All Episodes

September 3, 2025 56 mins

Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on the lessons of a second term Trump, firings at the Fed, if we should worry about journalism's future, and whether this administration is prioritizing loyalty over facts.

IG: @ThisisGavinNewsom
Email: ThisisGavinNewsom@iheartradio.com
Substack: Gavinnewsom
Phone: 855-6NEWSOM

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 (00:08):
This is Gavin Newsom and this is Sewn Spicer. You're
a substacker, now you're a podcaster. Obviously you've done some
of the networks and continue to be part of that.
But where I'm enjoining where I'm seeing Sean Spicer, My
guest here on the Gavin Newsom Show every morning is
on two Way with Mark Halprin. Uh. And you're you're

(00:31):
there battling out, but you're doing it in a civil
way that dare I say provides almost a civic contribution
because of your own unique experiences. Obviously, Mark Dan your
co host, tell me how you landed on this this
new podcast, and and where the hell have you been

(00:52):
Sewn over the last few years? Not just on right
wing media, but what else have you been up to?

Speaker 2 (00:58):
I'll take the former first.

Speaker 3 (01:00):
Still, I mean, obviously, I left the White House in
twenty seventeen, did a lot of speaking, wrote a book,
which I never thought i'd do. And I don't think
any English teacher who had me in high school ever
thought that I would write a book, never mind read
a book. So I had a lot of fun. And
you know, I grew up in Rhode Island. My dad
was a boat a yacht salesman, and so we had

(01:22):
good years, bad years, and you know, we never did
we did well. My parents were amazing, they provided for us,
but we definitely were a middle class at best. And
so like, I got to do things after I left
the White House that I still pinch myself sometimes saying,
you know, thinking that I got to do as a
kid that grew up, you know, very blessed with how

(01:42):
much love and time and attention my parents gave me.
But we definitely were not the family with the money
in town. And and then I landed a gig at Newsmax.
I did a show there for a few years. I
got an opportunity to go to to sort of create
my own show, to own the content. And one of
the things that has really changed in the landscape is

(02:02):
the ability to do your own thing, to own your
own landscape.

Speaker 2 (02:05):
Obviously, you know that now clearly here.

Speaker 3 (02:09):
And I've had a lot of friends that were sort
of friends and mentors who sort of had gotten into
the space and were like, here's the thing. It's if
you're willing to hustle and grow your audience, get sponsors,
keep them you can you know, you own the content.
Then it's up to you. So you the sky's the limit,
but it's as much as you're willing to put into it.

Speaker 2 (02:29):
And I that's kind of who I, you know, just
that that's you know.

Speaker 3 (02:32):
I sold everything when I was a kid, greeting cards,
I sharpened skis, I sold birthday cakes. I mean like,
I did everything to make a buck. My dad, as
I said, was a salesman and that was a quality
instilled in me early on. So to me, I was like, Okay,
I'd rather go this route. Own my show, own the content,
be able to decide who I want to have on

(02:53):
the direction of the show. And then, you know, this
kind of segues into the first part of your question.
When I left newsmacs, every we'd had a morning call,
as every network does, and Mark Alprim was at Newsmac's.
He's been a contributor there. I think he still is,
and we would dominate the call and so they get
on and and I mean that because the news director

(03:14):
would say, hey, Sean, what do you think the.

Speaker 2 (03:15):
Republicans are going to do on this?

Speaker 3 (03:17):
What do you think? Because it would help shape the
reporters and the other hosts when we would talk about Congress,
I spent you know, a number of years in Capitol Hill,
obviously the White House, the RNC and so then and
Mark would say, well, my sources are telling me that
that's right, or I've got a couple that say that
it's going to work this way. So when I left
the White House, I said to Mark, what if we
could do Like Mark Alprim by the way, for those

(03:38):
who don't know, invented the note and so all these
morning things that you get in your email email every morning.
Mark backwhen he was at ABC, had a note that
he would type up to all of the executives and
they ended up taking that public and it literally was
called the Note, and it was a morning the first
morning tip sheet. And so I said to Mark, what
if we actually could do what we do every morning

(03:58):
or we've been doing at NEWSMAC publicly and we let
people in. And so it started off as a thing
called debate prep in the morning before all of the
Republican debates. We had Scott Walker join us for one
of them. We had a couple other candidates and we
would do it and we would take the questions on YouTube.
So the weigh in and I'd say, you know, Bob

(04:18):
from San Francisco's asking if he thinks that so and
so is going to ask this question or whatever, and
so huge response to that, and we bade a tested
what I initially like, I said, I wanted to call
it the Morning prep or something in Mark said, what
if we call it the morning meeting instead? And then
he said, I'm working on this app called two Way
where you could actually not read the questions, but we

(04:40):
be able to take him. And so this thing's just evolved,
and I think we're on hiatus this week. We finally took,
you know, a week off, which just means I get
up a couple of minutes later. You still have that addiction.
I can't stop reading everything every morning. But anyway, so
we last week, I think we were the number nine
podcast in the country, and people loved watching the show

(05:03):
because of what you said.

Speaker 2 (05:04):
We're not there.

Speaker 3 (05:05):
Dan Turntine was Hillary Clinton's finance director for a campaign.
He was Jared Paulus's chief of staff when now governor
then Congressman Poulis is on the hill.

Speaker 2 (05:14):
So he's got the demp side wired.

Speaker 3 (05:16):
Mark obviously has tremendous sources, and we have a conversation
every morning to explain what's happening, not to win the day, right,
So I'll gladly say ten times a day. Dan's got
a good point there. What I think the President's trying
to do. Our goal and sometimes the audience doesn't want
to hear this is to explain why something's happening, and
that was what we would do, like what morning network

(05:37):
calls are where they say, you know, this story is
important because this, or we think the president's going to
make a decision because of this. And that's how this
all evolved, was to give people a place to go
where if you just want to understand what's happening, not
necessarily like win. I feel like I'm sometimes doing color
commentary on a game, Like you know, you can have
a team, but you can also say, man, they fumbled

(05:58):
that path. You know, they fumble that play, or he
should have been opened for that path. You're not It
doesn't make you any less of a fan, but you're
kind of critiquing the system and explaining, you know, he
should have run right, not left. And so I love
doing it because I mean I've been in I did
my first race in nineteen ninety four in Connecticut, obviously
six years at the RNC, twenty six years in the military,

(06:20):
I think ten different members of Congress. So I love
to do, you know, to explain this stuff and to
say this is really what's happening or why this person's
doing this to the best of my ability and.

Speaker 1 (06:30):
Sean, I mean, it contrasts obviously to what's not necessarily
happening in many of the networks, where it's really about
you know, just putting spokes in the wheel of you know,
the bike of the other party every single morning, or
just being a fanboy for whoever's in position of power
or influence. I mean, have you just I mean, I

(06:51):
imagine just reflecting obviously, you know from the perspective of
you know, the president, Fox News and one American news
news Max had favor nation status comparatively to MSNBC and
CNN and everything. But sincerely on the basis of what
you just described in the work you're doing with Mark
and Dan every single morning, I mean, what is your

(07:12):
over under in terms of the healthy the health of
our democracy and relationship to what appears to be the
growing propaganda that's coming from the networks, not necessarily the
news coming from the networks.

Speaker 2 (07:27):
Well, the funny part about this. I got asked a
similar question. I spoke to a journalism.

Speaker 3 (07:32):
Class in Florida, Florida Florida University several months back. Soone said, well,
what do you think about the decline of journalism? I said,
what are you talking about?

Speaker 2 (07:39):
It's flourishing.

Speaker 3 (07:40):
I would argue that, in fact, it's much healthier now.
So I stream the morning meeting every day on my
YouTube page, so from nine to ten Eastern you can
listen to Mark, Dan and Sean talk about the analysis.

Speaker 2 (07:53):
And then I've got to show the Shaw and Spicer Show.

Speaker 3 (07:55):
Took a lot of marketing for that one every night
six o'clock Eastern on my YouTube channel and across all
the other podcasts where I'm much more red meat. So
you know, to your point about I'm an unabashed, unapologetic
Trump supporter.

Speaker 2 (08:08):
I'm a strong fiscal and social conservative.

Speaker 3 (08:11):
I'm proud of it. But there's different venues for different things.
So in the morning meeting from nine to ten, I
want you to understand the process.

Speaker 2 (08:18):
I want to.

Speaker 3 (08:18):
Explain it to you. And in the evening at six o'clock,
I'm going to serve up my point of view and
tell you why I think that Trump's doing the right thing.
Why I believe we need a Republican majority, Why I
think conservative policies are great.

Speaker 2 (08:29):
There's there's room for everything.

Speaker 3 (08:31):
But part of the other thing that you know you
were touching on, there's there's various things on the news
like you got the fanboy fangirl, you've got the.

Speaker 2 (08:40):
Polarization of stuff.

Speaker 3 (08:41):
But there's also to me what annoys me, and I
know you've probably seen this throughout your career, is whether
it's a Democrat analyst or are they what's the other
big name on TV? And and and then the Republicans
one where I'm like, dude, who do you consult for?
Who do you I mean, there are people that I'm like,
you've never run a race, you've never worked in politics,
and this person is a pundit, which again in America,

(09:02):
you have every right to have your thought. But what
I love about what I do is I'm trying to
explain to people. Look, I've been in the room. I
can tell you what it's like to why this decision
is getting made or what this person's really like in person,
whether you agree with me or not. And I think
that's different than watching sometimes people on all of these
networks opine with no knowledge of why, how the process works.

Speaker 2 (09:27):
Right, And I tell people every once in a while.

Speaker 3 (09:30):
When I was I was the assistant US Trade rep
and back in the day, we filed a intellectual property
case against China in the World Trade Organization of the WTO,
and we were really proud of ourselves for doing it
because it was you know, we're standing up for intellectual property,
which is a huge thing that China steals. It was
funny though, because the reaction after the fact was not

(09:51):
the excitement that we had anticipated, because China's answer was
to say, great, we're banning all US movies in China
under the guise of cultural reasons. And so so sometimes
with that taught me and part of the lessons that
I can bring to viewers is sometimes decisions aren't as
easy as you would think they would be.

Speaker 1 (10:06):
Right.

Speaker 3 (10:06):
You would think, hey, we're standing up for China, We're
standing up for our intellectual property here in America. That
should be an easy decision, right. Why wouldn't Governor knew
Some do that? Why wouldn't President Trump do that? And
then you realize, well, because the industry may not want
you to, because they may actually lose money on that decision,
which would cost Californians or whoever jobs in America. And

(10:27):
so what I love to do is to sometimes say, hey, guys,
here's a decision that's being made. I know it seems
easy on its face, but let me give you a
little bit more context about what's going on in that
decision making process.

Speaker 1 (10:39):
So, I mean, it's interesting that you reflect on this
current media environment as much more nuanced and more complex
and perhaps open, because not only your platforming different points
of view as it relates to more of an objective frame,
to a more subjective, more partisan frame in different parts
of what your present and putting out in content. But

(11:01):
there's more content I guess there's your argument than there's
ever been.

Speaker 3 (11:05):
So if you want, if you want to watch MSM
and back when I grew up as a conservative right
and we're roughly the same age, I'm a little younger,
you had three channels and PBS and that was it,
and they decided what you read, saw and heard every
day between them and sort of your local paper. I
love the idea that if you want more of a
partisan tinge, you know where to go on either side.

Speaker 2 (11:27):
If you want straight up news.

Speaker 3 (11:28):
But also if you really want news on the technology front,
there's tons of people putting out blogs and substacks and
newsletters and YouTube channels on AI.

Speaker 2 (11:38):
So I like the fact that you have more options.

Speaker 3 (11:41):
Now you get to decide what you want. I mean,
and I'm one.

Speaker 2 (11:44):
Of those people.

Speaker 3 (11:45):
I look across the spectrum. I'll read NPR, I'll read
some of the stuff in MSNBC, not a lot, but
enough to know what the other side is saying, because
I want to know the other argument.

Speaker 2 (11:56):
But I like the idea that I'm not.

Speaker 3 (11:58):
Being spoon fed. You know, I grew up in Rhode Island.
It was the Providence Journal. Either you got the morning
edition or the evening address edition, and that was it
there was. If they didn't put it in the paper,
it didn't exist. So I like the idea that I
can go now find experts on any subject, dive down.

Speaker 2 (12:15):
I can find objective ones. I can find on a
variety of subjects.

Speaker 1 (12:18):
And ra Sean, what about it? Finding you though? What
about the algorithms? What about our inability to get out
of these networks? I mean the challenge I think many
of us find once you dial up, we can get
into some of the particular apps, but anyone that's been
for example, on TikTok and wondering when you get to
the issues around China and TikTok. But the algorithms are

(12:39):
such you can mediately with two or three searches, all
of a sudden, now you're off in a completely different direction,
and now all of a sudden it's finding you. It's
from search to suggest or ultimately now the news you're
being blocked out for more of an objective version or
vision of the world. I mean, what do you make
of that in the context of what's being fed to us,

(13:02):
not what we're able to actually discover.

Speaker 3 (13:05):
Well, clearly it's a problem, right, I know you just
use that as an example, But that's another warning to
stay off TikTok because I think it's I believe it's
a national security threat to our country.

Speaker 1 (13:15):
What'd you by the way, what did you make of Trump?

Speaker 2 (13:17):
Then?

Speaker 3 (13:18):
Jumping back on I'm just I actually, I get he's
trying to do a deal. I get he's trying to
do us ownership. And I also understand that right now
there's a lot of kids on it. But that's actually
to me. You know, people ask me all the time,
is there an area you disagree with President Trump, and
I would say, TikTok is up there. There's a couple others,
But I do believe it's a threat to not just
young people in particular, but to all Americans to what

(13:40):
China is doing to gather our information is a national
security issue. What they're doing to mold the perceptions that
we hold on a variety of subjects is a national
security threat. That being said to your original question, I
do think that's a problem, all right, But I also
think again, remember the context in which I started, where
how we grew up. I had three channels, and depending

(14:01):
on where you lived, one paper they decided what you saw,
and knowing what I know as a conservative, it never
came my way. I remember going out in my first
couple campaigns governor and we would always get a call
from whatever, you know, the local newspaper was of wherever
the campaign that I was at, and they'd say, hey,
the Environmental Working Group just put out a scorecard your

(14:22):
candidate because your Republican sucks and the Democrats great, and
so what is your comment? And I'd say, you know,
we care about the environment, we love clean air, clean water, blah,
blah blah, And then I'd call the same reporter back
a week later and say, hey, the Chamber of Commerce
just put out a scorecard.

Speaker 2 (14:36):
We're great, the Democrat sucks.

Speaker 3 (14:38):
And they'd say like, well, that's really not an issue
that we think is important, and I'd say, I mean, so,
which would you rather have the ability to go out
search for more information or your local current media outlets
deciding that we're only going to show you certain things.
It's kind of the same thing, except now I'm aware
of the fact that certain social media outlets and algorithms

(15:00):
are going to try to go down rabbit holes. I
think informed for people know to search further, to search farther,
to question what they're hearing and seeing, and look for
other sources.

Speaker 2 (15:11):
Which is why you know.

Speaker 3 (15:12):
I was doing a project the other day on a
wellness and I was like, let me just go through
substack and see who some of the big MAHA type
newsletters are. And it was great because I found people
on both sides of issues, pros and cons on a
variety of subjects. And I was like, Okay, I feel
like I'm getting a nice but yeah, you've got to

(15:33):
be careful and cognizant of the fact that you're going
to get served up certain things. But I don't know
how that's any different than you know, if you just
limited to you know, if we were in a world
it was limited to cable.

Speaker 1 (15:43):
Yeah, I get it. And speaking of cable, well, I'm
curious just your assessment. I think every year for the
last many years, I don't even remember the last time,
it wasn't the case, but it seems fourteen out of
the top fifteen most watched cable shows are Fox. Yeah,
I think Great Seal Mattow is the one exception, and
she's just one day a week on Monday night. I mean,

(16:05):
just right wing is dominating the nightly cable networks or
cable board broadly. Why do you think that's the case?

Speaker 3 (16:13):
A couple things, as I said, like when I grew
up like you, we don't. I think it's almost like
living in a world where you didn't realize that you were.
You wondered why issues didn't get attention or covered, and
when Fox came along, it filled a void. But if
you think about what's on your cable dial right now,

(16:34):
like with the I mean Fox is the the eight
hundred pound gorilla but it's alone. So you've got ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC,
CNN all sort of focused on at best a left
of center view of the world, and Fox kind of
consolidates the right of center view of the world. And
so I think for people who are going there, that's

(16:57):
they're they're tired of getting one perception of the world
and the news, and they've all consolidated around Fox. You
look at a show like The Five, it's the most
popular show Gutfeld in the evening. But I think part
of it is a consolidation of viewership, right, So if
you if you look at what they get, there's not
a ton of competition on the right. When you look
at what's what's on the cable.

Speaker 1 (17:18):
Dial, I mean obviously News News Nation, News Max, I
mean obviously trying to one American news, trying to sort
of capture some market share.

Speaker 3 (17:26):
Well, I think, just as a side note, because full disclosure,
I do contribute to News Nation. That's probably the most
straight down the middle center outlet that's out there. But
I would also argue that you know, cable in itself
faces this existential crisis where the average viewer, I think
of MSNBC, CNN, even you know, I think Fox is
like sixty nine to seventy years old. So part of

(17:47):
the reason why I jumped into independent media, why I
think this is the future, is because I'm sure you
see this all over when you're out talking to folks,
like most people now are cutting the cord maybe YouTube TV,
where they're you know, kind of still get traditional outlets.
But even so, you're seeing more and more people streaming programs,
not watching it as much anymore. I mean, I there

(18:07):
are days I said to my wife a couple of
weeks ago, we were up in Rhode Island, and I
was like, God, I can't remember the last time I
watched television, you know, because I'm on not that I'm online,
probably more than I should be, but but I think
we've just we're pushing away from that world as well.

Speaker 1 (18:23):
So interesting what I'm curious when you came out of
the White House, and you know, for those who wanted
to tune in and have me go back to every
single Sean Spice or press conference, there's a hundred of
the channels other and other interviews with Sean that you know,
so I don't I don't even want to tread on
a lot of that, But I am curious just coming
out of the White House and just being attached to

(18:44):
Trump and trying to be your own person, I imagine.
I mean that said, also taking advantage of that, because
those a lot of doors open up in that Trump world,
et cetera. I mean, as you know, sort of unpacking
where we started, as you've you've been on your own journey,
is now a podcaster or substacker and consulting, also doing
some political consulting work as well on the side. But
was that more daunting or more opportunistic than you expected?

(19:10):
Meaning having that Trump brand on the resume, being that
spokesperson for Trump. Did it open more doors or to
close more doors for you?

Speaker 3 (19:19):
It's a great question both. So it opened a lot
of like I said earlier, like look, I I'm blessed
by what my parents provided for me and my brother
and sister, but like it was, it was love and support,
not not money and gifts, and so the ability to
do things like I mean, I opened the Emmys out

(19:43):
in your neck of the woods, I mean the idea.
I mean, listen, I didn't even make my high my
junior high Philadelphia trip or something. We didn't have the
money to do it so to be like, hey, do
you want to go open the Emmys. There were things
that I got to do that are mind boggling to
me that I, as a kid grew up in Rhode Island.
Like if I told that to my eighteen year old
self that you were going to be having these traveling

(20:07):
to these places, meeting these people.

Speaker 2 (20:09):
So yes and no.

Speaker 3 (20:10):
So the yes part is there's no way in God's
earth that I would have done or had the opportunity
to do any of the things had it not been
for the opportunity the President Trump gave me. That being said,
the environment then and the environment now is night and day.
I was personally attacked. My house was put up for
sale on Zillow. We had cameras outside, We faced all

(20:34):
sorts of threats. I got attacked in multiple Apple stores.
I know there's only one that really got a lot
of attention, but there's others, a grocery store.

Speaker 2 (20:45):
And it's not just me, by the way. I mean,
I've kids.

Speaker 3 (20:48):
I've tried to keep them out of my public life,
but it's not easy when you're with them and you're
at dinner and someone's standing outside giving your family the
finger or chanting something and they're asking Addie, why are
they doing that? So, you know, like I said, it's both.
I've got some amazing opportunities that I've never gotten. But
at the same time, there were places who would say

(21:13):
to me, hey, we want to work with you because
we're looking to get some insight in the Trump administration,
but can you sign five NDAs and can we run
this through like a Swiss shell company so no one
knows that we're actually talking to you. There were plenty
of events where we started down a path and then
they'd get canceled. You know, an opportunity would get canceled.
It was a lot of like cloak and dagger, like

(21:33):
we'd love to have you come talk to our board,
but you have to come in a back door. No
one can know that you're here. People, So the first
iteration of Trump was fairly vicious, and obviously the Mala
Report was going on. People were making all sorts of
false allegations. So I will say this this second term.
I mean, it's like a night and day people are

(21:56):
excited to work with you. It's the opposite, right, Can
we promote that we're working with you? Can you talk
to us openly about Trump. I think the president two
point zero is such a different place than he was
in the first term for a variety of reasons, and
a lot of it was just a learning curve, etc.
I mean, I'm glad to go into it, but I
think there is so much that is different between the

(22:18):
first term and the second term.

Speaker 1 (22:19):
No, I love that. It's a great segue because I
wanted to talk about that. I mean, I've had my
own experience with Trump, obviously as governor for two years
involved in you know, we were involved as a state
with one hundred and twenty two lawsuits with the Trump administration.
That said, and you may recall this during COVID, we
had a very good working relationship as a democratic governor.
We were constantly on the phone working through issues. There

(22:42):
may have been a lot of noise on true social
or Twitter, but we were actually constructive. But I will
acknowledge things are radically different this second term, and I've
found him to be very different as well. And that's
on the basis of a lot of interpersonal engagement. An
hour and a half in the oval office. I think
it was the first democratic governor to spend that kind

(23:02):
of time with them in the Oval office phone calls
since and obviously we're going back and forth now, but
I'm curious a few of us, you've seen a few,
there's a lot.

Speaker 3 (23:12):
I'm wondering, how's how are hot sales going.

Speaker 1 (23:16):
By the way, you know, the most extraordinary sales we've
ever seen, just as our most beautiful maps that are
out there. But I will say, uh, the biggest selling
item is that picture of Tucker Carlson and the late
Great Hulk Hogan and of course Kid Rock himself blessing Me,
which is limited edition. Sean, if you want to pick

(23:37):
up one, I do it now before, by the way,
before I put my crypto coin out, which I also
think will be a hot show.

Speaker 3 (23:44):
I didn't want to get ahead of this, but you
do know that we're going to tear offf all of that.

Speaker 1 (23:49):
Yes, sell, Well, we'll get to the terrorist a bit.
But look, Trump one point two point. I've heard you
talk a lot about it, and you've you've talked about
the discipline. You've talked about the fact that this is
a more prepared second term presidency, that people around him
have more prepared, they're more quote unquote professional. From Susie
Wiles's chief of staff to what they're doing at the OMB.

(24:09):
They had a playbook, they're executing on it. They're unified.
Where do you, often, I hear youse, give us a sense?
I mean, you know, without going too deep into the
well of what was wrong in that first term, do
you maintain that as we sit here in month seven
going to month eight, that this is a well oiled
machine and that he's excelling in terms of advancing his

(24:32):
stated goals. Oh?

Speaker 2 (24:34):
Absolutely. Look, so I'll just start with this. If you
are a supporter of.

Speaker 3 (24:38):
President Trump and the America First Agenda, which I proudly am,
the amount of accomplishments I don't think is questionable. Like
you look at what he has done on trade, what
he's done on taxes, what he has done on the border,
what he's done on the make America Healthy Again movement,
like check check check. Now, you may know, one may

(24:59):
not agree with that, but I would argue, as I
love watching these cabinet meetings and I know some of
the some people have issues with them, but I feel
like everyone's getting called to account, like everybody has to
list off what did you do? And there's one every
thirty days, So you know, when I was in college,
I hid in the back row try to make sure
I didn't get called on. Now, if you look at
a Trump meeting, you hear from every single one of

(25:20):
those folks, what have you gotten done in the last
thirty days. And I mean Sean Duffy at the Department
of Transportation looking at our air traffic control systems, what
we're doing to keep our highway safe with CDL licensing.

Speaker 2 (25:32):
Everyone's got something to say. I love it.

Speaker 3 (25:34):
Lee's Elden talking about the environment, what they're doing to
help reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses. So again,
if you're maybe some folks on your side of the
aisle party, you may not agree, but I would think
that regardless of where you are, you've got.

Speaker 2 (25:46):
To admit that he's got a lot done.

Speaker 1 (25:48):
And Sean's just on that. I'm curious and forgive me,
I do want you to continue to expand on the point.
But also you hear at those cabinet meetings. I mean
there's a lot of dear Leader. I mean, every single
one of those folks starts out with the sort of
unctious compliments. Is that I mean, honestly, does that? Does

(26:10):
do you cringe? About that, or you think that's also
part of the charmer part of I mean, what do
you make of that? I mean, yesterday's cabinet meeting was
not coordinary in that respect.

Speaker 2 (26:20):
No, here's what I'm saying. I think delivery matters.

Speaker 3 (26:24):
Some people pull it off better than others, but I
think that Look, the President deserves credit for the people
he's picking and the ability to allow them to do that.
Now how some of them choose to express their gratitude. Again,
I think delivery matters, but I get it, it's part
of the I don't know. I sort of personally like

(26:44):
I said, what if you heard what I said? I
love the focus on results, Like, so, no one can
get up there and just bs and say, dear mister President,
I love you. You're amazing, and Okay, who's next. They
have to then go into what did you get done?
And I am a believer as someone who's been a
commanding officer, who has been in charge of groups and organizations,

(27:06):
like I don't the fluff, great, say it, but then
get to what you did. I want results, and I
like the fact that you can't hide. Yes, you might
start off by saying something very laudatory, but At the
end of the day, you have to get to what
did I do to deliver for the American people? And
that goes into what I believe is different. There's three things,
the people, the process, and the policies.

Speaker 2 (27:26):
And look when we.

Speaker 3 (27:27):
Got brought into Trump one and again he's not a politician.
The guy was picking people. Some of them he knew,
some of them he didn't, and people would recommend him.
I think the best person to be the ambassador to
you know, francis so and so. I think that so
and so would be great for the Department of the Interior,
and he would trust people great. You think that person's good. Okay,

(27:48):
I know you, you think they're great. I was in the
room plenty of times for those conversations occurred. I don't
think every single person. In fact, a lot of them
did not come in for the right reasons, meaning they
weren't coming into advance agenda. In some cases, they were
coming in to advance their own or to actually stand
in the way of it and to oppose it. This time,

(28:08):
what the media gets wrong about the people in the
room in his cabinet, in particular in the sub cabinet.
And this is where again they just say, oh, they're
all loyal. A dog is loyal. My dog is loyal.
It's sitting right there and she will follow me everywhere.
But that's great. That doesn't do anything. Every one of
these people, from the Secretary of Defense to the Attorney

(28:30):
General to the Secretary of Treasury and Commerce is a doer.
They're getting things done. They're a disruptor, and that's what
they're missing. Anyone can be loyal, that doesn't mean you're
getting things done. So the people are vastly different. And
then the policies they know they four years out of office.
I always tell people it's like if you grew up
playing a team sport and you play the same team

(28:50):
later in the season, your coach will luckily say, remember
they came up strong on the right and we didn't
block them well, so we got to prevent that. Four
years out of office has allowed these guys to think
through how do get things done properly? How who what
the opposition force is going to look like? And I
keep contrasting the the sort of the firing of Lisa

(29:12):
Cook at the FED this week with how we handled Komy.
When we fired Kme, the President called me into the
oval and said, Sean put out a statement, we're firing
Jim Coney. And I literally sat there and said, mister President,
we need to inform congressional leaders. We need to do this,
because I just had been around and you know, long
enough to I was like, here's what's going to I'm
going to get asked as press secretary, I'm going to
get asked.

Speaker 2 (29:31):
Did you inform you know, Leader Schumer, did you call
the Speaker of the House?

Speaker 3 (29:35):
Did you do this? And I said, so, we just
need to go through some of these processes. But admittedly,
you know, it was not probably done the best in
terms of rollout. I think how they've handled things like that,
between the policies and the personnel rollout, they get the
process a lot more.

Speaker 1 (29:52):
Now, are you arguing that what they're doing with Cook
is a better process than that? Really? Absolutely, Maybe she's
she he guilty of something without due process, she should
be removed.

Speaker 3 (30:03):
I don't know if she's guilty or not, but that's
not what the law says. The Federal Reserve Act of
nineteen thirteen, Section ten says that the President has the
ability to remove.

Speaker 2 (30:12):
Anyone for cause.

Speaker 3 (30:13):
Because now you've been a governor, a mayor, like you've
let people go I'm sure at some point, and not
because they were guilty of something or were convicted a
court of law. You said, hey, Susie, you've shown up
five days late for work. You're not getting it done.
You don't represent me. Well, you're a nuisance. This woman
signed documents that are public that she declared her primary

(30:37):
home in two residents. That's mortgage fraud. Now, whether she
gets convicted or not. An employer, I've had to fire
people before. They none of them were convicted of anything.
In fact, a lot of times.

Speaker 2 (30:48):
It's like, hey, we're gonna let you go so that
you know, and.

Speaker 1 (30:51):
Sean just done no And I appreciate that, and it
certainly is the frame is for cause. But you don't
find anything curious about that coincident that that Adam Schiff
and Tis James have the same accusations and they're just
sort of coincidental. And Paxton, who's got accusations against him

(31:11):
in Texas, there's been no consideration and criteria for a
similar investigation. This is just professionalism at the highest levels
of the Trump administration weeding out corruption, and they just
happen to fall on these three people. Coincidentally.

Speaker 3 (31:28):
Well, again, first of all, it's not like Adam shift
Tiff James. I mean, you're his governor. I think that's
not just a mortgage fright issue, but it's an electoral problem.
The guy, by the constitution, is required to live in
your state. He is signedy documents saying that Maryland is
his primary residence. You should probably be entitled to a
senator that represents California and lives there.

Speaker 2 (31:48):
So I would argue that this is probably more of
your IF problems.

Speaker 1 (31:51):
By the way, Sean, I'm trying to go to an
event where shiff is not has not already left because
he was there before I was there.

Speaker 2 (31:57):
I didn't love that this morning, and I thought this
is going to be interesting.

Speaker 3 (32:01):
But I'm just saying it's.

Speaker 1 (32:02):
Up to honestly. I mean, you can't and good conscious
say that's just that's just I mean, this is just
a professionally well arted machine doing everything right.

Speaker 2 (32:10):
And just contrast. So there's two things. Number one.

Speaker 3 (32:16):
Contrast One, I honest to God, and I say this
like in all honesty, because I don't I'm not aware.
I know that there's some issues that brought up with
with the Attorney General. I didn't know about the mortgage
trod to be honest with you. Maybe that I so
if that's true, I'd be willing to look at it.
But I would also say one two things. One the
first question was was the process different than the first term? And,

(32:38):
as I said, with Kobe, they did. We just fired him,
announced it like you're gone, and then built the plane
in mid air to to explain why. Later with Cook,
they've made the predicate very clear she did this.

Speaker 2 (32:51):
Here are the receipts. That is a much better process.

Speaker 1 (32:54):
Right.

Speaker 3 (32:54):
So, I, as a as a consumer of the news
and as a citizen, I go, Okay, I know what
you're accused of. If that's cause, and which I believe
a judge would argue is cause, because again it doesn't
mean you have to be guilty of it, which I
actually from what I can see, I'm no judge. I
haven't been to law school, but but I would say
that if you sign two pieces of paper claiming two
different states are your primary residents to get a lower

(33:16):
interest rate, neither one that you've actually lived in and
used for rental purposes, I have a rental property.

Speaker 2 (33:21):
Well, I didn't get up. I had to get the
higher interest rate in a bigger down payment.

Speaker 3 (33:25):
Because it I wasn't gonna lie on a form, but
it's in an electorally it's also a lie. Like as
I said, I mean Tiss James had a property here
in my state of Virginia, saying and she's the New
York Attorney general claiming that Virginia's her primary residence.

Speaker 1 (33:39):
That's a problem.

Speaker 3 (33:41):
And so let me just say, as governor, the one
last thing is I would say, and this is why
after watching the four years of what they did to Trump,
especially especially in New York, claiming that misdemeanors, bookkeeping, misdemeanors
that passed the statute limitations somehow all roll up into
a fake felony, and then telling the jury you don't
even need to come up with a crime, just convict the.

Speaker 2 (34:02):
Guy, and then we've actually got receipts on these folks.

Speaker 1 (34:06):
I mean, you know, one could argue that was selective prosecution.
I think any objective observer would have to maintain these
three cases seem to be rather selective and curious. And
I guess the deeper problem that I have, and I
appreciate your framework around this being a better process than

(34:27):
call me and I do appreciate your framework on that,
but this idea that it's better because the DOJ is
now being weaponized in a very overt way. Perhaps, I mean,
Pam's standing right behind the president. These guys are just
winding up on that retribution list. It just doesn't feel
like he's raising the bar and elevating the company.

Speaker 3 (34:50):
If I, let's just say for a second, I accept
your premise it's all retribution.

Speaker 2 (34:53):
If I accept that premise, I just okay.

Speaker 3 (34:57):
I mean again, I don't think like I've always felt
like at some point, you know, we're dealing with this
in jerrymandering, at what point does it stop?

Speaker 2 (35:05):
Okay? Who started it?

Speaker 3 (35:06):
Dan Turntine nine in the morning meeting had this long
argument about who started it and when? Okay, Well, we
can go back to Elbridge Jerry and say, okay, it
started in Massachusetts and whatever that was seventeen something. But
the bottom line is, if we're gonna claim that what's going.

Speaker 2 (35:22):
On now is bad, then where were all these voices
for the last four years?

Speaker 3 (35:26):
I mean, what happened to Trump in New York in
particular is complete and utter bs Like no one with
a law degree or having ever watched law and order
could argue what happened to him in New York was fair.
That's just that was the ultimate weaponization of the digital system.
The misdemeanors were expired. There is no such It's the
first time this has ever happened. There was no crime.

(35:48):
He paid the mortgage back.

Speaker 2 (35:50):
In the case of.

Speaker 3 (35:52):
James Schiff and Cook, they lied on a form to
get a lower interest rate. In the case of Cook,
she is, by the way, on the board of the
Federal Reserve, which oversees interest rates. I mean, this is
you can't have something.

Speaker 1 (36:05):
More entangled, did well? I hope we still have due process,
and I hope those facts are presented and not just
asserted on a truth social But it begs the question.

Speaker 3 (36:17):
I hope that we have a system where senators live
in the state that they and I.

Speaker 1 (36:24):
Don't think anyone listening would disagree that people need to
be held to account and and I just think the
selective prosecution, you know, is a little dark and a
little ominous, and without even you know, getting back in
the merits demerits to your point about what you perceive
happen at the state level in New York and Georgia
what they attempted to do to Trump when he was

(36:45):
out of office. So but just just move it off,
just if I may, just because I think, you know,
it does beg the question of the FED. This. I mean,
are we better off with the president of the United
States having the ability to change on whims members of
the board and have those members get rid of the

(37:07):
presidents of the regional bodies? Is that? Are we better
off as a nation having a president put their thumb
on that scale. I mean, it seems the last time
we had United States president do it was Richard Nixon.
Didn't seem to end so well. With inflationary pressures in
the seventies, people have equated similar actions and places like
Argentina and Turkey? Are those fair? Unfair? Is this just

(37:28):
Trump has you know He's not I'm in a blue bubble.
Am I just making all this up? And we have
independence of the FED and I'm just but we have
corruption at the highest level. And finally he's calling it
out on mortgage fraud.

Speaker 2 (37:42):
Well, I think there's two separate issues.

Speaker 3 (37:43):
You're the FED in itself and then the overall issue.
I don't mean to make it personal, but I am
a named plaintiff in a case called Spicer v. Biden
that was decided President Biden fired me from the US
Naval Academy board. First time in history, in the history
of the United States, a president has dismissed anyone for
no cause.

Speaker 1 (38:03):
Uh was russ Voy part of that as well? A
few of you, right, is.

Speaker 2 (38:08):
Ice or vote v.

Speaker 3 (38:09):
Biden? And the Biden administration went to court up through
the appeals process, arguing that the President of United States
has the absolute authority to fire anyone without ever explaining it.
By the way, that is the court, that is the
case law. Now, okay, when I was fired, and again
it just wasn't about me. He fired every Service Academy
hr McMaster. By the way, a west Point grad that
had taught at west Point was scheduled to get the

(38:29):
Distinguished Alumni Award that Thursday. They fired us on a Tuesday. Okay,
so they fired everyone Air Force, West Point Naval Academy
for no cause.

Speaker 2 (38:38):
We went to court, obviously.

Speaker 3 (38:40):
Attempting to lose, where we made them argue in the
affirmative that the President of United States has the absolute
authority to fire anyone. They did that, and again, this
is why you know this goes back to the same
question asking before when that happened, there was no outrage,
none to say, why are we fired? Might by the way,
they fired me on September eighth my board, my term

(39:02):
expired sixty days later.

Speaker 2 (39:04):
They could have named it an entirely I mean.

Speaker 3 (39:06):
So and for no reason, no cause, and the thing
was not one person said this is not right, this
is ridiculous.

Speaker 2 (39:14):
It's never happened.

Speaker 3 (39:15):
In fact, it was the Democratic Congressional chairman of the
board at the time, Dutch R. Ruthlisberger, who called me
and said, this is ridiculous.

Speaker 2 (39:22):
Like, I don't know. I didn't get informed about this.
They didn't explain why.

Speaker 3 (39:25):
And so then when Trump comes into office, they go, oh,
my god, I can't believe he's firing people.

Speaker 2 (39:29):
I'm sorry.

Speaker 3 (39:30):
When they did this in the under the Biden administration,
no one said a damn thing. And then it goes, well,
but this is different. Well, when I got fired, there
was no cause, no excuse, no reason. When Lisa Cook
was fired, it's because she committed mortgage fraud, and everyone goes, oh,
this is unbelievable.

Speaker 2 (39:47):
It's the Fed.

Speaker 3 (39:47):
Now, with respect to the Fed alone, I don't have
a problem with the Again, I am a believer that
the president has the authority, as now affirmed by Spicer v. Biden.

Speaker 2 (39:56):
He decided who he wants to serve.

Speaker 1 (39:59):
Even the end of pad it FED, which is held
to even the Supreme Court is adjudicated unique standing of
independent FED first and second Bank and a recent decision.
You think even if they regardless of the marriage, you
think it's healthy for democracy that president.

Speaker 2 (40:14):
Well, again, there's a difference between in this case.

Speaker 3 (40:18):
I do believe, I mean as I as I've stated,
this isn't like conjecture there. The documents are out there
for everyone to see. She committed mortgage fraud. She signed
two documents that state in the affirmative that two different
states at the same time are her primary residents, neither
of what she ever lived, and she used in both
for that is fraud.

Speaker 1 (40:36):
Okay, I appreciate Sean on that, but just I'm talking
about just the FED chairman in this case. Even even
the pressure games, it seems to me go back.

Speaker 3 (40:46):
To the to the to the you know, the early
days of America. The president of the United States has
always put pressure on the FED to do what it wants.

Speaker 2 (40:55):
This is not a singular.

Speaker 3 (40:56):
Now you may think the tactics of President Trump are
more vocal, but presidents of the United States have put
pressure on the FED, going back to some of our
earliest founders.

Speaker 1 (41:08):
There's no doubt about that didn't always It didn't always
go so well. I guess is more of the objective observation,
and that's perhaps.

Speaker 3 (41:14):
And the president will be judged, and President Trump will
be judged as as most presidents are to you know,
either on safety or the or the economy. And you know,
it's clear what he wants to cut in the rate.
I think that's frankly for happened regardless it was already.

Speaker 2 (41:30):
Maybe I think twenty five basis points with the bottom
of the mind, and.

Speaker 1 (41:33):
He'll claim credit for something that was already going to happen, which.

Speaker 3 (41:36):
Is well, maybe not. I don't know that it'll claim
credit at twenty five. He wants way more than that.
And I think, by the way, there's an issue that
I know you had Charlie Kirk early on in your
show that he has been championing, which is the inability
of young Americans to have home and or ownership in
their reach. And I think again, and so part of
it is that these interest rates I think would be
a great thing just for for you know, the debt

(41:59):
of our country, frankly, but also for home ownership.

Speaker 1 (42:02):
I could agree more in that respect. And look, no,
I just don't think politicians should be making monetary policy
at our peril and the professionalship. But all of us
are very eager to see that happen. I think the
market's obviously starting to you know, they baked that cake
already in anticipation, and so it would be a big
surprise and set back if we didn't see that move.

(42:23):
But look, moving beyond just sort of the independence of
the Fed and the merits or demerits of whether or
not you think his influence this particular Trump's influence is
any greater or lesser than prior administrations. I'm curious just
the overall just sense that truth and trust is fray

(42:44):
is being fraid.

Speaker 2 (42:44):
Now.

Speaker 1 (42:44):
You made a great argument there that I think is important. Democrats,
we need to listen. I appreciate you bringing up your
own standing in relationship those firings and Democrats, many of
them unfamiliar with the details of that, and be candid
with you, Sean. Until I was preparing for this conversation.
I wasn't even aware of that. To be able to
even have your back and to call that out, and

(43:05):
I think it's important is one of the reasons we
started this podcast because I think it's critical that we
have a little grace and understanding of one another in
relationship to the fights that we're having. But I got
to be honest, the BLS decision chilled me a little bit,
and it chilled a lot of objective observers. This notion
that if we don't like the facts that are being presented,

(43:25):
that we just fire the person that's presenting them and
we put someone in who's perhaps suggestive, not as loyal
to the facts, but more loyal to the person that's
appointing that individual. I mean, what was your sense of
that decision or do you feel comfortable with that? Is
that elevating things or am I again just maybe over

(43:46):
reading this and that's typical.

Speaker 3 (43:48):
Well, first, I do think the two subjects that were discussing,
the FED and BLS. You've got a guy who got
a d in economics answering both of them. So issues
of economics are probably not my strongest we allow, but
but look, I will say that I asked a bunch
of people similar questions, just sort of because I'm familiar
with BLS and I did some work with commerce years ago.

(44:13):
So I but there have been problems with from economists
and actuals on both sides who've said the way the
BLS calculates numbers is wrong, especially the revisions. So I
know EJ not well. I think the proof is going
to be in the pudding. How he does his job
and what we hear about that. But I do think
the president has a right to have people serve him.

(44:35):
Who I mean, he was the he is the elected
you know, highest elected person in our country. He has
a right to have people serve him to to do
the work in advance his agenda. Now, the proof will
be in the pudding. How EJ does this. There will
be plenty of scrutiny on it in terms of the numbers,
the revisions, the frequency. So we'll see. And so I look,

(44:58):
I think it's healthy to be skeptical, but the proof
will be in the pudding, and see what he does
for all of the whining. You know that we've seen
a lot of people share about concerns. Some of the
people that have come to government, they've turned out to
be a pretty pretty adept group of folks getting the
agenda moving forward. So I've been extremely proud of President

(45:18):
Trump's cabinet and sub cabinet. And then obviously we'll see
how EJ does is director of BLS, which is I
don't even know at the sub cabinet level.

Speaker 1 (45:27):
But yeah, so I'm curious just and I know I'm
sensitive to our time. And you know, as we sort
of battled this notion of FED independence and talk about
the issue of just basic data collection and presidential authority,
some would suggest overreach and we can battle that back
and forth. But your overall assessment just on what he's

(45:51):
doing for the economy. Are you pleased that we had
a cabinet meaning this week and the Commerce Secretary said, hey,
we may be taking over defense companies at least investing
in defense company. Please that we now are getting involved
in Silicon Valley and owning ten percent of Intel. You're
happy that they're doing tithings or set asides at AMD

(46:11):
and and Nvidia fifteen percent? Do you please that the
president's deciding who should be a CEO shouldn't be said
the Intel CEO should be fired before they decided to
take ten percent of the company, or deciding on what
logos people should have or not have. Cracker barrel, I mean,
is this.

Speaker 2 (46:30):
I don't know that decision.

Speaker 3 (46:31):
I mean maybe I know the President weighed in on it,
but I don't know if you can take credit.

Speaker 1 (46:36):
I took credit for it as well as part of
my of course, I did you've check that out? I've
been well, you know, anyway, I'm going coming out, as
I said, coming out of my own crypto soon.

Speaker 3 (46:46):
First of all, the way you make maps, maybe you're
pretty good at the logos too. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (46:50):
Christopher Columbus didn't make IM going to just say, but honestly,
you know, I'm a free enterprise guy. I believe what
Churchill said, a healthy horse pulling at hardy wagon. I
don't like crony capitalism. I don't like corruption. I don't
like backroom deals. I don't like people making calls and
then getting exemptions on tariffs. I don't like people sending
family members out getting deals before tariffs are even negotiated.

(47:13):
I get a little nervous about this. I don't like
the crypto stuff. I don't like all the correct cronyism
and corruption that I see is taking shit. I don't
like the Democrats or Republics, But is this is this normal?
Is that Commerce secretary saying we're gonna own portion of Lockheed?
Is that? Is that what we signed up for? Is
that what megas for? You're a conservative guy.

Speaker 3 (47:34):
It's a little late for you to be coming out
criticizing the Bidens, But I appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (47:37):
I think it's it's well if.

Speaker 1 (47:39):
I'd never try to take over Intel. I don't recall
that logos, No, I don't remember. Honestly, I don't remember
any of that. But is this is this good? Good
for Americans?

Speaker 3 (47:52):
One thing about the companies, the stake and the companies.
I I get he is a businessman at heart, and
I get what he's trying to do right because it's
the America owns these shares. I do as a as
a free enterprise guy. What concerns me is the long term. Right,
so God forbid, your party gets back in power. I

(48:13):
wonder you know, do you guys buy you do take
a ten percent steak in Smith and Wesson and say hey,
you can't sell guns anywhere?

Speaker 2 (48:19):
Right? I worry about that.

Speaker 3 (48:21):
The precedent that it sets does concern me because at
some point you know there will there there is a
decent odds that a Democrat gets back in and what
do they do with a steak in a private company?
And what do they say and say, well, Trump did it,
So that part does worry me. I will say one
of the things that you know in Dan Turntin I've

(48:43):
gotten this in the morning meeting, is that where I
think that there's potentially a balance on this is if
the government's going to make an investment in a company,
so you're you know, in the case of defense contractors,
you're procuring something. Is there something that the taxpayers should
benefit from in the case of pharma, where all of
our financial resources are laying the ground for the research

(49:05):
and then a major pharmaceutical company profits off of it tremendously,
when we the taxpayer, our money has been used to
sort of till the field. I do think that there
is a place for the government for the taxpayer to
reap a benefit. As I said, I got a d
in economics, so I'm probably not the best person answering this.
I like the way that President Trump approaches it, where

(49:26):
he's saying, what can we get out of this as
a country?

Speaker 2 (49:29):
If we're doing some of the investing.

Speaker 3 (49:31):
I don't know that I want us voting on, you know,
having voting shares in a company, because let's just say,
hypothetically you have a ten percent stake in Intel and
b company comes along. Is the government going to award
contracts to Intel versus another company because it says, hey,
we benefit more if we give him the contract. So
I do think that there's you know, I appreciate the

(49:53):
President's approach on this as a businessman saying, hey, if
we're going to be investing, what do we the taxpayer
get out of it?

Speaker 2 (49:59):
Where does the country get?

Speaker 3 (50:00):
I think the actual approach and I get Secretary latnx
comment on defense contracting. But again I do worry because
as somebody who has seen what this sort of consolidation
in the defense industrial complex has really hurt our ability
to produce enough munitions and and so what what, you know,

(50:21):
what we do we want to encourage more innovation. If
a company says, well, they're they're going to favor another
company because they the government owns stakes in it, that
will make that difficult. So I'm a little this to me,
this is going to how this manifests itself is going
to be very important because again I think the short
term I'm concerned about that, and in the long term
I am worried about what another potential Democratic president would say.

(50:46):
What what companies do they want to take a stake in?
And what how would they then argue those profits or
that company must act to stay in the good good
will of that administration.

Speaker 1 (50:55):
Well, it's all that's pretty familiar. I mean, President she
is put on a master class in China on strategic
industries and making sure that there was national ownership and oversight.
I mean, this is right out of his playbook. And
you can invest in incumbents and that ecosystem and startups.
So we're going to invest in where the great American
economies come, which is through research and development and IH

(51:17):
and SF. That means you're bsicently socializing most of Silicon
Valley the great American companies.

Speaker 2 (51:24):
Again, don't.

Speaker 3 (51:26):
Again, I don't know where the balance is. Like I
think somebody should look at this and say, if the
American people are going to fund all of the research
and then a Pharmer company comes and takes it, brings
it to market and says, now we're going to make
billions of dollars off of that, I think the taxpayer
should potentially have some role in reaping some benefits on it.
But look, when you talk about President Trump bringing back
the manufacturing all of these chips back to the America,

(51:48):
making sure that we create an incentive for American manufacturing,
it kills me post COVID that we have a country
that sent us a disease, a virus, and then we
then turned back to them and said, hey, by the way,
can we buy our ppe and our pharma from you.

Speaker 2 (52:02):
To solve the problem that you started.

Speaker 3 (52:04):
I think dependent independence from China has got to be
our number one.

Speaker 2 (52:08):
Number two and then.

Speaker 1 (52:09):
Sean, forgive me, you must have really been offended by
the H two O chip deal with Nvidia in the
fifteen percent set aside to be able to get that
green light, that must have so many levels offended the core.

Speaker 2 (52:20):
Well, it goes back to this point that I was making.

Speaker 3 (52:22):
What I worry about is the long term consequences of
in the case of that you had an export license. Again,
the devil to me is really going to be in
the detail and the president it sets, because I do
worry about how a future president uses this and That's
that's what concerns me more than anything else. If we
start taking stakes and companies.

Speaker 1 (52:40):
Especially, well, there's a there's a there's a president right
now who seems to be on a roll of socializing
and nationalizing great American companies. A lot of them happen
to be in my home state. Final thing, I'm curious
because you said it, and I don't mean this to
be argument and have I really and thank you Sean
for doing this. I've enjoyed the conversation. I enjoy this
aired of it as well. You you talked, and I

(53:04):
you know, I'm you know, I spent a lot of time,
as you know, in Sacramento, Ronald Reagan's old house. I
walk into Ronald Reagan's old office, former governor of California.
People Revere sort of the fiscal conservatism, the free enterprise,
the free market, supply side economics. That was was Reagan.
But you said you're you're conservative, and you were. You know,

(53:26):
what the hell happened to debt and deficits? Just four
point one trillion dollars? Stacky? I mean, our kids are
going to be buried. And for honestly, what to tell me?

Speaker 2 (53:39):
Give me a program? You want to cut and I'll
advocate for it.

Speaker 1 (53:41):
Well, well, I mean that's the job of the people
that are in Congress in the United States.

Speaker 2 (53:46):
Look, and I wish and by the ways, and.

Speaker 1 (53:49):
By the way, talking the wrong person. Because governors, we
have to balance budgets, so we do this every single year.

Speaker 2 (53:55):
Look, I make no bones about it.

Speaker 3 (53:58):
The debt and the deficit, to me is one of
the It is probably up there with China because it's
actually tethered to it. They own so much of it.
We're at thirty seven trillion dollars in debt. Our deficit
is out of control. I was I didn't agree with
every way that Doze rolled out some of it stuff,
But my god, the idea that we are not looking
at our spending in a responsible way is insane.

Speaker 2 (54:20):
And so what was.

Speaker 1 (54:21):
Why do you guys support a bill that is the
most insane spending bill.

Speaker 2 (54:28):
I will tell you as a guy, I spent a
lot of time talking to folks.

Speaker 3 (54:32):
The proof will be in the pudding. But I have
been convinced through some of the models that I've been
shown that this will actually reduce the deficit. And you
look at what President Trump's done on tariffs four trillion dollars.
The CBO says that we're going to bring in for
deficit reduction and debt reduction on the tariffs alone, that's
a significant chunk of money.

Speaker 2 (54:49):
Four trillion dollars.

Speaker 1 (54:51):
Not a bad start, all right, Well, we we don't
have time to get to the terrorists. We could do
a Kennedy Center, we could talk, but we didn't.

Speaker 2 (55:03):
Oh, I love Rick.

Speaker 3 (55:04):
If you need tickets, Governor, I know Rick Rnell lives
in Califoria.

Speaker 1 (55:07):
Rick is Rick loves me. I think, Uh, yeah, I'm
one of his favorite. I forgot he runs that runs
recovery in California Venezuela. Isn't he solving for Kim Johnnn
up there too? Rick?

Speaker 2 (55:19):
I don't know. Well, look it's it's.

Speaker 1 (55:22):
Yeah what we solved. But hopefully we solved uh for
at least this that we all should be solving. Uh,
for the fact that divorce is not an option. We've
got to define the terms of our future together and
and so I'm really grateful we had this chance to
be together today, Sean, and I appreciate what you're doing

(55:43):
with Mark and Dan. I'm a I'm an avid listener sincerely,
and I hope people there's a reason you guys have
blown up in the charts, and I think those morning
meetings are I didn't know the origin story. I really
appreciates you know.

Speaker 2 (55:56):
The funny thing is you're the first person that's ever
asked interesting.

Speaker 3 (56:00):
Yeah, if anyone they're both on my YouTube page, go
sign up, take a listen.

Speaker 2 (56:05):
But I appreciate we're dark this week.

Speaker 3 (56:06):
Were back Tuesday after Labor Day live at nine am Eastern,
six am your time, and then everywhere else in between
and the but.

Speaker 2 (56:14):
It's live and the cool part I forgot. That's the
one cool thing.

Speaker 3 (56:17):
We take questions for the last thirty minutes from anyone
around the world, and literally we've taken them from everywhere
around the world.

Speaker 1 (56:23):
I love it and and and I it's the one
Sean Spicer show that we should all tune in on
those evening ones. You know, that's a different thing. God
bless you.

Speaker 3 (56:35):
Thanks Governor.

Speaker 1 (56:36):
Hey, I appreciate you. Thanks for taking the time.

Speaker 2 (56:38):
Oh no, thanks for having me.

Speaker 3 (56:39):
It's been fun.
Advertise With Us

Host

Gavin Newsom

Gavin Newsom

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

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

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2025 iHeartMedia, Inc.