July 17, 2025 • 15 mins
Australia is caught in a perilous balancing act.
This week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese met with Premier Xi Jinping to stabilise ties with China; as leaks from Washington revealed the steep demands of our AUKUS agreement with the United States.
In the shadow of rising tensions over Taiwan, the question of where Australia stands, and who we stand with, has never been more complicated.
Today, host of the ABC podcast Global Roaming, Hamish Macdonald, on how the Albanese government is navigating our fraught alliances – and whether we could be headed for war.
If you enjoy 7am, the best way you can support us is by making a contribution at 7ampodcast.com.au/support.
Socials: Stay in touch with us on Instagram
Guest: Host of the ABC podcast Global Roaming, Hamish Macdonald
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 (00:01):
Hi, I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven Am.
Australia is called in a perilous balancing act. This week,
Anthony Alberezi met with Jijing Ping to stabilize ties with China,
as leagues from Washington revealed the steep demands of our
(00:21):
Defense Pact within the United States in the shadow of
rising tensions over Taiwan. The question of where Australia stands
and who we stand with has never been more complicated. Today,
host of the ABC podcast Global Roaming, Hey miss McDonald,
on how the Alberzi government is navigating our fraud alliances
and whether we could be headed for war. It's Friday,
(00:48):
July eighteenth. Hey a, missh thanks for speaking with me.
It was interesting timing for the Prime Minister's meeting with
Jiji Ping this week. It came just as we were
expecting to hear how the Trump administration's review into the
Orcat Agreement went. And while that wasn't released, there were
(01:08):
leaks out of the Pentagon. So what do we know
about what the review is likely to say at this stage?
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Yeah, So this is curious and I guess we have
to take this with all the usual caveats, one being
that they're leaks. We haven't seen what the report, the
review suggested to the White House. And the other really
big caveat is who knows what Donald Trump will do
or will make of it. Ilbridge Colby is the guy
that has conducted this review. He's someone that has expressed some,
(01:39):
if not quite skepticism about orcas skepticism about the delivery
of it.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
This is actually the single most important conventional military asset
we have for a Taiwan fight or for a contest
against the Chinese center on the first silent chain, which
is conventional nuclear powered attack submarines, and we are talking
about selling them. So my concern is why are we
giving away this crowndewl asset when we most need it now?
Speaker 2 (02:05):
That is, if we believe the leaks. What Donald Trump
might be asked to do is tell Australia to pay
more for the submarines, the nuclear powered submarines, and to
get a guarantee, an explicit guarantee from Australia that they
would be used if America were to go into conflict
with China, in particular over Taiwan on the side of
(02:28):
the Americans.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
And while the Americans are reviewing Aucus. There's also been
a lot of criticism of the deal here in Australia.
So if we are to stick with it, how important
is it for the Australian government to lay out exactly
why they think ORCAS is the answer.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Look, I think, to be fair, a lot of Australian politicians,
both on the conservative side and the more progressive side,
have laid out the reasons for UCAS. It's just that
they tend not to be very explicit about what the
threat is. It's China, It's China's role in our region,
China's growth as a military power, its growth as a
(03:03):
naval power. The concern is that, look, if China, for example,
will tried to take Taiwan by force, that it might
also disrupt trade in the South China Sea and that
would have a profound impact on Australia immediately. Because we
rely on trade both export and import. We have very
limited long term fuel supplies. It would be very easy
(03:26):
if you disrupted the trade routes to really make life
very difficult for Australia in a pretty short space of time.
The argument is that the nuclear powered submarines are the
APEX predators of the sea, they can go further, they
need less refueling. In fact, the nuclear fuel rods within
them last for the lifetime of the submarine. That means
(03:48):
that they need to come up to the surface less
often to take air in to allow their systems to reenergize.
It's less easy for China to know where our nuclear
powered submarines are at any given time, and so that
might make it more risky for them, for example, to
launch an invasion of Taiwan. That purely and simply is
the risk calculus.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
So if, as the League suggests, the US requests US
to commit to using our submarines in the war over Taiwan,
what do we know about where the Australian government stands
on that.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
But weirdly, our government kind of stands where the US
government stands, which is a place of relative strategic ambiguity.
It's one of those weird foreign policy terms. What it
means essentially is not committed either way. You will have
heard Anthony Albanezi this week say well, Australia on the
question of Taiwan, supports the status quo. We support the
(04:41):
status quo by definition, we don't support any unilateral action.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
On Taiwan.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
That is no attempt by the mainland Chinese government to
invade Taiwan. The United States position has always been in
thisrategic ambiguity idea that you don't really say whether there's
a security guarantee for Taiwan, but you give the Chinese
the impression that there would be a very high cost
(05:11):
if they attempted to take it.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
You said, the government is ambiguous on purpose when it
comes to his position on Taiwan. But if China did
invade Taiwan, what's the likelihood of us actually getting involved? Amish?
Speaker 2 (05:25):
I think that's a really good question, and I think
it's one our leaders haven't clearly answered. I was really
looking at the language from Anthony Albanezi this week during
his visit.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
It kind of seemed to catch him off guard. The
questions around that didn't the look.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
It's a vexed issue. It's a particularly vexed issue on
the left of Australian politics because you know, there is
a more dubvish approach amongst some of the senior labor
figures today, but also some of the labor luminaries like
keeping like Gareth Evans. You know, they do have these
more nuanced positions on Taiwan. They you know, see these
(06:03):
arguments from the Chinese about Taiwan being part of the Motherland.
Some of the liberals seem to be more clear sighted
about this. They say, this is exactly like Russia wanting Ukraine.
This is a great power saying we're bigger and we
have historical ties here and if we want them, we'll
(06:23):
get them. I was in Taiwan recently and asked a
question to someone about the possibility of China retaking Taiwan,
and they picked me up actually on the language and said,
what do you mean, retake Taiwan? Communists, China can't retake
Taiwan because it never held it in the first place.
But you know, there's a lot of people in Taiwan
(06:43):
that really value their democracy. And I guess it is
a question for us to what extent do we believe
that the people of Taiwan have the right to self determination.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
After the break the preparations underweigh in Taiwan as the
threat of the Chinese invasion looms, and how the US
will respond ay this, You have just returned from a
trip to Taiwan. How real does the possibility of conflicts
(07:16):
seem to the people there a.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Lot more real and present to I think what we
see this threat as it's definitely a very frequent topic
of conversation. You see the posters on the streets, you
see people turning up to self defense classes, people preparing
themselves for what may or may not happen. But I
think beyond that, there's actually already a view in Taiwan
(07:41):
amongst some that China's making its advances today not necessarily
physically militarily, even though there's drills that go on and
rehearsals as some people describe them as, but that cognitive
warfare is already underway. There is this huge body of
di and misinformation that's spewing out into the Taiwanese public
(08:04):
discourse through social media, through mainstream media, even to some
extent which some viewers deliberate attempt by mainland China to
shape the discourse in Taiwanese politics and to I guess,
make people look more favorably upon the China model than
what they might otherwise.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
So this attempted softening of the Taiwanese people from China
ahead of any potential conflict is taking place. Can you
tell me a little bit more about what that looks
like in practice.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Yeah, there are some people that say, look, China doesn't
really want to physically go to war to take Taiwan.
They think there are other ways to do this. You
might be able to soften the population. We see examples
of disinformation being used to discredit more pro independence politicians.
You saw a lot of this during the recent elections
(08:53):
that were held there in Taiwan. They had one of
the world's first Ministers for disinformation in their government to
try and deal with some of this. It is happening
all the time. You know, I was told there. If
you buy a new TV and you just open it up,
generally these TVs might be made in China.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
If you just.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Open it up, the generic version of YouTube will just
start spewing Chinese nationalist miss and disinformation at you.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Well, if trying to tries to take over Taiwan, what
do you know about how the US will respond.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
So Joe Biden actually, during his term as president, was
the one that probably moved America a bit closer the woods,
saying that America would defend Taiwan if, in fact China
tried to invade. Donald Trump's been you know, reasonably cautious
as far as Donald Trump can be cautious in his
language around these things, so I think it's kind of unclear.
(09:51):
But what we do know is that there's a lot
of very China hawkish operatives with quite a lot of
power in the Trump administration, and when you look at
the broader arc of Trump's foreign policy, it does suggest
rather more affixation on China as a rising power. Part
of the argument, if there is an intellectual argument underpinning
(10:13):
Trump's foreign policy around Europe and particularly Ukraine, is that
they want the Europeans to deal with that corner of
the world a bit more because they see China as
the big, emerging, rising threat to US hegemony, and so
the likelihood might be that they would take a greater
interest in what happens in this part of the world.
(10:35):
They may also, i think it needs to be said,
make a calculation that they don't mind so much what
happens to Taiwan because they're taking all of these steps
around the manufacturing of microchips and semiconductors.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
You might recall that the big.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Taiwanese semiconductor company has been forced to open an operation
in the United States to start producing them there. So
you know, there's a debate in Taiwan about whether this
was a smart move to try and appease Trump and
make him see that Taiwan's really valuable. Others say, well,
maybe it made Taiwan physically less important to Trump because
some of this stuff's being made there.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
How much of our strategy is just trying to when
it comes to this thinking beyond a Trump presidency, how
are we thinking of the US as a strategic ally
in the longer term post Trump?
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Look, I think maybe in the first Trump administration there
was quite a bit of thinking that he was kind
of a one hit wonder and things would return to
business as usual afterwards. I don't think so many Australian
politicians are assuming that any longer. You'd have to say that,
on the face of things, JD. Vance is quite a
likely contender for the next presidency. He may go even
(11:47):
further on some of this foreign policy stuff, and so
I don't think we can necessarily assume that post Trump
will get back to a kind of era of America
always playing a role on the world stage that might
benefit Australia. Just don't think we can run along with
that calculus any longer. Peter our Geezy, former head of DEFACT,
very respected figure in Australian foreign policy, write an article
(12:11):
in The finn Review this week saying our politicians don't
have the guts. This is very loose and rough paraphrasing.
But our politicians don't have the guts to cut and
run from Orcus. But maybe the Americans will do us
a favor and ditch the deal to force our hand
to think more broadly. Certainly, Orcus strategically ties us to
(12:33):
the Americans for a very long time. In many ways,
this is the central question for Australia's leaders today, the
degree to which we can carve our own foreign policy.
Can we, as a middle power manage these relationships in
such a way that we are not always at the
mercy of the wind, that we're somehow able to carve
(12:55):
a place for ourselves where we can continue to extract
advantage from both of those relationships. How do we exist
in that world of intense, deep strategic competition between the
United States and.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
China, Amish, thank you so much for your time, My
absolute pleasure. Also in the news, Independent New South Wales
MP Mark Latham is the subject of fresh controversy following
(13:29):
allegations that he participated in a sex video filmed in
his office at Parliament House. Further allegations claim Latham also
took photos of female colleagues, made disparaging comments about them,
and claimed to have inappropriately pinched one in p In response,
New South Wales Housing Minister Rose Jackson was quoted calling
Latham a pig and went on to say in any
(13:51):
other workplace, you'd be shown the door immediately and rightfully so.
An unemployment is that with the rate rising to four
point three percent in the June figure, yes, that means
that there are approximately six hundred and fifty nine thousand,
six hundred Australians currently unemployed, the highest we've seen since
COVID lockdowns in twenty twenty one. Pressure is down mounting
(14:11):
on the Reserve Bank. The Caving crisrads had that next
meeting in August, following their recent decision to hold steady
at three point eight five percent. Treasurer Jim Chalmers said
the figures show Australia is not immune to economic uncertainty.
Thanks for listening to seven AM. This show is made
by Atticus Bastow, Shane Anderson, Chris Dangate, Ruby Jones, Sarah mcvee,
(14:35):
Travis Evans, Zomfatjoe and Me, Daniel James. Our theme music
is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hogan of Envelope BORTEO.
If you enjoy our work, please share it with your friends.
It's the best way you can support us. Have a
great weekend.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
No no,
Hi, I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven Am.
Australia is called in a perilous balancing act. This week,
Anthony Alberezi met with Jijing Ping to stabilize ties with China,
as leagues from Washington revealed the steep demands of our
(00:21):
Defense Pact within the United States in the shadow of
rising tensions over Taiwan. The question of where Australia stands
and who we stand with has never been more complicated. Today,
host of the ABC podcast Global Roaming, Hey miss McDonald,
on how the Alberzi government is navigating our fraud alliances
and whether we could be headed for war. It's Friday,
(00:48):
July eighteenth. Hey a, missh thanks for speaking with me.
It was interesting timing for the Prime Minister's meeting with
Jiji Ping this week. It came just as we were
expecting to hear how the Trump administration's review into the
Orcat Agreement went. And while that wasn't released, there were
(01:08):
leaks out of the Pentagon. So what do we know
about what the review is likely to say at this stage?
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Yeah, So this is curious and I guess we have
to take this with all the usual caveats, one being
that they're leaks. We haven't seen what the report, the
review suggested to the White House. And the other really
big caveat is who knows what Donald Trump will do
or will make of it. Ilbridge Colby is the guy
that has conducted this review. He's someone that has expressed some,
(01:39):
if not quite skepticism about orcas skepticism about the delivery
of it.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
This is actually the single most important conventional military asset
we have for a Taiwan fight or for a contest
against the Chinese center on the first silent chain, which
is conventional nuclear powered attack submarines, and we are talking
about selling them. So my concern is why are we
giving away this crowndewl asset when we most need it now?
Speaker 2 (02:05):
That is, if we believe the leaks. What Donald Trump
might be asked to do is tell Australia to pay
more for the submarines, the nuclear powered submarines, and to
get a guarantee, an explicit guarantee from Australia that they
would be used if America were to go into conflict
with China, in particular over Taiwan on the side of
(02:28):
the Americans.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
And while the Americans are reviewing Aucus. There's also been
a lot of criticism of the deal here in Australia.
So if we are to stick with it, how important
is it for the Australian government to lay out exactly
why they think ORCAS is the answer.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Look, I think, to be fair, a lot of Australian politicians,
both on the conservative side and the more progressive side,
have laid out the reasons for UCAS. It's just that
they tend not to be very explicit about what the
threat is. It's China, It's China's role in our region,
China's growth as a military power, its growth as a
(03:03):
naval power. The concern is that, look, if China, for example,
will tried to take Taiwan by force, that it might
also disrupt trade in the South China Sea and that
would have a profound impact on Australia immediately. Because we
rely on trade both export and import. We have very
limited long term fuel supplies. It would be very easy
(03:26):
if you disrupted the trade routes to really make life
very difficult for Australia in a pretty short space of time.
The argument is that the nuclear powered submarines are the
APEX predators of the sea, they can go further, they
need less refueling. In fact, the nuclear fuel rods within
them last for the lifetime of the submarine. That means
(03:48):
that they need to come up to the surface less
often to take air in to allow their systems to reenergize.
It's less easy for China to know where our nuclear
powered submarines are at any given time, and so that
might make it more risky for them, for example, to
launch an invasion of Taiwan. That purely and simply is
the risk calculus.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
So if, as the League suggests, the US requests US
to commit to using our submarines in the war over Taiwan,
what do we know about where the Australian government stands
on that.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
But weirdly, our government kind of stands where the US
government stands, which is a place of relative strategic ambiguity.
It's one of those weird foreign policy terms. What it
means essentially is not committed either way. You will have
heard Anthony Albanezi this week say well, Australia on the
question of Taiwan, supports the status quo. We support the
(04:41):
status quo by definition, we don't support any unilateral action.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
On Taiwan.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
That is no attempt by the mainland Chinese government to
invade Taiwan. The United States position has always been in
thisrategic ambiguity idea that you don't really say whether there's
a security guarantee for Taiwan, but you give the Chinese
the impression that there would be a very high cost
(05:11):
if they attempted to take it.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
You said, the government is ambiguous on purpose when it
comes to his position on Taiwan. But if China did
invade Taiwan, what's the likelihood of us actually getting involved? Amish?
Speaker 2 (05:25):
I think that's a really good question, and I think
it's one our leaders haven't clearly answered. I was really
looking at the language from Anthony Albanezi this week during
his visit.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
It kind of seemed to catch him off guard. The
questions around that didn't the look.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
It's a vexed issue. It's a particularly vexed issue on
the left of Australian politics because you know, there is
a more dubvish approach amongst some of the senior labor
figures today, but also some of the labor luminaries like
keeping like Gareth Evans. You know, they do have these
more nuanced positions on Taiwan. They you know, see these
(06:03):
arguments from the Chinese about Taiwan being part of the Motherland.
Some of the liberals seem to be more clear sighted
about this. They say, this is exactly like Russia wanting Ukraine.
This is a great power saying we're bigger and we
have historical ties here and if we want them, we'll
(06:23):
get them. I was in Taiwan recently and asked a
question to someone about the possibility of China retaking Taiwan,
and they picked me up actually on the language and said,
what do you mean, retake Taiwan? Communists, China can't retake
Taiwan because it never held it in the first place.
But you know, there's a lot of people in Taiwan
(06:43):
that really value their democracy. And I guess it is
a question for us to what extent do we believe
that the people of Taiwan have the right to self determination.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
After the break the preparations underweigh in Taiwan as the
threat of the Chinese invasion looms, and how the US
will respond ay this, You have just returned from a
trip to Taiwan. How real does the possibility of conflicts
(07:16):
seem to the people there a.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Lot more real and present to I think what we
see this threat as it's definitely a very frequent topic
of conversation. You see the posters on the streets, you
see people turning up to self defense classes, people preparing
themselves for what may or may not happen. But I
think beyond that, there's actually already a view in Taiwan
(07:41):
amongst some that China's making its advances today not necessarily
physically militarily, even though there's drills that go on and
rehearsals as some people describe them as, but that cognitive
warfare is already underway. There is this huge body of
di and misinformation that's spewing out into the Taiwanese public
(08:04):
discourse through social media, through mainstream media, even to some
extent which some viewers deliberate attempt by mainland China to
shape the discourse in Taiwanese politics and to I guess,
make people look more favorably upon the China model than
what they might otherwise.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
So this attempted softening of the Taiwanese people from China
ahead of any potential conflict is taking place. Can you
tell me a little bit more about what that looks
like in practice.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Yeah, there are some people that say, look, China doesn't
really want to physically go to war to take Taiwan.
They think there are other ways to do this. You
might be able to soften the population. We see examples
of disinformation being used to discredit more pro independence politicians.
You saw a lot of this during the recent elections
(08:53):
that were held there in Taiwan. They had one of
the world's first Ministers for disinformation in their government to
try and deal with some of this. It is happening
all the time. You know, I was told there. If
you buy a new TV and you just open it up,
generally these TVs might be made in China.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
If you just.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Open it up, the generic version of YouTube will just
start spewing Chinese nationalist miss and disinformation at you.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Well, if trying to tries to take over Taiwan, what
do you know about how the US will respond.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
So Joe Biden actually, during his term as president, was
the one that probably moved America a bit closer the woods,
saying that America would defend Taiwan if, in fact China
tried to invade. Donald Trump's been you know, reasonably cautious
as far as Donald Trump can be cautious in his
language around these things, so I think it's kind of unclear.
(09:51):
But what we do know is that there's a lot
of very China hawkish operatives with quite a lot of
power in the Trump administration, and when you look at
the broader arc of Trump's foreign policy, it does suggest
rather more affixation on China as a rising power. Part
of the argument, if there is an intellectual argument underpinning
(10:13):
Trump's foreign policy around Europe and particularly Ukraine, is that
they want the Europeans to deal with that corner of
the world a bit more because they see China as
the big, emerging, rising threat to US hegemony, and so
the likelihood might be that they would take a greater
interest in what happens in this part of the world.
(10:35):
They may also, i think it needs to be said,
make a calculation that they don't mind so much what
happens to Taiwan because they're taking all of these steps
around the manufacturing of microchips and semiconductors.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
You might recall that the big.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Taiwanese semiconductor company has been forced to open an operation
in the United States to start producing them there. So
you know, there's a debate in Taiwan about whether this
was a smart move to try and appease Trump and
make him see that Taiwan's really valuable. Others say, well,
maybe it made Taiwan physically less important to Trump because
some of this stuff's being made there.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
How much of our strategy is just trying to when
it comes to this thinking beyond a Trump presidency, how
are we thinking of the US as a strategic ally
in the longer term post Trump?
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Look, I think maybe in the first Trump administration there
was quite a bit of thinking that he was kind
of a one hit wonder and things would return to
business as usual afterwards. I don't think so many Australian
politicians are assuming that any longer. You'd have to say that,
on the face of things, JD. Vance is quite a
likely contender for the next presidency. He may go even
(11:47):
further on some of this foreign policy stuff, and so
I don't think we can necessarily assume that post Trump
will get back to a kind of era of America
always playing a role on the world stage that might
benefit Australia. Just don't think we can run along with
that calculus any longer. Peter our Geezy, former head of DEFACT,
very respected figure in Australian foreign policy, write an article
(12:11):
in The finn Review this week saying our politicians don't
have the guts. This is very loose and rough paraphrasing.
But our politicians don't have the guts to cut and
run from Orcus. But maybe the Americans will do us
a favor and ditch the deal to force our hand
to think more broadly. Certainly, Orcus strategically ties us to
(12:33):
the Americans for a very long time. In many ways,
this is the central question for Australia's leaders today, the
degree to which we can carve our own foreign policy.
Can we, as a middle power manage these relationships in
such a way that we are not always at the
mercy of the wind, that we're somehow able to carve
(12:55):
a place for ourselves where we can continue to extract
advantage from both of those relationships. How do we exist
in that world of intense, deep strategic competition between the
United States and.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
China, Amish, thank you so much for your time, My
absolute pleasure. Also in the news, Independent New South Wales
MP Mark Latham is the subject of fresh controversy following
(13:29):
allegations that he participated in a sex video filmed in
his office at Parliament House. Further allegations claim Latham also
took photos of female colleagues, made disparaging comments about them,
and claimed to have inappropriately pinched one in p In response,
New South Wales Housing Minister Rose Jackson was quoted calling
Latham a pig and went on to say in any
(13:51):
other workplace, you'd be shown the door immediately and rightfully so.
An unemployment is that with the rate rising to four
point three percent in the June figure, yes, that means
that there are approximately six hundred and fifty nine thousand,
six hundred Australians currently unemployed, the highest we've seen since
COVID lockdowns in twenty twenty one. Pressure is down mounting
(14:11):
on the Reserve Bank. The Caving crisrads had that next
meeting in August, following their recent decision to hold steady
at three point eight five percent. Treasurer Jim Chalmers said
the figures show Australia is not immune to economic uncertainty.
Thanks for listening to seven AM. This show is made
by Atticus Bastow, Shane Anderson, Chris Dangate, Ruby Jones, Sarah mcvee,
(14:35):
Travis Evans, Zomfatjoe and Me, Daniel James. Our theme music
is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hogan of Envelope BORTEO.
If you enjoy our work, please share it with your friends.
It's the best way you can support us. Have a
great weekend.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
No no,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!