europe keep high teriffs.
Speaker 4 (21:28):
Let's just keep doing business that way so that US
companies don't have the same market access that they do
to our market.
Speaker 3 (21:34):
That's the easy political answer.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
The hard answer is to actually do something that will
result in a long term beneficial result for the United States.
Bring more jobs back, bring more manufacturing back. We're dismissing
the fact that Taiwan Semiconductor Apple Pondas moving the civic
from Mexico to Indiana.
Speaker 3 (21:55):
This didn't just happen, and I don't think.
Speaker 4 (21:58):
That people fully a pre that like, yes, it might
not happen tomorrow, and if it was easy, you would
just snap your fingers and say move back, drop your terriffs.
But he's right that there's not just one potential outcome.
India can drop its terrorists, Canada can take its dairy
tariff down and let us milk flow in a lot easier.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
There's two sides to this coin.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
This is a guy who for thirteen years had a
popular TV show, the essence of which was You're fired.
The personality that's able to pull that off for thirteen
straight years. The idea that they're going to bluff him,
I mean he knows he's the biggest market in the world.
He knows they need him, he doesn't need them. His
(22:56):
comment about the Europeans went after American whiskey, so he
went after European wines and champagne and made the comment,
this is going to be great for American winemakers, of which,
by the way, he's won.
Speaker 4 (23:09):
That didn't get lost to me either. I'm like, I
believe you own one of those.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
I'm particularly watching Putin and to a lesser sensujianping, because
Trump actually doesn't bluff.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
No, no, he scares the crap out of him.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
And at some point, my guess is in the very
near future, Putin is going to decide that he announced
today that he really wants to get to a ceasefire.
Of course, he's setting terms that are crazy, but again,
in the tradition of New York real estate, that's where
the deal starts. Do you tell me you're insane demand,
I'll tell you my insane demand, and eventually we'll get
around to a deal. But he has got Putin now
(23:44):
talking about having a truce.
Speaker 4 (23:48):
Here's the beautiful thing about this. A week ago, everyone goes,
why is he doing it? In the way that he's
doing it, and da da, da da, and everyone wants
to focus on the process and the noise who's sitting,
where as opposed to the outcome. In a week from now,
we are sitting with a ceasefire hopefully more than that.
Speaker 3 (24:06):
Isn't that a good thing?
Speaker 4 (24:07):
That people are not dying, that destruction is not continuing,
And yet it's Yeah, but you guys realize where Mike
Walt sat. He's supposed to sit in the seat that's
four over, not three over. And that's not the tradition
in the norm of how things are supposed to work well,
how things are supposed to work hasn't worked out so well.
So maybe we try it his way and actually get
(24:29):
something out of it.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
My biggest concern is the twenty sixth election, and my
biggest concern there is getting the tax cuts and the
deregulation through early enough, hopefully by May June at the latest,
so that they can take effect so the economy is
booming by next summer. What's your sense, particularly in trying
to deal with the Senate, which has very deep resistant
(24:52):
and Johnson's on board and also understands that passing one
really big bill is a lot easier with his margin
than trying to pass two. But in addition that there's
a time problem. Do you think in the end the
Senate will go along or what do you think is happening?
Speaker 4 (25:06):
Look, I think this week is sort of like the
trailer to the movie that's coming. Everybody got on board,
they understand, and it's for a variety of reasons. Once
to your point earlier about winning gets people excited, they go,
let's win two. There's a bit of political scare. Part
of the reason they screwed with Massy is not because
they thought they could beat them in the primary. That
was a tell to everyone else stay in line, or
we're coming after you. And it's not just the primary.
(25:28):
And that's where some of the media gets it wrong.
You don't want to walk down the street in Louisiana
or South Dakota or wherever and having all these people
be like you sold us out. It's not just about
the election. It's about actually living and I think that's important.
The second thing that I will tell you I did
my first race in nineteen ninety four with you in
the contract with America and Connecticut second District. I have
(25:50):
never seen a political operation like they're building right now
and they get it, which is, yes, we're not running
for reelection, but we need to maintain the House and
therefore the amount of money and political mechanics that is
going into having the apparatus to defend and grow a
House majority. I think the Senate's going to be fine,
not fine, but I think we'll actually pick up seats.
(26:12):
I think that it is historic and monumental, and no
one is seeing this coming. The Democrats are depressed, they're
not excited. And not only are they putting up points
on the board on the House side, but they are
building the political apparatus financially and otherwise to be able
to defend and grow the House majority.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Well, and you'll be able to watch Senate Democrats retire.
They're creating vulnerabilities, whether it's.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
Shaheen or Michigan.
Speaker 4 (26:35):
I think you're gonna have a great race in Georgia,
especially if Kemp jumps in.
Speaker 3 (26:39):
I don't know that he will or not, but they
need to defend the Dems.
Speaker 4 (26:42):
You got Shaheen in New Hampshire, you got the Michigan seat,
and now you've got a seat in Georgia.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
Assofs in cycle.
Speaker 4 (26:49):
Look, I think Republicans are in great shape in the
Senate to probably grow maybe by one or two seats,
and then in the House, as long as they have
points on the board and a lot of money, they're
going to do.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Okay, I understand you're talking with Caroline Lovett, the CURL
White House Press Secretary on Friday on your show. Why
don't we listen to a clip?
Speaker 4 (27:08):
You know, most people don't care or know about the
White House Correspondent Association. They've had a stranglehold on the
White House briefing room for decades. You and your team
decided to take it on. So explain why you did
that and why it matters.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (27:24):
Well, as you know, the White House Correspondence Association is
truly become a monetized monopoly over the White House and
the coverage of the President of the United States in America.
This is a group of journalists who have been covering
the White House for decades. They started this organization because
(27:44):
the presidents at the time were not doing enough press conferences.
I don't think we have that problem anymore under this president.
So the priorities of the media have shifted, especially with
this new digital age, and the White House Correspondence Association
has really been an inclusive group, exclusive group of journalists
who cover this White House. They have not really welcomed
(28:06):
other people, new media, independent journalists with open arms. And
so we thought it was time to expand the coverage
and determine who gets to be part of that thirteen
person press pool, who gets to ask the President of
the United States questions in the Oval Office? A board
air Force one. And since we have started this new
process of determining the daily rotation, so many new voices
(28:29):
and outlets who have never been part of this small
and privileged group of journalists have been able to access
those very unique and privileged spaces and cover this presidency.
And that's very important.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
And how was it to talk with Caroline about the
job you used to do?
Speaker 4 (28:45):
It was awesome, Right, So many people interview her about
what the president's views are and I love that, but
to have a conversation with her pre Secretary to presscretory,
it was really cool.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
I want to thank you. This is great fun. You're
remarkably knowledgeable and well.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
I learned under the best Well.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
Reagan was a terrific teacher. I really cherish your friendship.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
I want to thank you for joining me, and I
want to let our listeners know they can find your podcast,
The Shawn Spicer Show on Apple Podcasts or YouTube. They
can watch the morning meeting by signing up a two
way dot tv, and they can follow everything you're doing
at Shawn Spicer dot com or join you on substack
at substack dot com at Shawn Spicer and I'm just
(29:25):
very grateful.
Speaker 3 (29:26):
That you give always honored to be with you.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
Thank you to my guest, Shawn Spicer. You can get
a link to his podcast, The Shawn Spicer Show on
our show page at.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
Newsworld dot com.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Newsworld is produced by Ginglish three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our
executive producer is Guarnsey Sloan and our researcher is Rachel Peterson.
The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley.
Special thanks to the team at ginglidhtree sixty. If you've
been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple podcast
and both rate us with five stars and give us
a review so others can learn what it's all about.
(30:02):
Right now, listeners of newts World consign up for my
three freeweekly columns at gingrichpree sixty dot com slash newsletter.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
I'm Newt Gingrich. This is Nutsworld.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!