July 1, 2025 • 35 mins
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta joins the show to talk about Trump's deploying the military to California, how playing politics weakens our national security, and what Congress should be doing right now.
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 (00:09):
This is Gavin Newsom and this is Secretary Leon Panetta.
The Secretary, thanks for taking the time to be with us,
and as a fellow Californian, it seems appropriate that I
start here. We have so many topics to discuss. Obviously,
many issues going on that are radically evolving in real
(00:32):
time overseas. But one thing that continues to evolve in
a very remarkable and meaningful way here in our own
state of California, in Los Angeles is the deployment of
close to five thousand military personnel that last count was
four nine and forty six formerly National Guard, now federalized
(00:52):
and active duty US Marines that have been deployed to
the streets of Last Angeles. But mister Secretary, what's remarkable
to me, and this is where I want to begin
with you, is only a very small percentage have been
mission tasked. The rest, quite literally are sitting around waiting
(01:13):
for assignments. Thousands and thousands of former National Guard men
and women that were working to do drug interdiction, working
on the border on behalf of the state, including many
of them working for other state agencies in law enforcement,
have been federalized. And I'm curious your thoughts about what
(01:35):
you've seen in Los Angeles, your own reflection as a
former secretary of Defense, former chief of staff, did you
ever imagine thousands and thousands of men and women being
federalized against the wills of a governor of a home state.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Well, first of all, thank you for having me as
part of your podcast here. It's good to be with you, Gavin. Look,
I have a very different approach here as former member
of Congress, former director of the CIA, and former Secretary
(02:14):
of Defense, I think it's very important for this country
to respect the role of the military. And the role
of the military is basically to defend this country from
foreign adversaries. And throughout our history, we've been very clear
(02:36):
that the role of the military ought not to be
used for law enforcement purposes. And I believe in that because, frankly,
we need the military to protect our national security. The
President just used our military to conduct an attack in Iran.
(02:58):
That's what the military is about, that's what they're trained
to do. Uh, And we have to respect that role.
And if we if we do anything to politicize the
role of the military, it basically weakens our national security
and weakens our national defense. So I think that there
(03:20):
are some real concerns about the political politicalization of our
of our military, and particularly the activation of our National
Guard here in California. It raises real concerns about whether
or not politics are being played. Uh. I really do
(03:41):
believe that this country deeply trusts our military because they
protect our national security. I hope we can stick to
that role. Well.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
I certainly appreciate that, and and and you know, it's interesting.
Just recently in Los Angeles we had some of the
most destructive wildfires in US history, and we deployed roughly
three thousand of our National Guard men and women. They
were there on the scene quite literally. They had prepositioned
these rattlesnake teams, they were doing some defensive work on
(04:16):
vegetation management before the fires erupted, and thousands were deployed
within hours and days to protect and support our law enforcement,
obviously our firefighters, but also keep the peace. They're extraordinary
young men and women, and to see them used in
this way is remarkable as much as it is demoralizing,
(04:40):
not just for those of us in positions that we share,
but for them themselves. I mean, this is not what
they signed up for to be in this position.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
That's exactly right. Look, our National Guard has been extremely important,
very important element again to our national security. During the
time we were conducting the war on Terror, the National
Guard was actually being deployed and activated abroad to try
(05:12):
to help in the war against al Qaeda and terrorism.
And that's what the National Guard is all about. You know. Obviously,
governors like yourself I have a responsibility to be able
to activate the National Guard when they're needed, as you
did certainly with regards to the fires in California, and
(05:37):
certainly with regards to other areas where you feel it's necessary.
And that is what the National Guard is for. When
a president comes in and basically activates them for what
I believe are more political purposes than purposes related to
(05:57):
protecting the public's interest. As I said, it undermines trust
not just in our way of government, it undermines trust
in the fundamental role of the National Guard in our military.
So I'm very concerned about this. I think we have
(06:18):
to continue to hold the line, do the right thing,
make sure that we're making the right decisions, and ultimately
I think we will we will get back to using
the National Guard the way they're supposed to be used,
(06:38):
because that is what the men and women in the
National Guard, that's why they joined, is to be able
to be deployed pursuant to the law, not against the
law here here.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Well, I appreciate that settlement, and we're doing what we can,
not only to exercise our moral authority as it relates
to calling that out and trying to organize a larger consciousness.
This is, by the way, not about California. The order
that initiated this as a national order, the President of
the United States now can move freely on the basis
(07:11):
of this action to do the same on a whim
with any modest protests that law enforcement local law enforcement
can easily address, and now can look to weaponize the Guard.
But I'm curious, I'm sure saw the President's speech at
Fort Bragg, so much attention a few days later was
(07:31):
placed on the military parade, and I'm curious your thoughts
on that, And I think good people can view that
through very different lenses. But the Fort Bragg speech, I
think underscores with Secretary some of your comments. In this case,
not the National Guard, but men and women in uniform,
active military personnel, hooting and hollering booing, former president, the
(07:54):
current governor California, other elected officials. At the same time,
I'm the President of the United States, as he was
giving a speech, was selling Trump campaign merchandise. I don't
want to tee up a softball for you, but I imagine
again it's a former CIA director, not just former Secretary
(08:17):
of Defense and chief of Staff. And for a member
of Congress, you ever seen anything like that?
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Look, I you know, I obviously we live in unique
times with a president who doesn't necessarily respect all of
the values that past presidents, whether they're Republican or Democrat,
(08:47):
have always respected. And when he turns, when he past
that kind of speech, which is basically a political rally
with our men and women in uniform orm in many ways,
he's demeaning their role. And you know what bothers me
(09:09):
is that I believe the President of the United States,
as commander in chief, is responsible for protecting our national security.
And the way you protect our national security is by
deploying our men and women where you need them in
order to ensure that we protect our democracy. That's why
(09:35):
they're there, that's why we train them, that's why they
go into the military. This is a volunteer force. They
go in because they want to basically help defend this country.
I've looked into their eyes in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere,
and these are young men and women who are prepared
(09:55):
to fight and die for our country, and they will
respond to the order of a commander in chief when
necessary in order to help defend this country. The president
needs to respect that role. The President of the United
States needs to respect the role of our men and
women in uniform, not use them for political purposes, not
(10:21):
politicize their mission, not have a political rally at a
military post, but give them the respect that they're due,
which is that their primary role is to defend this
country from foreign adversaries, and not use them as if
(10:43):
somehow he's an autocrat who would just basically use the
military to protect his power. That is a misuse of
the responsibility of commander in chief.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
There seems to be a lack of clarity in terms
of that perspective and response, particularly from Congress. You served
in Congress for well sixteen plus years and you revere
the institution. I've heard you, mister Jecretary, on previous interviews
talking about of all the jobs you had from O
(11:21):
and B director to working under the Nixon administration. Remarkably
in that Office of Civil Rights, that your time in Congress,
when it worked, it was a point of deep pride
in reverence. You look at Congress today, you look at
the lack of oversight, checks and balances, You look at
(11:42):
what I would refer to as the appalling silence on
issues like those we just discussed. What's your assessment where
we are and how the hell do we get out
of this moment?
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Well, I have a very deep respect for our founding
fathers and what they wanted in their genius to do
in creating our democracy. They made very clear at the
Constitutional Convention that they did not want to centralize power
(12:17):
in any one branch of government. They didn't want a king,
they didn't want a king parliament, they didn't want a
star chamber court. They had seen what that was about
in those times, and so they wanted to make sure
that they would limit power. And the way they did
(12:39):
that is by creating three separate but equal branches of government,
each a check in balance on the other. And for
two hundred and fifty years, that system of checks and
balances has worked pretty well. It's been threatened, it's been challenged,
but it's worked pretty well. And we are now in
one of those periods where system of checks and balances
(13:02):
is being tested. And my concern right now is that
the institutions they created to provide that check and balance,
they themselves are being tested. Congress, unfortunately, is not standing
up and really being a check in our system right now.
(13:23):
They're basically standing back and giving the president a free ride,
a blank check with regards to everything he's doing, rather
than serving as a check, rather than having the hearings
that have to be done, Whether than rather than standing
(13:47):
up and saying no, we cannot abuse the Constitution of
the United States. We swear an oath to preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution. We have to stand by that.
I was a believer in that, as somebody in Congress
who swore that oath, and I think that's what Congress
has to do. That's not happening. We understand that. So
(14:09):
the only check that's happening right now, we certainly aren't
getting a check by the executive. The only check that's
happening right now that's effective or the courts, and I
give them a tremendous amount of credit for their willingness
to stand up and to be able to uphold the
rule of law. Unfortunately, as we all know, it takes
(14:31):
time for the courts to act, and a lot of
damage can be done in the interim. So I really
think it's important that our system of checks and balances work,
and probably the only way that's going to happen right
now is the American people, because the American people are
the ultimate check in a democracy. That's in the constitution,
(14:52):
their ability to vote, their ability to vote for elected
leaders is the fundamental check in a democracy. So I
remain hopeful that ultimately we will get through this because
our forefathers believed that we cannot afford to centralize power,
(15:13):
certainly in the presidency.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
I appreciate it. I'm reminded as you share those words
and thoughts of justice Brandeis who said, in a democracy,
the most important office is office of citizen. This notion
of active not inert citizenship, and it's reminded everybody listening
of the imperative to reconcile the fact that you're not
(15:36):
by standards, that we have agency, that we can shape
the future. And I think in so many ways we
saw that on the same day that the President was celebrating,
and I certainly appreciate celebrating with the kind of reverence
they deserve. The United States military in a parade same time, though,
(16:00):
millions of people showed up in a not King's rally,
sort of reinforcing the framework that our founding fathers tried
to correct, our least counter and I think it shows that,
you know, democracy is still alive bottom up, if not
the moment topped down.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Yeah, Gavin, I often say that in my over fifty
years of public life, I've seen Washington at its best
and I've seen Washington at its worst. The good news
is I've seen Washington work. When I was first elected,
Tip O'Neil was Speaker of the House, a Democrats Democrat
(16:41):
from Boston, but he had a great relationship with Bob Michael,
who was the minority leader from Illinois, and the basic message,
of course, they had their politics. You know, they fought
each other in election, but when it came to big issues,
they worked together. The message we always got is that
Republicans and Democrats have to work together in order to
(17:02):
govern the country, and we did. We did during the
Reagan administration, a Democratic Congress passed Social Security reform, it's
the third rail of politics. We passed it with a
bipartisan vote. We passed immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform, bipartisan,
(17:22):
bipartisan vote. We passed tax reform. We dealt with the budget.
We were able to frankly pass agreements to help bring
the deficit down and discipline the federal budget and balance
the federal budget, not only balance it, but get a surplus.
That was done because parties were willing to work together.
(17:45):
Today we are at a time when there's a lot
of partisanship, a lot of division, a lot of unwillingness
to be able to govern together, and the result is
that Washington is dysfunctional and that is hurting our democracy.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
On that topic, because we've explored that on the podcast,
we've had a number of interesting guests and people very
familiar to you. Former Speaker Nuke Gingrich was on. We
had an opportunity to talk to Frank Luntz. Obviously that's
very personal to you because you referenced in that list.
You have a lot of receipts on that list. As
personal as personal as it is to you, not only
(18:23):
as a former member of Congress some of those line
items you just listed, but also you were achieve a
staff of Bill Clinton when we had that balanced budget.
You worked with Nuke Gingrich across the party lines. You proved,
not just asserted that we can work together across our differences.
But the question that I'm continuing to sort of be
vexed with is what the hell happened and when did
(18:45):
it happen? And who's responsible? And when did things start
to collapse? I mean, at the same time it seemed
to be peak partisanship. You guys were working together in
the Clinton administration. You took over it. I'll say with
love and respect to former President Clinton, but it was
rather dysfunctional office at the time he got shellacked in
(19:07):
the mid terms. You've described the former President Clinton is
being depressed in terms about his standing, and you came
in and you were part of that turnaround, and you
also advanced a different frame, a close fist talk about
turnaround with an open hand, to partner with a Republican speaker,
(19:32):
and produced those results. But was that the moment things
were advanced or was that the moment was not a setback?
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Again? It was not an easy time. As yeah, as
you pointed out, Imagine, I mean the president, President Clinton,
you know, really was moving forward. He had passed a
very tough budget. We were passing appropriations bills, He passed
family leave, he passed NAFTA, he passed a number of things.
(20:04):
And then, as you all know, in politics, it can
come back to bite you, and it did in the midterms,
and the President lost the Congress to the Republicans, and
he was depressed about, you know, where his administration was
going to go. And I having been through these changes
(20:27):
in my own lifetime, I told the President. Look, ultimately,
every crisis provides an opportunity. This is a crisis. It
does provide an opportunity. You need to sit down and
try to see if there are areas where we can
work together. Unfortunately, at the beginning, Newt Ginrich took a
position he was going to push for his own budget,
(20:49):
cut Medicare and cut some other vital programs. The President
dug in, and what the Republicans did in response was
to shut the government down. The government was shut down.
This is the first time the government was shut down
for almost two weeks and had backfired on the Republicans
and a new Gintadge then to his credit, decided maybe
(21:10):
the better approach would be to actually try to work
with the president. The President took him up on that.
They were able to work together. We did some things
on the budget, we did some things on healthcare. We
were able to get things done. But that was because
there was a willingness then to try to see if
we could govern together, to get back to the basics
(21:31):
of governing together, that's what needs to happen. I mean,
I think in some ways, I'm really offended that the
President of the United States did not give a heads
up to Congress on this military strike that took place
in Iran. That's the responsibility of the President to be
able to inform the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, the
(21:54):
Gang of Eight, as to what's happening with regards to
our National Security Command. Chief is deploying our men and
women into harm's way. He's got to be willing to
make sure that both Republicans and Democrats on the Hill
are aware of what is happening. And unfortunately that didn't
(22:16):
take place, and I think it's a real slap in
the face to how our democracy should function. You know.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
Interestingly, Miss Secretary, I can attest to that just on
a personal basis, because I was speaking at an event.
I was with minority leader Jeffries, and as he was
walking out of the event, we all started to see
on our cell phones what had just occurred. We spent
(22:47):
an hour and a half at that event talking about
every conceivable issue, and here it was happening in real
time and the future Speaker of the House of Representative,
to your point, was not even They didn't mean the
curacy of a heads up. But I'm curious on that
and going back just briefly, and I want to move
(23:08):
off it, but I am fascinated. I mean, we talk
about this dysfunction, we talk about Tip O'Neill and all
the wonderful stories of O'Neill and Reagan working together across
their differences. You've amplified that as relates to ephen Clinton
and Gingrich. But was there a moment? Was that moment,
despite the fact that you were, they were able to
persevere and those two personalities, remarkable personalities, historic personalities, Clinton
(23:34):
and Gingrich were able to finally find some common ground.
Was that the beginning of the end?
Speaker 2 (23:38):
Though?
Speaker 1 (23:39):
I mean, do you mark that as a moment where
things did radically change the government shut down the approach
Gingrich had an an initial approach in terms of his
relationship with the presidency and the executive.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
There's no question, and I've told Nut this directly. I
said that what happened was that Newt was really struggling
to try to get Republicans in power, and he was
willing to undermine the institution of the House of Representatives
(24:13):
in the Congress in order to get that done. He
actually basically undercut almost members in his own party in
order to be able to do that. And it was
kind of a real cutthroat approach to politics, and it
created some bad feelings. And look, Democrats made their mistakes
(24:34):
as well, and when both sides decided that rather than
working together, they would get into their own trenches and
basically throw grenades at one another, that really was the
beginning of the end in terms of governing. I mean,
(24:56):
the problem is for the last twenty years. Look, tell
the students at the Paneta Institute that in a democracy,
we govern either by leadership or by crisis. If leadership
is there and willing to make tough decisions that basically
reach across and try to develop consensus and compromise, we
can avoid crisis, but if that leadership isn't there, then
(25:19):
we'll govern by crisis. And I have to tell you,
for the last twenty or twenty five years in Washington,
they've largely been governing by crisis, and that undermines trust
in our basic system of governing. And that's why, very frankly,
Washington is so dysfunctional right now.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
You know, in your remarkable career and spends quite literally
over half a century and continues to this day at
the Paneta Institute, you served in many different roles. Of course,
we reflect on the last time we had a balanced
budget and even a surplus US under your tutelage and
stewardship as chief of Staff and the Clint administration, but
(26:04):
you went on to serve in other roles, and as
I've referenced a moment ago from omb to obviously Secretary
of Defense and CIA Director, I'm curious your reflection. You know,
there's been it seems to me, an assault on knowledge,
particularly at West Point. Recently there was reports not specific
(26:25):
that books are being banned Baldwin. You know, other books,
well known authors, historic facts that appear to be being
censored West Point. My gosh, these are the best of
the best, these remarkable young cadets, and I'm just curious.
You know, you were part of they're sort of pulling
(26:46):
back and don't ask, don't tell women in the military
and being able to lead, you moved in a very
different direction in your leadership roles. What's your reflection of
where we are now in this sort of assault on
all things quote unquote wokeness or dei or even un
historic facts.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Well, you know, Devin, I'm the son of immigrants, Italian
immigrants who came to this country like millions of others,
and I can remember asking my dad why did he
come all of that distance to come to a strange land?
(27:29):
And I never forgot his answer, which was that my
mother and he believed they could give our children a
better life in this country. I think that's the American dream,
and that's what we want for our children. And I
think to get there, we have to embrace our freedoms,
not destroy our freedoms, not destroy our openness, not destroy
(27:51):
our ability to learn from one another. We may not
like what others say, but the ability to listen, the
ability to have a say, the ability to enjoy different
points of view is what is what our freedom, what
the American dream is all about. I had, you know,
(28:12):
young young people who were who wanted to serve in
the military. That's a good thing. We ought to give
them that opportunity to serve. And that's what I tried
to do as secretary. You know, regardless of their race
or color, or creed, or or sexual preference. The fact
(28:33):
is they wanted to serve this country. And you know what,
they did a damn good job serving this country. And
that's true for our men and women in our academies,
whether it's West Point or Annapolis or others. Their ability
to embrace everyone who wants to serve, to embrace our freedom,
(28:55):
to embrace openness, to embrace what our society is all about,
to embrace what democracy is all about. These are young
people are going to put their lives on the line
to basically protect our country. They need to know the
importance of why they're going to fight and die for
their country, and that's why they need to be exposed
(29:20):
to all kinds of views. And that's what the Academy
has done in the past. I regret that they're getting
all worked up about their approach now with regards to
books and what have you. I mean, this is a
throwback to the age of witches in Salem for God's sake,
So it really is, it really is important, and listen,
(29:43):
we'll get beyond this. I do not consider this any
kind of permanent faith it's going to take place. I
think this is just a moment in time, and we've
seen many of those in two hundred and fifty years.
This is a moment in time. But ultimately we we
are going to get back to the values of our
democracy that made us strong. There is no other way
(30:07):
that this country can survive.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
And I appreciate that optimism. I imagine others listening are
that warms their heart. But what I mean, and I
don't mean to be modeling, I just let me stress
test it a little bit, you know, a challenge you
on that. I mean, it's been an extraordinary a few
months this administration. And I you know, you served it
(30:30):
as an omb director. You've got a new one in
there now. That boy, these guys were they wound up.
They were ready to go. This twenty twenty five project.
There was a plan. They're executing a plan. I mean,
I don't imagine I appreciate all the work you did
as omb director, but I'm not sure you had an
(30:51):
agenda that was this thick and this prescriptive and laid
out that goes to assault these institutions. Assaults are norms
and traditions. Why do you remain so confident that we
can withstand we acknowledge? There's only one other branch of
(31:11):
government left, the courts at the moment, and obviously the
court of public opinion. Perhaps that may be the answer.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
You know, look, there's no question there's a lot of
damage being done. I think we're seeing that every day.
What's happening with immigrants, what's happening with the rule of law,
what's happening with funding, with what's happening with the federal
civil servants. There's just an awful lot of damage that
is being done. But you know, I really believe I
(31:45):
guess this goes to the heart of why I feel
the way I do, because, you know, in my fifty years,
I've witnessed a lot of different people come into office,
a lot of different views that we brought in. But
there were you know, for eighty years, going back to
World War Two, whether a president was Republican or Democrat.
(32:08):
There were some fundamental values that every one of them
had and shared, and that was not only you know,
American world leadership. They also respected the values of our democracy.
They also made very clear that this country was going
(32:33):
to respect the rule of law in our constitution. They
also made very clear that we would work through our
democracy in order to make change. Every president wants to
make change, but most presidents make change by working through
our constitution and through our democracy. Look. Bill Clinton, when
(32:57):
he became president of the United States, made the decision
that we were going to try to achieve almost five
hundred billion in deficit reduction. But we did that through
the budget. I sat down with the president, we walked
through the budget. He made decisions about what programs are
to be funded, what programs are to be cut, and
(33:18):
we put that into a budget, send it to the Congress.
That's the way you're supposed to do it. And we
were successful. We passed that budget, and yes, you know,
we were able to achieve five hundred billion in deficit reduction,
but we did it pursuant to the law and pursue
it to the constitution. Why this president comes in and
(33:43):
throws all of that out The window, gets Doze, gets
Elon Musk, gets whoever else to suddenly engage in this
kind of vigilanty approach to democracy basically undermines our democracy.
Doesn't strengthen our democracy. See, it undermines it. You undermine
the power of the Congress, which it has the power
(34:05):
of the purse under a constitution, it's the Congress that
decides what is funded and what programs are protected, not
a group of vigilantes. So look, the courts have been
finding that that is the case time and time again.
(34:27):
I really do believe that ultimately, the American people do
not want a king as president. They want a president
who understands that his oath to the Constitution has to
come first. That's where the American people are at. And yeah,
(34:47):
you know, presidents can say or do whatever the hell
they want, but ultimately it's the American people who rule
in this country. And I honestly believe that whether they're
living in a red state or a blue state, they
believe in American values, and they believe in the rule
of law, and they believe in the Constitution. That's why
(35:08):
this country is going to survive.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
I love it, I love it. I'm going to bookmark
that that's a point of optimism,
This is Gavin Newsom and this is Secretary Leon Panetta.
The Secretary, thanks for taking the time to be with us,
and as a fellow Californian, it seems appropriate that I
start here. We have so many topics to discuss. Obviously,
many issues going on that are radically evolving in real
(00:32):
time overseas. But one thing that continues to evolve in
a very remarkable and meaningful way here in our own
state of California, in Los Angeles is the deployment of
close to five thousand military personnel that last count was
four nine and forty six formerly National Guard, now federalized
(00:52):
and active duty US Marines that have been deployed to
the streets of Last Angeles. But mister Secretary, what's remarkable
to me, and this is where I want to begin
with you, is only a very small percentage have been
mission tasked. The rest, quite literally are sitting around waiting
(01:13):
for assignments. Thousands and thousands of former National Guard men
and women that were working to do drug interdiction, working
on the border on behalf of the state, including many
of them working for other state agencies in law enforcement,
have been federalized. And I'm curious your thoughts about what
(01:35):
you've seen in Los Angeles, your own reflection as a
former secretary of Defense, former chief of staff, did you
ever imagine thousands and thousands of men and women being
federalized against the wills of a governor of a home state.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Well, first of all, thank you for having me as
part of your podcast here. It's good to be with you, Gavin. Look,
I have a very different approach here as former member
of Congress, former director of the CIA, and former Secretary
(02:14):
of Defense, I think it's very important for this country
to respect the role of the military. And the role
of the military is basically to defend this country from
foreign adversaries. And throughout our history, we've been very clear
(02:36):
that the role of the military ought not to be
used for law enforcement purposes. And I believe in that because, frankly,
we need the military to protect our national security. The
President just used our military to conduct an attack in Iran.
(02:58):
That's what the military is about, that's what they're trained
to do. Uh, And we have to respect that role.
And if we if we do anything to politicize the
role of the military, it basically weakens our national security
and weakens our national defense. So I think that there
(03:20):
are some real concerns about the political politicalization of our
of our military, and particularly the activation of our National
Guard here in California. It raises real concerns about whether
or not politics are being played. Uh. I really do
(03:41):
believe that this country deeply trusts our military because they
protect our national security. I hope we can stick to
that role. Well.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
I certainly appreciate that, and and and you know, it's interesting.
Just recently in Los Angeles we had some of the
most destructive wildfires in US history, and we deployed roughly
three thousand of our National Guard men and women. They
were there on the scene quite literally. They had prepositioned
these rattlesnake teams, they were doing some defensive work on
(04:16):
vegetation management before the fires erupted, and thousands were deployed
within hours and days to protect and support our law enforcement,
obviously our firefighters, but also keep the peace. They're extraordinary
young men and women, and to see them used in
this way is remarkable as much as it is demoralizing,
(04:40):
not just for those of us in positions that we share,
but for them themselves. I mean, this is not what
they signed up for to be in this position.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
That's exactly right. Look, our National Guard has been extremely important,
very important element again to our national security. During the
time we were conducting the war on Terror, the National
Guard was actually being deployed and activated abroad to try
(05:12):
to help in the war against al Qaeda and terrorism.
And that's what the National Guard is all about. You know. Obviously,
governors like yourself I have a responsibility to be able
to activate the National Guard when they're needed, as you
did certainly with regards to the fires in California, and
(05:37):
certainly with regards to other areas where you feel it's necessary.
And that is what the National Guard is for. When
a president comes in and basically activates them for what
I believe are more political purposes than purposes related to
(05:57):
protecting the public's interest. As I said, it undermines trust
not just in our way of government, it undermines trust
in the fundamental role of the National Guard in our military.
So I'm very concerned about this. I think we have
(06:18):
to continue to hold the line, do the right thing,
make sure that we're making the right decisions, and ultimately
I think we will we will get back to using
the National Guard the way they're supposed to be used,
(06:38):
because that is what the men and women in the
National Guard, that's why they joined, is to be able
to be deployed pursuant to the law, not against the
law here here.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Well, I appreciate that settlement, and we're doing what we can,
not only to exercise our moral authority as it relates
to calling that out and trying to organize a larger consciousness.
This is, by the way, not about California. The order
that initiated this as a national order, the President of
the United States now can move freely on the basis
(07:11):
of this action to do the same on a whim
with any modest protests that law enforcement local law enforcement
can easily address, and now can look to weaponize the Guard.
But I'm curious, I'm sure saw the President's speech at
Fort Bragg, so much attention a few days later was
(07:31):
placed on the military parade, and I'm curious your thoughts
on that, And I think good people can view that
through very different lenses. But the Fort Bragg speech, I
think underscores with Secretary some of your comments. In this case,
not the National Guard, but men and women in uniform,
active military personnel, hooting and hollering booing, former president, the
(07:54):
current governor California, other elected officials. At the same time,
I'm the President of the United States, as he was
giving a speech, was selling Trump campaign merchandise. I don't
want to tee up a softball for you, but I imagine
again it's a former CIA director, not just former Secretary
(08:17):
of Defense and chief of Staff. And for a member
of Congress, you ever seen anything like that?
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Look, I you know, I obviously we live in unique
times with a president who doesn't necessarily respect all of
the values that past presidents, whether they're Republican or Democrat,
(08:47):
have always respected. And when he turns, when he past
that kind of speech, which is basically a political rally
with our men and women in uniform orm in many ways,
he's demeaning their role. And you know what bothers me
(09:09):
is that I believe the President of the United States,
as commander in chief, is responsible for protecting our national security.
And the way you protect our national security is by
deploying our men and women where you need them in
order to ensure that we protect our democracy. That's why
(09:35):
they're there, that's why we train them, that's why they
go into the military. This is a volunteer force. They
go in because they want to basically help defend this country.
I've looked into their eyes in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere,
and these are young men and women who are prepared
(09:55):
to fight and die for our country, and they will
respond to the order of a commander in chief when
necessary in order to help defend this country. The president
needs to respect that role. The President of the United
States needs to respect the role of our men and
women in uniform, not use them for political purposes, not
(10:21):
politicize their mission, not have a political rally at a
military post, but give them the respect that they're due,
which is that their primary role is to defend this
country from foreign adversaries, and not use them as if
(10:43):
somehow he's an autocrat who would just basically use the
military to protect his power. That is a misuse of
the responsibility of commander in chief.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
There seems to be a lack of clarity in terms
of that perspective and response, particularly from Congress. You served
in Congress for well sixteen plus years and you revere
the institution. I've heard you, mister Jecretary, on previous interviews
talking about of all the jobs you had from O
(11:21):
and B director to working under the Nixon administration. Remarkably
in that Office of Civil Rights, that your time in Congress,
when it worked, it was a point of deep pride
in reverence. You look at Congress today, you look at
the lack of oversight, checks and balances, You look at
(11:42):
what I would refer to as the appalling silence on
issues like those we just discussed. What's your assessment where
we are and how the hell do we get out
of this moment?
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Well, I have a very deep respect for our founding
fathers and what they wanted in their genius to do
in creating our democracy. They made very clear at the
Constitutional Convention that they did not want to centralize power
(12:17):
in any one branch of government. They didn't want a king,
they didn't want a king parliament, they didn't want a
star chamber court. They had seen what that was about
in those times, and so they wanted to make sure
that they would limit power. And the way they did
(12:39):
that is by creating three separate but equal branches of government,
each a check in balance on the other. And for
two hundred and fifty years, that system of checks and
balances has worked pretty well. It's been threatened, it's been challenged,
but it's worked pretty well. And we are now in
one of those periods where system of checks and balances
(13:02):
is being tested. And my concern right now is that
the institutions they created to provide that check and balance,
they themselves are being tested. Congress, unfortunately, is not standing
up and really being a check in our system right now.
(13:23):
They're basically standing back and giving the president a free ride,
a blank check with regards to everything he's doing, rather
than serving as a check, rather than having the hearings
that have to be done, Whether than rather than standing
(13:47):
up and saying no, we cannot abuse the Constitution of
the United States. We swear an oath to preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution. We have to stand by that.
I was a believer in that, as somebody in Congress
who swore that oath, and I think that's what Congress
has to do. That's not happening. We understand that. So
(14:09):
the only check that's happening right now, we certainly aren't
getting a check by the executive. The only check that's
happening right now that's effective or the courts, and I
give them a tremendous amount of credit for their willingness
to stand up and to be able to uphold the
rule of law. Unfortunately, as we all know, it takes
(14:31):
time for the courts to act, and a lot of
damage can be done in the interim. So I really
think it's important that our system of checks and balances work,
and probably the only way that's going to happen right
now is the American people, because the American people are
the ultimate check in a democracy. That's in the constitution,
(14:52):
their ability to vote, their ability to vote for elected
leaders is the fundamental check in a democracy. So I
remain hopeful that ultimately we will get through this because
our forefathers believed that we cannot afford to centralize power,
(15:13):
certainly in the presidency.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
I appreciate it. I'm reminded as you share those words
and thoughts of justice Brandeis who said, in a democracy,
the most important office is office of citizen. This notion
of active not inert citizenship, and it's reminded everybody listening
of the imperative to reconcile the fact that you're not
(15:36):
by standards, that we have agency, that we can shape
the future. And I think in so many ways we
saw that on the same day that the President was celebrating,
and I certainly appreciate celebrating with the kind of reverence
they deserve. The United States military in a parade same time, though,
(16:00):
millions of people showed up in a not King's rally,
sort of reinforcing the framework that our founding fathers tried
to correct, our least counter and I think it shows that,
you know, democracy is still alive bottom up, if not
the moment topped down.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Yeah, Gavin, I often say that in my over fifty
years of public life, I've seen Washington at its best
and I've seen Washington at its worst. The good news
is I've seen Washington work. When I was first elected,
Tip O'Neil was Speaker of the House, a Democrats Democrat
(16:41):
from Boston, but he had a great relationship with Bob Michael,
who was the minority leader from Illinois, and the basic message,
of course, they had their politics. You know, they fought
each other in election, but when it came to big issues,
they worked together. The message we always got is that
Republicans and Democrats have to work together in order to
(17:02):
govern the country, and we did. We did during the
Reagan administration, a Democratic Congress passed Social Security reform, it's
the third rail of politics. We passed it with a
bipartisan vote. We passed immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform, bipartisan,
(17:22):
bipartisan vote. We passed tax reform. We dealt with the budget.
We were able to frankly pass agreements to help bring
the deficit down and discipline the federal budget and balance
the federal budget, not only balance it, but get a surplus.
That was done because parties were willing to work together.
(17:45):
Today we are at a time when there's a lot
of partisanship, a lot of division, a lot of unwillingness
to be able to govern together, and the result is
that Washington is dysfunctional and that is hurting our democracy.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
On that topic, because we've explored that on the podcast,
we've had a number of interesting guests and people very
familiar to you. Former Speaker Nuke Gingrich was on. We
had an opportunity to talk to Frank Luntz. Obviously that's
very personal to you because you referenced in that list.
You have a lot of receipts on that list. As
personal as personal as it is to you, not only
(18:23):
as a former member of Congress some of those line
items you just listed, but also you were achieve a
staff of Bill Clinton when we had that balanced budget.
You worked with Nuke Gingrich across the party lines. You proved,
not just asserted that we can work together across our differences.
But the question that I'm continuing to sort of be
vexed with is what the hell happened and when did
(18:45):
it happen? And who's responsible? And when did things start
to collapse? I mean, at the same time it seemed
to be peak partisanship. You guys were working together in
the Clinton administration. You took over it. I'll say with
love and respect to former President Clinton, but it was
rather dysfunctional office at the time he got shellacked in
(19:07):
the mid terms. You've described the former President Clinton is
being depressed in terms about his standing, and you came
in and you were part of that turnaround, and you
also advanced a different frame, a close fist talk about
turnaround with an open hand, to partner with a Republican speaker,
(19:32):
and produced those results. But was that the moment things
were advanced or was that the moment was not a setback?
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Again? It was not an easy time. As yeah, as
you pointed out, Imagine, I mean the president, President Clinton,
you know, really was moving forward. He had passed a
very tough budget. We were passing appropriations bills, He passed
family leave, he passed NAFTA, he passed a number of things.
(20:04):
And then, as you all know, in politics, it can
come back to bite you, and it did in the midterms,
and the President lost the Congress to the Republicans, and
he was depressed about, you know, where his administration was
going to go. And I having been through these changes
(20:27):
in my own lifetime, I told the President. Look, ultimately,
every crisis provides an opportunity. This is a crisis. It
does provide an opportunity. You need to sit down and
try to see if there are areas where we can
work together. Unfortunately, at the beginning, Newt Ginrich took a
position he was going to push for his own budget,
(20:49):
cut Medicare and cut some other vital programs. The President
dug in, and what the Republicans did in response was
to shut the government down. The government was shut down.
This is the first time the government was shut down
for almost two weeks and had backfired on the Republicans
and a new Gintadge then to his credit, decided maybe
(21:10):
the better approach would be to actually try to work
with the president. The President took him up on that.
They were able to work together. We did some things
on the budget, we did some things on healthcare. We
were able to get things done. But that was because
there was a willingness then to try to see if
we could govern together, to get back to the basics
(21:31):
of governing together, that's what needs to happen. I mean,
I think in some ways, I'm really offended that the
President of the United States did not give a heads
up to Congress on this military strike that took place
in Iran. That's the responsibility of the President to be
able to inform the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, the
(21:54):
Gang of Eight, as to what's happening with regards to
our National Security Command. Chief is deploying our men and
women into harm's way. He's got to be willing to
make sure that both Republicans and Democrats on the Hill
are aware of what is happening. And unfortunately that didn't
(22:16):
take place, and I think it's a real slap in
the face to how our democracy should function. You know.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
Interestingly, Miss Secretary, I can attest to that just on
a personal basis, because I was speaking at an event.
I was with minority leader Jeffries, and as he was
walking out of the event, we all started to see
on our cell phones what had just occurred. We spent
(22:47):
an hour and a half at that event talking about
every conceivable issue, and here it was happening in real
time and the future Speaker of the House of Representative,
to your point, was not even They didn't mean the
curacy of a heads up. But I'm curious on that
and going back just briefly, and I want to move
(23:08):
off it, but I am fascinated. I mean, we talk
about this dysfunction, we talk about Tip O'Neill and all
the wonderful stories of O'Neill and Reagan working together across
their differences. You've amplified that as relates to ephen Clinton
and Gingrich. But was there a moment? Was that moment,
despite the fact that you were, they were able to
persevere and those two personalities, remarkable personalities, historic personalities, Clinton
(23:34):
and Gingrich were able to finally find some common ground.
Was that the beginning of the end?
Speaker 2 (23:38):
Though?
Speaker 1 (23:39):
I mean, do you mark that as a moment where
things did radically change the government shut down the approach
Gingrich had an an initial approach in terms of his
relationship with the presidency and the executive.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
There's no question, and I've told Nut this directly. I
said that what happened was that Newt was really struggling
to try to get Republicans in power, and he was
willing to undermine the institution of the House of Representatives
(24:13):
in the Congress in order to get that done. He
actually basically undercut almost members in his own party in
order to be able to do that. And it was
kind of a real cutthroat approach to politics, and it
created some bad feelings. And look, Democrats made their mistakes
(24:34):
as well, and when both sides decided that rather than
working together, they would get into their own trenches and
basically throw grenades at one another, that really was the
beginning of the end in terms of governing. I mean,
(24:56):
the problem is for the last twenty years. Look, tell
the students at the Paneta Institute that in a democracy,
we govern either by leadership or by crisis. If leadership
is there and willing to make tough decisions that basically
reach across and try to develop consensus and compromise, we
can avoid crisis, but if that leadership isn't there, then
(25:19):
we'll govern by crisis. And I have to tell you,
for the last twenty or twenty five years in Washington,
they've largely been governing by crisis, and that undermines trust
in our basic system of governing. And that's why, very frankly,
Washington is so dysfunctional right now.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
You know, in your remarkable career and spends quite literally
over half a century and continues to this day at
the Paneta Institute, you served in many different roles. Of course,
we reflect on the last time we had a balanced
budget and even a surplus US under your tutelage and
stewardship as chief of Staff and the Clint administration, but
(26:04):
you went on to serve in other roles, and as
I've referenced a moment ago from omb to obviously Secretary
of Defense and CIA Director, I'm curious your reflection. You know,
there's been it seems to me, an assault on knowledge,
particularly at West Point. Recently there was reports not specific
(26:25):
that books are being banned Baldwin. You know, other books,
well known authors, historic facts that appear to be being
censored West Point. My gosh, these are the best of
the best, these remarkable young cadets, and I'm just curious.
You know, you were part of they're sort of pulling
(26:46):
back and don't ask, don't tell women in the military
and being able to lead, you moved in a very
different direction in your leadership roles. What's your reflection of
where we are now in this sort of assault on
all things quote unquote wokeness or dei or even un
historic facts.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Well, you know, Devin, I'm the son of immigrants, Italian
immigrants who came to this country like millions of others,
and I can remember asking my dad why did he
come all of that distance to come to a strange land?
(27:29):
And I never forgot his answer, which was that my
mother and he believed they could give our children a
better life in this country. I think that's the American dream,
and that's what we want for our children. And I
think to get there, we have to embrace our freedoms,
not destroy our freedoms, not destroy our openness, not destroy
(27:51):
our ability to learn from one another. We may not
like what others say, but the ability to listen, the
ability to have a say, the ability to enjoy different
points of view is what is what our freedom, what
the American dream is all about. I had, you know,
(28:12):
young young people who were who wanted to serve in
the military. That's a good thing. We ought to give
them that opportunity to serve. And that's what I tried
to do as secretary. You know, regardless of their race
or color, or creed, or or sexual preference. The fact
(28:33):
is they wanted to serve this country. And you know what,
they did a damn good job serving this country. And
that's true for our men and women in our academies,
whether it's West Point or Annapolis or others. Their ability
to embrace everyone who wants to serve, to embrace our freedom,
(28:55):
to embrace openness, to embrace what our society is all about,
to embrace what democracy is all about. These are young
people are going to put their lives on the line
to basically protect our country. They need to know the
importance of why they're going to fight and die for
their country, and that's why they need to be exposed
(29:20):
to all kinds of views. And that's what the Academy
has done in the past. I regret that they're getting
all worked up about their approach now with regards to
books and what have you. I mean, this is a
throwback to the age of witches in Salem for God's sake,
So it really is, it really is important, and listen,
(29:43):
we'll get beyond this. I do not consider this any
kind of permanent faith it's going to take place. I
think this is just a moment in time, and we've
seen many of those in two hundred and fifty years.
This is a moment in time. But ultimately we we
are going to get back to the values of our
democracy that made us strong. There is no other way
(30:07):
that this country can survive.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
And I appreciate that optimism. I imagine others listening are
that warms their heart. But what I mean, and I
don't mean to be modeling, I just let me stress
test it a little bit, you know, a challenge you
on that. I mean, it's been an extraordinary a few
months this administration. And I you know, you served it
(30:30):
as an omb director. You've got a new one in
there now. That boy, these guys were they wound up.
They were ready to go. This twenty twenty five project.
There was a plan. They're executing a plan. I mean,
I don't imagine I appreciate all the work you did
as omb director, but I'm not sure you had an
(30:51):
agenda that was this thick and this prescriptive and laid
out that goes to assault these institutions. Assaults are norms
and traditions. Why do you remain so confident that we
can withstand we acknowledge? There's only one other branch of
(31:11):
government left, the courts at the moment, and obviously the
court of public opinion. Perhaps that may be the answer.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
You know, look, there's no question there's a lot of
damage being done. I think we're seeing that every day.
What's happening with immigrants, what's happening with the rule of law,
what's happening with funding, with what's happening with the federal
civil servants. There's just an awful lot of damage that
is being done. But you know, I really believe I
(31:45):
guess this goes to the heart of why I feel
the way I do, because, you know, in my fifty years,
I've witnessed a lot of different people come into office,
a lot of different views that we brought in. But
there were you know, for eighty years, going back to
World War Two, whether a president was Republican or Democrat.
(32:08):
There were some fundamental values that every one of them
had and shared, and that was not only you know,
American world leadership. They also respected the values of our democracy.
They also made very clear that this country was going
(32:33):
to respect the rule of law in our constitution. They
also made very clear that we would work through our
democracy in order to make change. Every president wants to
make change, but most presidents make change by working through
our constitution and through our democracy. Look. Bill Clinton, when
(32:57):
he became president of the United States, made the decision
that we were going to try to achieve almost five
hundred billion in deficit reduction. But we did that through
the budget. I sat down with the president, we walked
through the budget. He made decisions about what programs are
to be funded, what programs are to be cut, and
(33:18):
we put that into a budget, send it to the Congress.
That's the way you're supposed to do it. And we
were successful. We passed that budget, and yes, you know,
we were able to achieve five hundred billion in deficit reduction,
but we did it pursuant to the law and pursue
it to the constitution. Why this president comes in and
(33:43):
throws all of that out The window, gets Doze, gets
Elon Musk, gets whoever else to suddenly engage in this
kind of vigilanty approach to democracy basically undermines our democracy.
Doesn't strengthen our democracy. See, it undermines it. You undermine
the power of the Congress, which it has the power
(34:05):
of the purse under a constitution, it's the Congress that
decides what is funded and what programs are protected, not
a group of vigilantes. So look, the courts have been
finding that that is the case time and time again.
(34:27):
I really do believe that ultimately, the American people do
not want a king as president. They want a president
who understands that his oath to the Constitution has to
come first. That's where the American people are at. And yeah,
(34:47):
you know, presidents can say or do whatever the hell
they want, but ultimately it's the American people who rule
in this country. And I honestly believe that whether they're
living in a red state or a blue state, they
believe in American values, and they believe in the rule
of law, and they believe in the Constitution. That's why
(35:08):
this country is going to survive.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
I love it, I love it. I'm going to bookmark
that that's a point of optimism,
Host
Gavin Newsom
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.