February 26, 2025 • 56 mins
Insights from Jamie Miller shed light on how Trump’s foreign policies align with the sentiments of his voter base. This episode reveals the evolving perceptions of national security among Americans and explores the implications behind Trump's strategic decisions.
• Unpacking Trump's "America First" philosophy
• The shift in Republican foreign policy strategy
• Voter perceptions on immigration, safety, and national security
• Understanding the implications of cabinet picks for Trump’s second term
• The possible risks of hardline immigration policies on geopolitics
• The evolving nature of America's role in global affairs
If you liked what you heard, please follow the podcast and share with your friends, and even consider going to the support the show link in the episode description.
Jamie Miller's Blog: https://reasonablearguments.com/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Good morning everyone and welcome to the At the Water
Trench podcast, where we lookfor insights beyond the
headlines to take yourpractitioner's view on national
security and geopolitics.
It's the 27th of February 2025.
Let's dive in Now.
If you're a foreign policy wonk, ever since Trump has been
elected, oh my God, there's beena ton of stuff to keep up with
(00:23):
and try to analyze.
This guy is not slowing downfor anybody.
It's been entertaining,concerning fun, interesting
depending on where you sit, butthere's been a lot to go through
.
Now we're going to spend somemore time unpacking this over
the next couple of months.
But to start off, had a greatchance to talk to Jamie Miller.
(00:44):
Jamie Miller is the formerdirector of the Florida
Republican Party, has workedwith a bunch of different
Republican campaigns over theyears, mostly in Florida state
politics, and I wanted to sitdown and talk with him and try
to get a sense of what does theaverage American, particularly
the average Trump voter, wantDonald Trump to do from a
(01:05):
foreign policy perspective?
What might we anticipate himdoing in the future?
How should we interpret some ofthese recent activities that
he's been up to and understandwhat role foreign policy and
national security really playsin the voting decisions of the
average American.
And with that let's get toJamie.
Okay, well, good morning Jamie.
Welcome to the podcast.
How are you doing this morning,sir?
Speaker 2 (01:25):
I'm doing better than I deserve.
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Aren't we all?
We're still above the ground.
Yeah Well, super excited tohave this chance to talk about
Trump and foreign policy, andit's rare that a presidency is
defined by foreign policy.
I won't say that this one'sgoing to be, but if you're a
foreign policy geek boy, isthere a lot of material to work
with right off the bat.
But before we start digginginto some of that, can you
introduce yourself and yourbackground in politics with the
(01:50):
Republican Party in Florida?
Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
I've had about a 30 year career in political
campaigns, political consulting,mostly in Florida.
I've also done races throughoutmostly the Southeast and West
Virginia.
A lot of work in North Carolina.
I'm a former executive directorof the Republican Party of
(02:13):
Florida and a senior advisor toNewt Gingrich's presidential
campaign in Florida in 2012.
So those are kind of like thehigh points.
I've worked a little bit ineconomic development and I do
some local government relationshere in Sarasota, Florida, for
mostly environmental groups, tobe honest with you.
So it's kind of an interestingbalance of my career.
(02:38):
So I write a blog calledReasonable Arguments on Substack
and me and my wife have apodcast of that same name.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Awesome.
Well, people should definitelygo check it out after this, but
first they should listen to theepisode.
Absolutely, absolutely so withyour background in the
Republican Party, trump has avery unique foreign policy style
.
So, right off the bat questionfor you what do you think
Trump's main foreign policyobjectives are, and do you think
(03:06):
that his different approach toforeign policy is it more style
or is it more substance?
Where is he actually breakingwith Republican orthodoxy as he
enters the second term?
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Yeah, that's a tough one.
I guess maybe it depends on theday.
I mean, of course, his you knowhis philosophy is America first
Right.
Of course his you know hisphilosophy is America first
right, and I think that'sprobably his center or guiding
principle and I think that'swhere he tries to make all of
his decisions are based on, youknow what's going to be best for
(03:37):
America today and for tomorrow.
And you know, long after he isgone, I do think that he has a
long-term approach, not just ayou know, long after he is gone,
I do think that he has a longterm approach, not just you know
.
It seems like a lot of hisdecisions people are like, oh,
he makes them on the fly and I,I just I don't disagree that it
appears that way, but I disagreethat it is that way what these
(04:03):
decisions will have for futuregenerations, as you know, not
just future years.
It is kind of interesting.
You said you know, throughoutmost of our history, until about
the 1950s, most presidents wereelected on foreign policy.
It wasn't domestic policy.
It wasn't until really the 60sthat presidents you know, the
(04:28):
tipping point of presidentsbeing elected on domestic policy
Interesting 1960s, I should say.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Good to know when it comes to Trump and the
Republican Party.
How has he reformed how theRepublican Party approaches
foreign policy?
Because if you look over thepast, I'd start calling it the
Nixon era on Ford.
But really by the time you getthrough Reagan into Clinton,
there really was this bipartisanorthodoxy in Washington, this
new liberal consensus about howwe approach foreign policy in
(04:59):
the global world order, andreally the only thing that
changed between parties was thetalking points used to justify
it.
But the policies were, by andlarge, had the same thrust about
America's world and the worldand this multinational
institution driven world order.
Trump is really taking a hammerto some of those assumptions.
Where do you think he's tryingto change America's how America
(05:27):
interacts with the rest of theworld?
Because it appears that it'sgoing from this.
We're part of this web ofinstitutions too.
We have our own individualrelationships with every single
country out there.
Screw the system.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Well, I don't know that he's saying screw the
system completely.
I think he's saying the systemshould reflect our leadership.
You know we are the leader ofthe free world.
The president is.
You know we elect a presidentwho is the leader of the free
world.
And you know, when we have thesesituations where you have other
(06:05):
countries that are trying todominate the discussion and
exert their will on us and I'mnot saying we should exert our
will on them I think things havegotten to a point where too
many people are like the Parisknow, like the Paris Climate
Accord.
You know it's never beenratified by the US Senate.
(06:27):
You know Obama signed us intoit, which is not really legal,
not constitutional for sure.
You know Trump took us out.
Biden put us back in.
Trump took us back out.
You know.
But you look at those sorts ofthings where it's really kind of
.
But you look at those sorts ofthings where it's really kind of
, you know, the rest of theworld getting a pound of flesh
(06:48):
out of America.
You know, and those types ofthings are no longer going to be
tolerated, at least not underthis president.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
What lessons do you think Trump has learned from his
first term in office, goinginto round two, having a
four-year break to really revampProject 2025 out there in the
wings and get ready to hit theground running?
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Yeah, I think the biggest thing especially if
you're not a Trump supporter, ifyou're like, okay, this four
years is going to be hell onwheels because it's Donald Trump
I think the difference thatthose folks can look at and say
there's a difference and if youare a Trump supporter, I think
this is a good thing as well isthat.
I simplify it to saying that in2016, through the election of
(07:34):
2020, donald Trump practiced thepolitics of subtraction and now
he's practicing the politics ofaddition.
You know, you look at who he'sadding to the cabinet Marco
Rubio, rfk, tulsi Gabbard, elonMusk over at Doge, even though
that's not a cabinet thing, youknow.
Those are all folks who, in2017, wouldn't have been
(07:56):
considered for anything.
You know it would have.
You know, and I think those fourin particular are probably the
high profile names where Trumphas said you know what, to
really have a governing majorityand to move some of these
things forward, I need to addmore people to the team, and
(08:16):
maybe some of these voices thatwere, you know, robert F Kennedy
ran for president.
Ramaswamy ran for president,you know, and Marco Rubio ran
against him in 2016.
President that Ramoswamy ranfor president, you know, and
Marco Rubio ran against him in2016.
Those in 2017, those were folkswho would have been sliced and
you know, right out of the, youknow, don't ever darken the door
(08:37):
of the Oval Office.
And now he's looking at thosefolks from cabinet positions.
So I think that's the one thingthat people can say that is the
main difference between DonaldTrump 2017 and Donald Trump 2025
.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
Do you think DeSantis would ever get that type of
treatment?
Do you think he'll ever beinvited back into the fold?
Speaker 2 (08:53):
You know, ron DeSantis is in this precarious
position and it's partly due towhen Florida has its elections
and we have term limits on ourgovernor.
So Ron DeSantis is term limitedin 2026, which means he doesn't
have a job for two years beforethe presidential election.
He doesn't have a bully pulpit,so he's trying to make as much
(09:17):
hay as he can.
Right now there's a bigcontroversy in Florida.
I don't know if many of yourlisteners and viewers are
following it, but it's we got afew Florida residents on the
other side of the line.
So it is a you know it boilsdown to Ron DeSantis trying to
(09:40):
basically get in front of thepresident on the illegal
immigration issue, and now thepresident hasn't weighed in one
way or the other.
But there's certainly a battlethat's been brewing between
DeSantis and the legislature forthe last six years and it seems
to be coming to a head.
Right before this there was aspecial session this week and
(10:00):
legislative session starts inMarch.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
What do you think Trump's trying to do with his
cabinet picks?
Because one of the things thatcabinet picks do is they take
control of what bureaucracythey're handed and they inform
the president on what's relevantand enforce his policy
objectives.
But you got to walk a fine linethere, because you can pick
bureaucratic insiders who areincredibly good at their job but
can wait you out until you'rejust gone in four years, or you
(10:25):
can bring in complete outsiderswho have no knowledge of how to
run these institutions, and itseems like he's leaned hard
towards bringing in completeoutsiders who don't have
knowledge of the institutionsthat they're trying to lead.
And there seems to be just fromthe outside looking in, a
threat there that his cabinetpicks are going to be completely
ineffective in actuallywielding the power of the
(10:45):
institutions they're in chargeof.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
I completely disagree with that.
It's like hiring the PayPal CEOto come in and be the CEO of
Subway, right?
Oh, you have no knowledge ofthe institution, but I know how
to run a company and so you knowmany of those skills are
applicable.
So I'm not somebody who buysinto that.
(11:09):
Pete Hegseth can't be, you know, or Patel or Tulsi Gabbard or
RFK are incapable of being theheads of these institutions
simply because they don't have acareer within them.
You know, and this president haslooked at the career within
them.
You know, and this presidenthas looked at the career within
the system as more of a negative, because the system, you know
we have a lot of things going on.
(11:30):
We're in this incredible age ofcryptocurrency, ai you know
it's.
We haven't had this type ofgrowth, you know, from a
technical standpoint, since thelate 90s, and you know the
internet kind of becomingmainstream with a personal
computer, so it is an incredibletime to be alive.
(11:52):
But government tends to moveslower on these things.
And, of course, institutionalbureaucrats people who are
successful within anyinstitution like to keep the
status quo because that's howthey gain their success.
Like to keep the status quobecause that's how they gain
their success, and so you haveto bring in a disruptor to say,
(12:12):
hey, we're going to make surethis institution is successful
in a different way.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
So a lot of great points there and I agree with
you broadly on most of them inprinciple.
Well so, like someone likeTulsi Gabbard, coming in
ideologically, has had a veryinteresting journey, was a
Democrat, became a Republican,really marched with Peter Rowan
Denver very much a disruptor.
But it's also incredibly wellversed in the issues that
(12:37):
involve the office that Trump'strying to nominate her for.
I'm sure she'll probably get itwe're not quite there yet, but
seems likely at this point.
I'm sure she'll probably get itwe're not quite there yet, but
seems likely at this point.
But particularly someone likePete Hegseth.
He not only does not have atraditional career in the
military, which is totally fine,but he also doesn't have any
(13:11):
experience running largebureaucratic organizations like
CEO of a Fortune 100 company orany of these other
non-traditional roles that mayhave actually given them the
experience needed to be in thatrole.
And we've gone from, you know,general Mattis to Pete Hegseth.
There could not be a biggerdichotomy in who you're trying
to have to run that institutionand it really makes me wonder
what is Trump trying to get outof a secretary of defense.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
I think there's no question.
He wants a disruptor, he wantssomebody who can articulate that
disruption to the Americanpeople and you know he's
certainly going to have thepeople surrounding him, who who
can get the job done.
So if you, if you go with theCEO analogy, you know it's the
CEO and running the C-suite thatreally makes a CEO powerful,
(13:46):
and a little bit of that isbeing able to manage up and
manage down right.
So you have people who can, youknow, manage a C-suite but also
work with a board, and so youknow, I don't think this, these
situations are much differentthan that.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
One of the very interesting things with the
Trump cabinet is the creation ofDoge, which love the name, love
the troll there.
It's awesome, great marketing,all about it.
Here for it.
Elon's coming on, awesome,brilliant guy, richest man on
earth, wonderful, great whenbillionaires get together to do
things.
I'm curious, though, how muchimpact can Doge really have on
(14:26):
the government, because it is anoutside entity.
Elon hasn't divested any of hisinterests and although, on
principle, the idea of someonecoming in and really just taking
a hammer to the government andslashing the budget and all that
stuff sounds great and all forit, is Elon, with no formal
authority, really justwhispering in Trump's ear to get
him to sign executive orders,while also having a massive
(14:48):
amount of defense contracts?
That is driving his privateinterests?
Is he really in a position,talents aside, to get any of
this stuff done?
Speaker 2 (14:56):
I think so the short answer is I think he can.
I think the point that you'remaking, the point I've made to
people in the past, is that it'skind of funny because he's
saying I want to get rid ofthings like member projects, but
I have to go to members ofCongress to get finance for Doge
(15:18):
right, so even though it has anend date.
So it's kind of thisinteresting dance that we're
looking at.
But the one thing that ElonMusk in particular has is the
bullet bully pulpit Right, andso he can.
When he shines a light onsomething, it's brighter than
most.
And so when he says oh there's,we've saved four hundred twenty
(15:40):
million, 420 million.
I think he tweeted today thatit's up to a billion dollars per
(16:00):
year that we're saving alreadyin you know that both Elon and
Bidik brought to the forefrontof the discussion of not only
are these things wrong from apolicy standpoint, they're
costing us a lot of money, andso you know so that I think in
that regard, elon Musk can bevery successful Now, whether
(16:21):
they're successful in actuallysetting up the agency and
getting funding for the agencyand things like that.
Agencies are hard to puttogether.
We look at the Department ofEducation.
They're hard to kill and theyshould be hard to put together
and they should be hard to kill.
That's the way our system isbuilt right, but I think that
(16:45):
Elon is probably uniquelypositioned to have a positive
impact.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
What do you think the residents of a state like
Florida would want out of theirpresident for national security
and geopolitics?
Because people who started offthe professional career the way
I did in the military and whofollow this stuff for a living,
we have this particular view ofwhat national security and
geopolitics is.
It's a global war on terror,it's great power competition,
(17:13):
it's some form of industrialpolicy, but it seems like for a
lot of Americans today, theissues that they care about are
much closer to home.
It's the border, it's illegalimmigration, and there's even
talk about how do you use themilitary to take care of some of
those issues domestically.
So, for the average Floridaresident or the average
Republican voter who voted forDonald Trump, what do you think
(17:35):
their national securitypriorities are?
If you just had to ask them,how would they describe?
Speaker 2 (17:40):
it.
Yeah, there's no question.
It's safety right and it so,and it's safety in your driveway
first, and more and more peoplehave felt less and less safe in
their own driveways, and youknow, or in their own
communities, and so when thatbecomes a problem and it's a
problem everywhere, not Floridaeverywhere we are having this
(18:00):
illegal immigration influx.
The Biden administration hasdone, if you're pro-illegal
immigration they did a great jobof infiltrating our society in
all corners of the country.
You start looking at the amountof people who came across the
border illegally in the lastfour years and it would probably
(18:22):
, if you put them all in oneplace, probably be the fifth
largest state in the country.
I mean, wrap your mind aroundthat.
You know so you know.
They didn't put them all in oneplace.
They sent them to Sarasota andthey sent them to little places
like Arcadia or you knowAmarillo, and you know so you're
.
But what they did was they sentthem everywhere.
(18:46):
So everyone is having thisissue of they feel less safe in
their own community, and that'sone reason why Donald Trump was
successful and why he has.
I think in the past, like evenfive years ago, people would
have said, oh, you're going touse the military at the southern
border and people would haverejected that, I think Today, I
(19:07):
think people said things havegotten so bad.
If we need to use the military,do it, Because at some point
this has to stop.
We have to protect thesovereignty of our country.
We have to protect votingrights.
We have to protect, you know,us citizens and Democrats.
(19:27):
You know 12 of the last, I'dsay 13 of the last, if you
include the COVID year, 13 ofthe last 16 years are you know?
I think we failed to do that.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
So do you think people view using the military
at the border different thanusing the military in US cities?
Because one of the thingsthat's come up as Trump's tried
to push ICE to grab up morefolks and ship them back to
their home countries, is thatICE just doesn't have the
manpower to actually find peopleand federate them out of the
(19:57):
country in a meaningful way.
If you actually look at howmany bodies a day they can move
and how many people have comehere already, it becomes a
logistical problem.
Yeah, yeah, so there really isonly one institution in the U S
government with the capacity todo that.
It would be the U S military.
But now you're talking aboutmobilizing federal troops to do
domestic police work, which is ahuge red line for a lot of
(20:19):
folks, especially in themilitary itself.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Yeah, I don't think they're going to use the
military for policing.
They may use the military forlogistics and I think there
probably is a fine line andpeople may say that's a slippery
slope, but I think that'sprobably the line in the sand
that's going to be drawn.
Is that it's?
You know?
(20:43):
I don't think people haveproblems with?
Ok, there's a military plane atSarasota Airport, the sheriff's
department has gone around andsome people up.
Right now it's easy to roundthem up Right, Because most of
these folks are in jail andBiden just refused to deport
them and we know that they'reillegals.
We know that they're in jailand Biden just refused to deport
them and we know that they'reillegals.
(21:03):
We know that they're in jail,and so, while we've had some
video of people getting theirdoor knocked on and being
arrested and people in the Housebeing arrested, I think it's a
huge majority of these.
You know, the people who are onthe tip of the spear right now
being deported are people whoare already in jail.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
So one of the interesting things that came out
of our recent diplomaticengagement we'll call it with
Colombia, where we set planesdown there with immigrants that
we were returning and theyturned around because they're
military aircraft.
We worked all that out threatsof terrorists, back and forth,
everything else but one of theinteresting things there is that
(21:40):
China is immediately moving inthen and saying, hey, if you're
having an issue with America asa partner, we'll be your best
friend.
Is there a risk that a hardlineimmigration policy here at home
and the techniques that we useto export immigrants back to
their home countries countriescould actually blow back on
(22:00):
forcing nations south of uscloser to China?
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Well, we've built this system where we kind of
have this practical applicationproblem and while we're all
disgusted by the number ofillegal immigrants, you know
there are a lot and historically, you know, florida agriculture
has been run with migrantworkers, probably legal and
illegal, for decades.
(22:28):
California for decades.
South Florida last night speak,and he was talking about how,
you know, the strawberry fieldsin California, just there's
nobody to pick strawberriesbecause people are afraid to
show up, because they're afraidof being deported.
And so now you're, you know,and so all of those things hurt,
(22:52):
you know, then hit you in thepocketbook, you know.
I think your question is alittle bit more on kind of the
global scale of, you know, arewe giving China the opportunity
to infiltrate places likeColombia, south America, africa?
And they're doing those thingsalready.
China's doing those thingsalready.
You know they're, and so, youknow, does this accelerate that?
(23:14):
Does it accelerate a possibleconfrontation with China sooner
rather than later?
Um, I guess the proof is in thepudding.
You know, I would, I would, uh,rather rely on, on real foreign
relations, um, experts on that.
I don't consider myself aforeign relations expert but, um
(23:36):
, you know, like I said to youearlier, I was like, uh, my
knowledge is an inch deep in amile wide, so I like to think I
can talk about them, but youknow these are complex issues
and you know none of theseactions are, uh, happen in a
vacuum.
And so, and so they all, youknow, I don't want to say they
(23:57):
have an opposite and equalreaction, but they, there are
other.
Um, I always say they have anopposite and equal reaction, but
there are other.
I always say there'sconventional wisdom, and then
there's.
You know you can flip the coinover and oftentimes
unconventional wisdom is whatends up playing out, and so you
know we need to keep an eye onit.
I don't know that we're going todeport, you know, five million
(24:19):
people this year.
I think we're going to get ridof these criminals for sure At
some point.
I think Americans say you know,hey, I didn't realize.
The guy who owns the restaurantdown the street was illegal and
now the restaurant's closed,and you know that's.
You know my friend, you know hecame around and talked to me
every time I came and ate.
You know all those things.
(24:39):
So I don't know that people, orthe restaurant closes because
there's no kitchen workers Right, or there's, you know, and you
don't realize that there's thatmany illegals who are out here
working and providing for theirfamilies and doing things like
this.
You know, the interesting thingabout the Columbia issue was,
(25:02):
you know, really more, the visasand the travel and passports
that kind of came along withthat.
You know, in Florida we have, Ithink there's 400,000
Colombians who live in theUnited States.
About 150,000, or more than athird, are in South Florida and
so there was, you know, at leasta mini uproar in South Florida
(25:23):
while this was going onimmediately, because it wasn't
really the tariffs it was.
You know, I'm here legally andI've just got my visa revoked.
Speaker 1 (25:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
And so what does that mean?
And how can I, how can I not bepart of this problem?
How can I remove myself fromthis international political
issue?
I just want to work.
I just want to raise my familyhere.
I just want to.
These are folks who are herelegally, under visas.
I thought it was a good line inthe sand.
(25:59):
I thought it was a good line inthe sand.
I thought it was a good saying,hey, we're doing this.
Other countries need to be onboard.
But when you start looking atthe cascading effect of how it
impacts real communities in ourcountry, or especially someplace
like South Florida, it wouldhave had a real impact.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Yeah, someplace like South Florida it would have had
a real impact.
Yeah, now, I grew up inConnecticut and wasn't in a rich
part of the state, wasn't in apoor part of the state either,
but still Connecticut, and Iworked construction and
landscaping while I was incollege to help pay the bills
and all that, and I was otherthan the people who own the work
crew and, like the generalmanager of the construction
company, I was the only personthere with a driver's license.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
I can imagine I grew up in rural Florida.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
Some of the best, most hardworking people you ever
met, like good friends, likeawesome folks.
But yeah, you imagine what theimpact it has for them and their
families and they're trying toget their kids in school and
stay enrolled.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
And so there are some practical application issues
that we're going to faceimmediately, but at the same
time, it things went so far, youknow, and the pendulum is going
to swing back.
So where does?
Where can we stop the pendulumwithout it?
You know, while making thepoint, removing people who are
dangerous from our country,while also, then you know,
(27:20):
allowing people to, you knowwhether it's having some of
these illegals apply and get youknow at least temporary visas
to work or whatever, while wesort it out, like there has to
be some level of you know, youremove 20 million people from a
population of 300.
There's some unintendedconsequences that will occur.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
Yeah, and one would think I'm not sure if this would
ever happen, but one wouldthink that Trump, being a
businessman in the cabinet,surrounded by businessmen, would
do a cost-benefit analysis atsome point.
And he's a master marketer.
He could sell almost anythinghe wants, like, hey, we got all
the criminals out and now youknow, these are people are great
, they're hard working, we'regoing to bring them into the
fold and he could sell that intwo years if he wanted to.
(28:06):
We'll see if he does.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
Yeah, I think one of the issues is that you have
people who are here and are notAmerican citizens and we, as
American citizens basicallybecause we don't put our
frontline police through hey,you need to figure out if this
person's a citizen or not acitizen, because you have
(28:29):
different rights, you know.
But you know constitutionalrights are specific to US
citizens and we kind of havegotten to a point where we apply
(28:58):
these rights to everyone,including the right to the
American government.
You have to question are thesefolks we want to have in the
United States?
They're not citizens, you know.
They're here as guests.
We should treat them as guests,but they should act as guests,
(29:21):
but they should act as guests.
And we've started to say no,you have the same rights as
citizens.
And I think that's kind of aline in the sand that you may
see.
Next, if you know, especially ifpeople are protesting, you know
the government and you know,because we know that some of
these students are, you know,paid organizers, and so you know
(29:44):
you can go on Craigslist andsee that they're hiring people
to participate in some of theseprotests not all of them, but
some of them and so, if you know, where's that money coming from
?
Is that?
Is it coming from communistChina?
Is it coming from?
Where's it coming from?
Is it coming from a domesticsource?
Is it coming from a foreignsource?
And so you have to kind ofquestion, you know, are we
(30:05):
allowing ourselves to oursovereignty to be diluted by
international voices on our ownsoil?
Speaker 1 (30:15):
You mentioned before that sometimes unconventional
outcomes occur as a result ofpolicy decisions, and Trump with
his very upfrontthrowing-down-the-gauntlet
approach to Colombia.
Definitely we'll see how thatplays out.
But another place where he'spulled that card is with the war
in the Gaza Strip.
(30:35):
I mean, he showed upimmediately and sent who was it?
Steve Witkoff, his Middle Eastenvoy, over there and shut the
thing down in a couple of daysand basically got the same deal
that Biden could have had backin July.
Just didn't want to yank thatchain on Israel.
Where do you think that mightplay out?
(30:56):
Because Trump, who's alwaysoutwardly a as a real supporter,
gives them everything they want, along with every other
American administrationessentially for the past,
however, many years just showedup and ended their party and
completely stuck a middle fingeroff to what's essentially the
largest lobbying group and mostpowerful lobbying organization
(31:17):
in America domestically.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
Well, the one thing that I think is different
between 2016 and 2017, 2025 isTrump tried to be a politician
and now he's being a CEO, andyou know.
So he waded into this area ofoh, this is how things were done
.
I'm going to try to keep thelegacy of all these political
(31:43):
things that need to happen andget some people from BC to help
guide me through this, and Ithink the four years that he had
in between really kind of Ithink he kind of saw that as an
error, and so I think right now,he's leaning into.
I'm hiring CEOs, I'm going tobe a CEO, and CEOs take action.
(32:07):
They don't sit around and study.
They don't have a two-weekstudy between eight different
agencies to determine whatshould we do with the two plane
loads of people that Columbiaturned around.
No, I'm going to take actionright now, and I think that's
what you're going to see out ofthis president for his entire
four years.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
Well, just as an aside, maybe if he did take two
weeks to think about things, hewouldn't have had so many
bankruptcies, but that's aseparate issue.
Speaker 2 (32:37):
Listen, I've never claimed bankruptcy, but maybe
I'm thinking it's a better youknow financial strategy because
it seems to work out for him.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
I can't argue with the results.
Speaker 2 (32:46):
I can't argue it's just an accurate observation,
not arguing with the results.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
I'm just like he's done better than I have.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
Yeah, yeah, like, don't throw me in that briar
patch right.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
Yeah, Now, one thing that would be really if I could
ask one thing of the Trumpadministration and what Doge is
doing.
If there's one thing that theycould fix which I think would be
amazing for our nationalsecurity and amazing for our
budget, is reforming theDepartment of Defense
procurement process, Because theway we purchase munitions and
(33:20):
purchase weapons and develop allthat stuff it's incredibly
expensive, it takes forever,it's non-responsive to the needs
of the warfighter, but it's allgoverned by this massive
federal acquisition regulationsdocument that unless you are a
full-time contracting specialistlike the one number.
One thing you need to do to sellthe federal government is not
(33:41):
develop a product that thewarfighter wants or anything
like that, or solve an issue forthe warfighter.
It's.
You need the right consultantsand the right accountants and
the right contract managers tomake sure you check all the
blocks so that your stuff isacceptable, because the people
buying it have no relation tothe people using it.
That's a good idea buying ithave no relation to the people
(34:04):
using it.
So that's a good.
In a world dominated by likeLockheed Martin and Raytheon and
all those large defensecontractors and all the pork
barrel spending that they getout of Congress, do you think
they got a shot at fixing thatCause boy?
Could we use some help there?
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Do they have a shot?
You know you're rating intolike.
Certainly that's not.
My expertise is governmentprocurement.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
And I haven't even heard them talk about it, though
that's a weird thing, like I'mnot even sure there's a where
that that problem exists outthere.
Speaker 2 (34:30):
Well, let's try to use this podcast to make them
aware, because I, you know, likeI, there's so many ways that
the government wastes our moneyRight, and it's.
The problem has become thatit's many of those ways are seen
as oh, this is the way it hasto be done.
And so, if it, if we can nowturn some of that, and I think
(34:53):
the only chance we have ofchanging, I think the only
chance we have of changing thatis to bring in non-traditional
disruptors.
And you know so I've alwayssaid that the people who voted
for Donald Trump voted for him.
And the difference betweenpeople who voted for him in 2025
, who did not vote for him in2024, who did not vote for him
(35:16):
in 2020 is the people who didnot vote for him in 2020 did not
appreciate the fires that Trumpset.
They came back and voted forhim in 2024 because he leads us
through fire, despite the fireshe sets.
And so I think the electoratehad a mindset change, because
Biden was so horrible that theysaid, okay, he's going to set
(35:39):
some fires, but he's going tolead us through.
And I think part of I thinkyou're seeing that play out with
all of these things Like, okay,the Columbia thing, all right.
Well, that could have been afire set, right.
But at the same time, you'relike I have confidence that he's
going to lead us through.
And I think the same thing withthese cabinet picks, you know,
(35:59):
are one of the one of thesecabinet picks going to be a fire
?
Probably Right, but is isDonald Trump going to lead us
through it?
Yes, he will, and I thinkthat's the confidence that he
has with the American peopleright now.
Speaker 1 (36:15):
So one of the areas where he's really leaned into in
his first couple weeks inoffice and it's no surprise is
cutting back on DEI initiatives.
And if you're going to look fora place in government where
there's a bunch of money beingspent with very little to show
for it, I'm not sure it's at thetop of the list.
But I'm not going to say it'snot on the list, because it
(36:39):
means a lot of different thingsto a lot of different people in
a lot of different places andit's not clear that, no matter
how much money we spend, we'reactually achieving the results
that most DEI initiativesactually purport to achieve.
So just taking the initiativesat their own word, it's not
clear that they're actuallyworking as intended.
So why even fund them?
To be a whitewashing of thecontribution of folks with very
(37:07):
different gender ideologies andsexual orientations have made to
our national security in thissmaller, more professional
military that we have right now?
I firmly believe that no onehas a right to serve.
Serving is a privilege.
Lethalities are number oneNorth Star, so everything that
gets sacrificed on that altar,including personal preferences
and lifestyle and whatever else,it was deemed to be
incompatible with a lethal force.
(37:27):
But I know right now, with theexecutive orders that have been
signed just in the past severalweeks, that there are trans
service members who are servinghonorably in the military in
non-deployable roles.
So that issue is off the lineand they're wondering what does
their future in the armedservices look like if they get
(37:48):
kanked at 14 years?
Do they get a pension?
They've done nothing buthonorable service so far.
And also, since the militaryit's a closed labor market.
You can't just kick a major outand hire a major in to replace
them.
You've got to promote thecaptain which then draws up and
then draws up.
That's a whole other discussionabout the closed labor system
of the US military, which weneed to address at some point.
That's an aside.
But as it stands right now,there are trans service members
(38:12):
serving in key billetsthroughout the Department of
Defense and they're wonderingwhat's about to happen to them.
Do you think Trump's approachwith these executive orders that
he's signing right now, do youthink they're a net benefit?
Do you think they're a net loss?
Speaker 2 (38:28):
I'm not, you know.
Speaker 1 (38:29):
Because there are no solutions, only trade-offs.
But this seems to be veryheavy-handed to folks who are
serving in uniform right now.
Speaker 2 (38:36):
Yeah, I think that what Donald Trump is going to
look at or Pete Hegseth, I think, will look at in these
situations are people.
Were people promoted simplybecause of their sexual
orientation, color, trans,whatever?
Do those folks then get fired?
(38:58):
I don't know the answer to that, but the problem with the DEI
and I think we all agree that wedon't you know, our system's
based on conducting the will ofthe majority, while protecting
the rights of the minority right.
And so we haven't always done agreat job of protecting the
rights of the minority.
In this case I mean just thefewer voters, not necessarily a
(39:22):
racial or whatever minority, butwe need to apply it to those
things as well.
So the problem with DEI is thatit flips the script right, like
DEI is in place to promote theminority over the majority.
So while you have DEI and Idon't know what the percentage
(39:45):
of people are quote DEI whetherit's 20% or 50%, the percentage
doesn't matter.
But let's say it's 30%, itapplies to 30% of the people in
these positions, but it also itbecomes a situation where it
applies to 100% of the jobs andpromotions, and so you end up
(40:07):
denying 70% of the majority theopportunity for jobs and
promotions because hiringmanagers and promoting managers,
whether it's in the military orsomewhere else, are afraid of
being sued because they haven'tapplied this DEI barometer to
the hiring process.
(40:27):
So what ends up?
Hiring is only DEI.
People get hired and promoted,and so I think that's a
situation where somebody who'strans in the military could be
impacted, and I don't know howmany people that is, or what
promotions they received, or ifthey received promotions because
they were trans.
But if I were in there, I wouldbe trying to look at my
(40:49):
promotions and try to justifyhow I deserve them, regardless
of my sexual orientation orwhatever.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
Yeah, well, it's curious because already just
talking about DEI and talkingabout immigration and Trump's
approach to foreign policy,we've already reached a level of
nuance that we haven't seen thepresident or his cabinet picks
or close advisors get into, andit's a messy conversation, no
matter where you start, nomatter where you end.
Speaker 2 (41:20):
But it's very it's.
They're very complex issues.
I mean, we, you know, and we'vewe kind of campaign.
I'm a political consultant, soyou kind of campaign on the
headline you can put on a mailpiece or bumper strip or you
know, so it's, and so the publicstarts responding to that
bumper strip and they're like,oh, you have to govern to the
bumper strip and you know, know,like and and it's too complex,
(41:48):
it's more complex than that whenyou actually are trying to
govern.
Speaker 1 (41:49):
Yeah, so let me ask you, as the consultant, you have
a chance to sit down with trumpor his key cabinets picks or
someone up there, um, would youadvise?
You know?
Hey, slower approach, morenuance.
It appears they've alreadylearned some lesson.
Speaker 2 (42:02):
Absolutely not.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
Absolutely not, come on.
Come on, give me something here.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
Okay, scott, so here's the practical.
Speaker 1 (42:11):
Yeah, tell me why.
Speaker 2 (42:12):
Here's the practical application issue, like because
I don't disagree with you, likeI'm not disagreeing with you,
it's just that politics moves sofast, and you you know.
But because everybody, oh, he'selected for four years but the
mandate, whatever mandate he has, is probably 18 months at best,
(42:35):
because the next congressionalcampaigns are starting, the next
congressional campaigns arestarting, and so as those folks
start campaigning and you starthaving public discussions on
these issues, on these decisionsthat are being made today, they
now become part of thecountry's conversation, starting
(42:57):
in January.
So, really, what he wants toget done, he needs to go ahead
and get done Like he needs to.
You have to move because themandate can stop, you know, at
any moment of time, or you canhave a international incident
where the country says, okay,now we're, we're not focused on
this stuff anymore and we'regoing to, you know, focus on
(43:18):
this.
I mean that happened to GeorgeW Bush in 2001.
And we're going to focus onthis.
I mean that happened to GeorgeW Bush in 2001.
You know.
So, you know he had a mandate.
He didn't have.
People would argue he didn'thave a mandate, but you know,
but he was kind of moving alongfor eight months and then
September 11th, right?
So?
(43:45):
So you don't know.
You don't know what the futureholds, and so you have to make
as you have to make, you have to, um, make as many positive
changes you can as quickly aspossible.
So that's the reason why Iwould say just keep, keep as
long as he's willing to lead usthrough fire.
I don't mind the fires he sets.
Speaker 1 (43:56):
Okay, and of course we're not talking about the
fires in California.
We are not.
Speaker 2 (44:03):
We're talking about political fires.
Political fires, yeah, okay,boy, I really threw you for a
loop on that one.
Speaker 1 (44:18):
No, I just got like 5,000 follow-ups and I'm not
sure where to start first.
Okay, when it comes to tradethese tariffs, it's one of the
hallmarks of his foreign policystyle and we'll see which ones
actually get put into place.
And you know, we certainlysurvived the ones that we had
with China last go around, Notwithout pain, but we got through
(44:38):
it.
And again, to have to caveat,there's no solutions, only
trade-offs.
But do you think that his styleof imposing tariffs to coerce
other countries to fall in linewith his policy directives, do
you think that's going to workfor him?
Do you think that's somethingthat the American people are
going to support throughout allfour years of his presidency?
(45:00):
Or do you think this is allbark no bite, Because we haven't
actually seen him put a bunchof stuff in place yet?
Speaker 2 (45:09):
I would not suggest that.
He's all bark, no bite.
I think the Columbia thing wasreal.
I don't know that when he madethis broad thing, I don't know
that he realized the completeimpact of it.
And at some point you startasking 150,000 South Floridians,
(45:30):
who are his neighbors, to leavebecause their visas got revoked
.
That has an impact, right, butI don't think there's any
questions.
He's willing to impose thesetariffs and, you know, the
question becomes how much doesAmerica tolerate before they
(45:52):
start seeing a positive impact?
Are we going to enter kind ofthis cold trade war, you know,
with people over the threat oftariffs?
And my guess is that we don't.
You know, donald Trump is such aunique leader and I've worked
(46:16):
with a couple throughout mycareer who I would say, normally
I would suggest this, but foryou it could be different,
because they have there's,they're, they are unique leaders
and so when you have a uniqueleadership style, it's um, you
know, sometimes they have to goby gut, because if they go too
(46:38):
much by the book, three, threesteps down the road, their gut
is not on the same page as thebook, right, and so and I think
that's what Donald Trump did inhis first term.
He's like you know, my gut'sokay with step one, all right,
step two, step three, but you'regoing to stay.
You know page four of the bookand now my gut is in conflict
(47:01):
with the book, and that's wheresomebody like Donald Trump has a
problem, or as you know.
So I think this time he hassaid no, I'm going with my gut
and the whole way, because Iknow when I get to step four,
I'm still going to be with mygut.
Speaker 1 (47:16):
Yeah, Well, we've seen.
Speaker 2 (47:18):
I'm not sure if I answered your question or not,
but hopefully that was close.
Speaker 1 (47:23):
Yeah, yeah, well, we've seen.
I'm not sure if I answered yourquestion or not, but hopefully
that was close.
Yeah, it's all good stuff.
What are the unique thingsabout Trump's style, and
especially how he talks abouttariffs and other countries, and
he's talked about immigrationproblems in Europe and trade
issues over there.
He's got a very uniquerelationship with the European
(47:47):
continent compared to previousAmerican presidents, but he's
been incredibly critical of theNATO alliance and the inability
of NATO members to meet their 2%spending goals as members of
that alliance.
At the same time, though, he'spromised to talk down this war
in Ukraine and get that wrappedup.
How do you think he needs towalk that line between holding
NATO members accountable formeeting their commitments but
also presenting a unified frontso that there is a bulwark
(48:11):
against Russian expansion?
Because he hasn't really donethis yet, but if we go back to
his previous term, we know it'scoming.
As he picks on Europeancountries for not fulfilling
their commitments, it also opensup fissures.
That allows Putin to keepfeeling like he can drive
forward in Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (48:28):
Or do you?
Speaker 1 (48:29):
think Trump's style of just like I'm just going to
talk to Putin top to the bottomof the scale, wrap this up,
screw everyone else kind of likewhat he did in Israel Do you
think that style is going toplay out there?
Speaker 2 (48:39):
I think it could.
You know, I've said for 20years our biggest issue on the
foreign policy front is if China, north Korea and Russia
actually join forces in a realdiplomatic type of access.
If you will, and you know, wesaw North Korea give Russia
10,000 troops right before theelection.
(49:02):
It was barely reported, and sothose three are incredibly.
The issue is certainly Chinaand Russia.
I don't know that North Koreahas the ability, but China and
Russia both have the ability totry to do the same thing, so how
(49:24):
well do they work together toattain them to then be against
each other, and so it'squestionable how long an
alliance there could last.
But it was scary to me thatNorth Korea even made the
overture to give 10,000 troopsto Russia and Ukraine.
That was a scary moment for meand probably to me meant the
(49:46):
greatest ability for that war toescalate in a meaningful way,
and you know so.
You know I'm going to trust thepresident until I can't, until
you can't, right Like, and Ijust believe that he thinks that
he can get it done, and Ibelieve he can, and you know, is
(50:08):
he is this one going to be theplace where he's more measured
and takes a little longer thanyou know he certainly.
You know day one right, and youknow I joke that.
You know Biden screwed thingsup so bad that you know Donald
Trump will probably have to waituntil the second month to fix
Ukraine.
So he's fixing so many thingsdomestically that he's going to
(50:30):
we're almost there.
Speaker 1 (50:31):
We'll see what happens.
Speaker 2 (50:31):
Yeah, right, but I do think you're correct.
Donald Trump's a man.
I think the difference betweenthese two presidents, sees, is
that he has been a man of actionthrough his entire life and
some of those have been failures, and I think he's willing to
risk the failure to get thingsdone, and so I think he's going
(50:52):
to trust his gut and try to getthe things done that he's told
the American people he's goingto accomplish.
Speaker 1 (50:58):
Yeah, he's told the American people he's going to
accomplish.
Yeah, and the North Koreanexample, just to pick on that
for a moment.
It's very interesting to mebecause if North Korea is
sending 10,000 troops somewhereelse, even if it's a war zone,
they don't like their folks totravel because they don't want
them to realize how good it iselsewhere.
Right, and even traveling fromthe North Korean border to the
Ukraine front, they're going tosee a lot of stuff which leads
me to believe that once those10,000 troops cross that border,
(51:19):
they ain't ever getting crossedback.
But we'll see how that playsout.
Speaker 2 (51:24):
Well, you've heard the story, you know.
You've heard some stories inforeign press of North Koreans
trying to surrender.
Oh yeah, like, hey, take meplease, do you want?
Speaker 1 (51:36):
to go back to North Korea, or do you want to be a
Korean POW?
Speaker 2 (51:40):
You're a Korean POW.
One of them was held.
One of them got arrested by theNorth Korean army because he
wouldn't get off his bed,because he kept watching the
Internet Like, wow, this isgreat, you know, and so I think
you're.
I think you're right with that,and they probably don't want to
come back and share with peoplehow different the rest of the
world is.
Speaker 1 (52:00):
Yeah Well, we're getting close to time, but real
quick before you go.
If you had one thing thatyou're hopeful for with the
Trump administration on theforeign policy front, what are
you hopeful about?
Speaker 2 (52:12):
Gosh, I was hoping you would just ask me carte
blanche and I would be likepermanent daylight savings time.
That's my number one goal.
Speaker 1 (52:23):
Well, hey, it's good to have goals.
Speaker 2 (52:25):
Permanent daylight savings time.
Don't go to standard time.
I hate it getting dark so early.
What's the number one foreignpolicy goal?
Wow, and he's put a lot on thetable that no one expected.
Speaker 1 (52:42):
Greenland- Panama Canal.
Speaker 2 (52:45):
Canada, and you know.
So I don't know that any ofthose three make my top, but I
think you know people want toreturn to you know where we're
not under this threat of war orwar expansion in Europe, and
(53:05):
certainly what's going on in theMiddle East, and so I think
that's kind of the goal.
You know, you start lookinglonger term and you start
thinking of, you know, thethings like the Panama Canal and
China's influence over it, andplaces like Africa and China's
influence over it, and you knowwe certainly can't have an
entire continent go becontrolled by China, Another,
(53:27):
you know, and so I think thoseare some of the things that the
administration is thinking aboutlong term, but they're, you
know, I don't know that theaverage citizen is going to see
major movement.
I guess in Panama the Secretaryof state's going down there
immediately and the president ofPanama said you know, there's
(53:48):
no negotiation, there's notalking about the Panama canal,
but there is going to be talkabout China's influence and how
we're not going to allow that,and so I think that's probably
how that conversation goes.
Speaker 1 (54:04):
Cool, well, jamie, we're coming up on time.
Really appreciate you takingthe time to talk.
Speaker 2 (54:09):
Hey, it's been my pleasure.
What a great conversation.
Speaker 1 (54:11):
Yeah and hey, before we go plug your stuff again,
when can people find you?
Speaker 2 (54:14):
So, yeah, you can find me at Reasonable Arguments
on both Substack, youtube andanywhere you watch podcasts.
Me and my wife have a podcastcalled Reasonable Arguments News
and Nonsense.
My wife is completelynon-political and so we argue
about things that husbands andwives argue about with politics.
But then she brings in somenews stories.
(54:36):
I like to say and I'm showingmy age here a little bit kind of
Paul Harvey-ish.
I like to say and I'm showingmy age here a little- bit kind
of Paul Harvey-ish Don't evenknow who that is.
Speaker 1 (54:45):
No reference Paul.
Speaker 2 (54:47):
Harvey at one time was the highest paid entertainer
in America.
He was a radio host and so, yes, so if you're a podcaster, you
should know Paul Harvey, becauseyou may remember Paul Harvey's
when he would tell one of hisstories and he would end with
and now you know the rest of thestory Nothing, no idea.
(55:09):
Go study Paul Harvey and let meknow Like he was.
That sounds vaguely familiar,but no, I can't say I'm really
showing my age, but, but it's a.
I'm really showing my age, but,but it's a.
So she brings stories that youdon't see in the mainstream,
that are more entertainingrather than just political, is,
I guess, the point.
(55:30):
So and so maybe we're resurgingPaul Harvey, we'll quit
mentioning him and we'll juststart mentioning Jennifer Bash,
my wife, and she'll become the,you know, the new voice of.
I don't want to.
She's the one who picked theword nonsense.
I always feel bad saying thenonsense stories, but you know.
But she's so that.
(55:50):
And then I've written a bookcalled Great American American
Speeches that Changed History.
You can find that on Amazon.
So that's a non-political book.
It's just a collection ofspeeches, with me writing a
short introduction to each andwhat they meant to me and kind
of why they were important forthat moment in time.
Speaker 1 (56:09):
Awesome, cool.
Well, links to your stuff willbe in the show notes for folks
to look up and appreciate yourtime.
Sir, thanks for speaking withus, thank you, thank you
everyone for listening in todayIf you liked.
Thank you everyone forlistening in today.
If you like what you heard,please follow the podcast and
share with your friends, andeven consider going to the
support the show link in theepisode description.
(56:30):
Thank you and I'll see you allnext time.
Good morning everyone and welcome to the At the Water
Trench podcast, where we lookfor insights beyond the
headlines to take yourpractitioner's view on national
security and geopolitics.
It's the 27th of February 2025.
Let's dive in Now.
If you're a foreign policy wonk, ever since Trump has been
elected, oh my God, there's beena ton of stuff to keep up with
(00:23):
and try to analyze.
This guy is not slowing downfor anybody.
It's been entertaining,concerning fun, interesting
depending on where you sit, butthere's been a lot to go through
.
Now we're going to spend somemore time unpacking this over
the next couple of months.
But to start off, had a greatchance to talk to Jamie Miller.
(00:44):
Jamie Miller is the formerdirector of the Florida
Republican Party, has workedwith a bunch of different
Republican campaigns over theyears, mostly in Florida state
politics, and I wanted to sitdown and talk with him and try
to get a sense of what does theaverage American, particularly
the average Trump voter, wantDonald Trump to do from a
(01:05):
foreign policy perspective?
What might we anticipate himdoing in the future?
How should we interpret some ofthese recent activities that
he's been up to and understandwhat role foreign policy and
national security really playsin the voting decisions of the
average American.
And with that let's get toJamie.
Okay, well, good morning Jamie.
Welcome to the podcast.
How are you doing this morning,sir?
Speaker 2 (01:25):
I'm doing better than I deserve.
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Aren't we all?
We're still above the ground.
Yeah Well, super excited tohave this chance to talk about
Trump and foreign policy, andit's rare that a presidency is
defined by foreign policy.
I won't say that this one'sgoing to be, but if you're a
foreign policy geek boy, isthere a lot of material to work
with right off the bat.
But before we start digginginto some of that, can you
introduce yourself and yourbackground in politics with the
(01:50):
Republican Party in Florida?
Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
I've had about a 30 year career in political
campaigns, political consulting,mostly in Florida.
I've also done races throughoutmostly the Southeast and West
Virginia.
A lot of work in North Carolina.
I'm a former executive directorof the Republican Party of
(02:13):
Florida and a senior advisor toNewt Gingrich's presidential
campaign in Florida in 2012.
So those are kind of like thehigh points.
I've worked a little bit ineconomic development and I do
some local government relationshere in Sarasota, Florida, for
mostly environmental groups, tobe honest with you.
So it's kind of an interestingbalance of my career.
(02:38):
So I write a blog calledReasonable Arguments on Substack
and me and my wife have apodcast of that same name.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Awesome.
Well, people should definitelygo check it out after this, but
first they should listen to theepisode.
Absolutely, absolutely so withyour background in the
Republican Party, trump has avery unique foreign policy style
.
So, right off the bat questionfor you what do you think
Trump's main foreign policyobjectives are, and do you think
(03:06):
that his different approach toforeign policy is it more style
or is it more substance?
Where is he actually breakingwith Republican orthodoxy as he
enters the second term?
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Yeah, that's a tough one.
I guess maybe it depends on theday.
I mean, of course, his you knowhis philosophy is America first
Right.
Of course his you know hisphilosophy is America first
right, and I think that'sprobably his center or guiding
principle and I think that'swhere he tries to make all of
his decisions are based on, youknow what's going to be best for
(03:37):
America today and for tomorrow.
And you know, long after he isgone, I do think that he has a
long-term approach, not just ayou know, long after he is gone,
I do think that he has a longterm approach, not just you know
.
It seems like a lot of hisdecisions people are like, oh,
he makes them on the fly and I,I just I don't disagree that it
appears that way, but I disagreethat it is that way what these
(04:03):
decisions will have for futuregenerations, as you know, not
just future years.
It is kind of interesting.
You said you know, throughoutmost of our history, until about
the 1950s, most presidents wereelected on foreign policy.
It wasn't domestic policy.
It wasn't until really the 60sthat presidents you know, the
(04:28):
tipping point of presidentsbeing elected on domestic policy
Interesting 1960s, I should say.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Good to know when it comes to Trump and the
Republican Party.
How has he reformed how theRepublican Party approaches
foreign policy?
Because if you look over thepast, I'd start calling it the
Nixon era on Ford.
But really by the time you getthrough Reagan into Clinton,
there really was this bipartisanorthodoxy in Washington, this
new liberal consensus about howwe approach foreign policy in
(04:59):
the global world order, andreally the only thing that
changed between parties was thetalking points used to justify
it.
But the policies were, by andlarge, had the same thrust about
America's world and the worldand this multinational
institution driven world order.
Trump is really taking a hammerto some of those assumptions.
Where do you think he's tryingto change America's how America
(05:27):
interacts with the rest of theworld?
Because it appears that it'sgoing from this.
We're part of this web ofinstitutions too.
We have our own individualrelationships with every single
country out there.
Screw the system.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Well, I don't know that he's saying screw the
system completely.
I think he's saying the systemshould reflect our leadership.
You know we are the leader ofthe free world.
The president is.
You know we elect a presidentwho is the leader of the free
world.
And you know, when we have thesesituations where you have other
(06:05):
countries that are trying todominate the discussion and
exert their will on us and I'mnot saying we should exert our
will on them I think things havegotten to a point where too
many people are like the Parisknow, like the Paris Climate
Accord.
You know it's never beenratified by the US Senate.
(06:27):
You know Obama signed us intoit, which is not really legal,
not constitutional for sure.
You know Trump took us out.
Biden put us back in.
Trump took us back out.
You know.
But you look at those sorts ofthings where it's really kind of
.
But you look at those sorts ofthings where it's really kind of
, you know, the rest of theworld getting a pound of flesh
(06:48):
out of America.
You know, and those types ofthings are no longer going to be
tolerated, at least not underthis president.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
What lessons do you think Trump has learned from his
first term in office, goinginto round two, having a
four-year break to really revampProject 2025 out there in the
wings and get ready to hit theground running?
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Yeah, I think the biggest thing especially if
you're not a Trump supporter, ifyou're like, okay, this four
years is going to be hell onwheels because it's Donald Trump
I think the difference thatthose folks can look at and say
there's a difference and if youare a Trump supporter, I think
this is a good thing as well isthat.
I simplify it to saying that in2016, through the election of
(07:34):
2020, donald Trump practiced thepolitics of subtraction and now
he's practicing the politics ofaddition.
You know, you look at who he'sadding to the cabinet Marco
Rubio, rfk, tulsi Gabbard, elonMusk over at Doge, even though
that's not a cabinet thing, youknow.
Those are all folks who, in2017, wouldn't have been
(07:56):
considered for anything.
You know it would have.
You know, and I think those fourin particular are probably the
high profile names where Trumphas said you know what, to
really have a governing majorityand to move some of these
things forward, I need to addmore people to the team, and
(08:16):
maybe some of these voices thatwere, you know, robert F Kennedy
ran for president.
Ramaswamy ran for president,you know, and Marco Rubio ran
against him in 2016.
President that Ramoswamy ranfor president, you know, and
Marco Rubio ran against him in2016.
Those in 2017, those were folkswho would have been sliced and
you know, right out of the, youknow, don't ever darken the door
(08:37):
of the Oval Office.
And now he's looking at thosefolks from cabinet positions.
So I think that's the one thingthat people can say that is the
main difference between DonaldTrump 2017 and Donald Trump 2025
.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
Do you think DeSantis would ever get that type of
treatment?
Do you think he'll ever beinvited back into the fold?
Speaker 2 (08:53):
You know, ron DeSantis is in this precarious
position and it's partly due towhen Florida has its elections
and we have term limits on ourgovernor.
So Ron DeSantis is term limitedin 2026, which means he doesn't
have a job for two years beforethe presidential election.
He doesn't have a bully pulpit,so he's trying to make as much
(09:17):
hay as he can.
Right now there's a bigcontroversy in Florida.
I don't know if many of yourlisteners and viewers are
following it, but it's we got afew Florida residents on the
other side of the line.
So it is a you know it boilsdown to Ron DeSantis trying to
(09:40):
basically get in front of thepresident on the illegal
immigration issue, and now thepresident hasn't weighed in one
way or the other.
But there's certainly a battlethat's been brewing between
DeSantis and the legislature forthe last six years and it seems
to be coming to a head.
Right before this there was aspecial session this week and
(10:00):
legislative session starts inMarch.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
What do you think Trump's trying to do with his
cabinet picks?
Because one of the things thatcabinet picks do is they take
control of what bureaucracythey're handed and they inform
the president on what's relevantand enforce his policy
objectives.
But you got to walk a fine linethere, because you can pick
bureaucratic insiders who areincredibly good at their job but
can wait you out until you'rejust gone in four years, or you
(10:25):
can bring in complete outsiderswho have no knowledge of how to
run these institutions, and itseems like he's leaned hard
towards bringing in completeoutsiders who don't have
knowledge of the institutionsthat they're trying to lead.
And there seems to be just fromthe outside looking in, a
threat there that his cabinetpicks are going to be completely
ineffective in actuallywielding the power of the
(10:45):
institutions they're in chargeof.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
I completely disagree with that.
It's like hiring the PayPal CEOto come in and be the CEO of
Subway, right?
Oh, you have no knowledge ofthe institution, but I know how
to run a company and so you knowmany of those skills are
applicable.
So I'm not somebody who buysinto that.
(11:09):
Pete Hegseth can't be, you know, or Patel or Tulsi Gabbard or
RFK are incapable of being theheads of these institutions
simply because they don't have acareer within them.
You know, and this president haslooked at the career within
them.
You know, and this presidenthas looked at the career within
the system as more of a negative, because the system, you know
we have a lot of things going on.
(11:30):
We're in this incredible age ofcryptocurrency, ai you know
it's.
We haven't had this type ofgrowth, you know, from a
technical standpoint, since thelate 90s, and you know the
internet kind of becomingmainstream with a personal
computer, so it is an incredibletime to be alive.
(11:52):
But government tends to moveslower on these things.
And, of course, institutionalbureaucrats people who are
successful within anyinstitution like to keep the
status quo because that's howthey gain their success.
Like to keep the status quobecause that's how they gain
their success, and so you haveto bring in a disruptor to say,
(12:12):
hey, we're going to make surethis institution is successful
in a different way.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
So a lot of great points there and I agree with
you broadly on most of them inprinciple.
Well so, like someone likeTulsi Gabbard, coming in
ideologically, has had a veryinteresting journey, was a
Democrat, became a Republican,really marched with Peter Rowan
Denver very much a disruptor.
But it's also incredibly wellversed in the issues that
(12:37):
involve the office that Trump'strying to nominate her for.
I'm sure she'll probably get itwe're not quite there yet, but
seems likely at this point.
I'm sure she'll probably get itwe're not quite there yet, but
seems likely at this point.
But particularly someone likePete Hegseth.
He not only does not have atraditional career in the
military, which is totally fine,but he also doesn't have any
(13:11):
experience running largebureaucratic organizations like
CEO of a Fortune 100 company orany of these other
non-traditional roles that mayhave actually given them the
experience needed to be in thatrole.
And we've gone from, you know,general Mattis to Pete Hegseth.
There could not be a biggerdichotomy in who you're trying
to have to run that institutionand it really makes me wonder
what is Trump trying to get outof a secretary of defense.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
I think there's no question.
He wants a disruptor, he wantssomebody who can articulate that
disruption to the Americanpeople and you know he's
certainly going to have thepeople surrounding him, who who
can get the job done.
So if you, if you go with theCEO analogy, you know it's the
CEO and running the C-suite thatreally makes a CEO powerful,
(13:46):
and a little bit of that isbeing able to manage up and
manage down right.
So you have people who can, youknow, manage a C-suite but also
work with a board, and so youknow, I don't think this, these
situations are much differentthan that.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
One of the very interesting things with the
Trump cabinet is the creation ofDoge, which love the name, love
the troll there.
It's awesome, great marketing,all about it.
Here for it.
Elon's coming on, awesome,brilliant guy, richest man on
earth, wonderful, great whenbillionaires get together to do
things.
I'm curious, though, how muchimpact can Doge really have on
(14:26):
the government, because it is anoutside entity.
Elon hasn't divested any of hisinterests and although, on
principle, the idea of someonecoming in and really just taking
a hammer to the government andslashing the budget and all that
stuff sounds great and all forit, is Elon, with no formal
authority, really justwhispering in Trump's ear to get
him to sign executive orders,while also having a massive
(14:48):
amount of defense contracts?
That is driving his privateinterests?
Is he really in a position,talents aside, to get any of
this stuff done?
Speaker 2 (14:56):
I think so the short answer is I think he can.
I think the point that you'remaking, the point I've made to
people in the past, is that it'skind of funny because he's
saying I want to get rid ofthings like member projects, but
I have to go to members ofCongress to get finance for Doge
(15:18):
right, so even though it has anend date.
So it's kind of thisinteresting dance that we're
looking at.
But the one thing that ElonMusk in particular has is the
bullet bully pulpit Right, andso he can.
When he shines a light onsomething, it's brighter than
most.
And so when he says oh there's,we've saved four hundred twenty
(15:40):
million, 420 million.
I think he tweeted today thatit's up to a billion dollars per
(16:00):
year that we're saving alreadyin you know that both Elon and
Bidik brought to the forefrontof the discussion of not only
are these things wrong from apolicy standpoint, they're
costing us a lot of money, andso you know so that I think in
that regard, elon Musk can bevery successful Now, whether
(16:21):
they're successful in actuallysetting up the agency and
getting funding for the agencyand things like that.
Agencies are hard to puttogether.
We look at the Department ofEducation.
They're hard to kill and theyshould be hard to put together
and they should be hard to kill.
That's the way our system isbuilt right, but I think that
(16:45):
Elon is probably uniquelypositioned to have a positive
impact.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
What do you think the residents of a state like
Florida would want out of theirpresident for national security
and geopolitics?
Because people who started offthe professional career the way
I did in the military and whofollow this stuff for a living,
we have this particular view ofwhat national security and
geopolitics is.
It's a global war on terror,it's great power competition,
(17:13):
it's some form of industrialpolicy, but it seems like for a
lot of Americans today, theissues that they care about are
much closer to home.
It's the border, it's illegalimmigration, and there's even
talk about how do you use themilitary to take care of some of
those issues domestically.
So, for the average Floridaresident or the average
Republican voter who voted forDonald Trump, what do you think
(17:35):
their national securitypriorities are?
If you just had to ask them,how would they describe?
Speaker 2 (17:40):
it.
Yeah, there's no question.
It's safety right and it so,and it's safety in your driveway
first, and more and more peoplehave felt less and less safe in
their own driveways, and youknow, or in their own
communities, and so when thatbecomes a problem and it's a
problem everywhere, not Floridaeverywhere we are having this
(18:00):
illegal immigration influx.
The Biden administration hasdone, if you're pro-illegal
immigration they did a great jobof infiltrating our society in
all corners of the country.
You start looking at the amountof people who came across the
border illegally in the lastfour years and it would probably
(18:22):
, if you put them all in oneplace, probably be the fifth
largest state in the country.
I mean, wrap your mind aroundthat.
You know so you know.
They didn't put them all in oneplace.
They sent them to Sarasota andthey sent them to little places
like Arcadia or you knowAmarillo, and you know so you're
.
But what they did was they sentthem everywhere.
(18:46):
So everyone is having thisissue of they feel less safe in
their own community, and that'sone reason why Donald Trump was
successful and why he has.
I think in the past, like evenfive years ago, people would
have said, oh, you're going touse the military at the southern
border and people would haverejected that, I think Today, I
(19:07):
think people said things havegotten so bad.
If we need to use the military,do it, Because at some point
this has to stop.
We have to protect thesovereignty of our country.
We have to protect votingrights.
We have to protect, you know,us citizens and Democrats.
(19:27):
You know 12 of the last, I'dsay 13 of the last, if you
include the COVID year, 13 ofthe last 16 years are you know?
I think we failed to do that.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
So do you think people view using the military
at the border different thanusing the military in US cities?
Because one of the thingsthat's come up as Trump's tried
to push ICE to grab up morefolks and ship them back to
their home countries, is thatICE just doesn't have the
manpower to actually find peopleand federate them out of the
(19:57):
country in a meaningful way.
If you actually look at howmany bodies a day they can move
and how many people have comehere already, it becomes a
logistical problem.
Yeah, yeah, so there really isonly one institution in the U S
government with the capacity todo that.
It would be the U S military.
But now you're talking aboutmobilizing federal troops to do
domestic police work, which is ahuge red line for a lot of
(20:19):
folks, especially in themilitary itself.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Yeah, I don't think they're going to use the
military for policing.
They may use the military forlogistics and I think there
probably is a fine line andpeople may say that's a slippery
slope, but I think that'sprobably the line in the sand
that's going to be drawn.
Is that it's?
You know?
(20:43):
I don't think people haveproblems with?
Ok, there's a military plane atSarasota Airport, the sheriff's
department has gone around andsome people up.
Right now it's easy to roundthem up Right, Because most of
these folks are in jail andBiden just refused to deport
them and we know that they'reillegals.
We know that they're in jailand Biden just refused to deport
them and we know that they'reillegals.
(21:03):
We know that they're in jail,and so, while we've had some
video of people getting theirdoor knocked on and being
arrested and people in the Housebeing arrested, I think it's a
huge majority of these.
You know, the people who are onthe tip of the spear right now
being deported are people whoare already in jail.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
So one of the interesting things that came out
of our recent diplomaticengagement we'll call it with
Colombia, where we set planesdown there with immigrants that
we were returning and theyturned around because they're
military aircraft.
We worked all that out threatsof terrorists, back and forth,
everything else but one of theinteresting things there is that
(21:40):
China is immediately moving inthen and saying, hey, if you're
having an issue with America asa partner, we'll be your best
friend.
Is there a risk that a hardlineimmigration policy here at home
and the techniques that we useto export immigrants back to
their home countries countriescould actually blow back on
(22:00):
forcing nations south of uscloser to China?
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Well, we've built this system where we kind of
have this practical applicationproblem and while we're all
disgusted by the number ofillegal immigrants, you know
there are a lot and historically, you know, florida agriculture
has been run with migrantworkers, probably legal and
illegal, for decades.
(22:28):
California for decades.
South Florida last night speak,and he was talking about how,
you know, the strawberry fieldsin California, just there's
nobody to pick strawberriesbecause people are afraid to
show up, because they're afraidof being deported.
And so now you're, you know,and so all of those things hurt,
(22:52):
you know, then hit you in thepocketbook, you know.
I think your question is alittle bit more on kind of the
global scale of, you know, arewe giving China the opportunity
to infiltrate places likeColombia, south America, africa?
And they're doing those thingsalready.
China's doing those thingsalready.
You know they're, and so, youknow, does this accelerate that?
(23:14):
Does it accelerate a possibleconfrontation with China sooner
rather than later?
Um, I guess the proof is in thepudding.
You know, I would, I would, uh,rather rely on, on real foreign
relations, um, experts on that.
I don't consider myself aforeign relations expert but, um
(23:36):
, you know, like I said to youearlier, I was like, uh, my
knowledge is an inch deep in amile wide, so I like to think I
can talk about them, but youknow these are complex issues
and you know none of theseactions are, uh, happen in a
vacuum.
And so, and so they all, youknow, I don't want to say they
(23:57):
have an opposite and equalreaction, but they, there are
other.
Um, I always say they have anopposite and equal reaction, but
there are other.
I always say there'sconventional wisdom, and then
there's.
You know you can flip the coinover and oftentimes
unconventional wisdom is whatends up playing out, and so you
know we need to keep an eye onit.
I don't know that we're going todeport, you know, five million
(24:19):
people this year.
I think we're going to get ridof these criminals for sure At
some point.
I think Americans say you know,hey, I didn't realize.
The guy who owns the restaurantdown the street was illegal and
now the restaurant's closed,and you know that's.
You know my friend, you know hecame around and talked to me
every time I came and ate.
You know all those things.
(24:39):
So I don't know that people, orthe restaurant closes because
there's no kitchen workers Right, or there's, you know, and you
don't realize that there's thatmany illegals who are out here
working and providing for theirfamilies and doing things like
this.
You know, the interesting thingabout the Columbia issue was,
(25:02):
you know, really more, the visasand the travel and passports
that kind of came along withthat.
You know, in Florida we have, Ithink there's 400,000
Colombians who live in theUnited States.
About 150,000, or more than athird, are in South Florida and
so there was, you know, at leasta mini uproar in South Florida
(25:23):
while this was going onimmediately, because it wasn't
really the tariffs it was.
You know, I'm here legally andI've just got my visa revoked.
Speaker 1 (25:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
And so what does that mean?
And how can I, how can I not bepart of this problem?
How can I remove myself fromthis international political
issue?
I just want to work.
I just want to raise my familyhere.
I just want to.
These are folks who are herelegally, under visas.
I thought it was a good line inthe sand.
(25:59):
I thought it was a good line inthe sand.
I thought it was a good saying,hey, we're doing this.
Other countries need to be onboard.
But when you start looking atthe cascading effect of how it
impacts real communities in ourcountry, or especially someplace
like South Florida, it wouldhave had a real impact.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Yeah, someplace like South Florida it would have had
a real impact.
Yeah, now, I grew up inConnecticut and wasn't in a rich
part of the state, wasn't in apoor part of the state either,
but still Connecticut, and Iworked construction and
landscaping while I was incollege to help pay the bills
and all that, and I was otherthan the people who own the work
crew and, like the generalmanager of the construction
company, I was the only personthere with a driver's license.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
I can imagine I grew up in rural Florida.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
Some of the best, most hardworking people you ever
met, like good friends, likeawesome folks.
But yeah, you imagine what theimpact it has for them and their
families and they're trying toget their kids in school and
stay enrolled.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
And so there are some practical application issues
that we're going to faceimmediately, but at the same
time, it things went so far, youknow, and the pendulum is going
to swing back.
So where does?
Where can we stop the pendulumwithout it?
You know, while making thepoint, removing people who are
dangerous from our country,while also, then you know,
(27:20):
allowing people to, you knowwhether it's having some of
these illegals apply and get youknow at least temporary visas
to work or whatever, while wesort it out, like there has to
be some level of you know, youremove 20 million people from a
population of 300.
There's some unintendedconsequences that will occur.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
Yeah, and one would think I'm not sure if this would
ever happen, but one wouldthink that Trump, being a
businessman in the cabinet,surrounded by businessmen, would
do a cost-benefit analysis atsome point.
And he's a master marketer.
He could sell almost anythinghe wants, like, hey, we got all
the criminals out and now youknow, these are people are great
, they're hard working, we'regoing to bring them into the
fold and he could sell that intwo years if he wanted to.
(28:06):
We'll see if he does.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
Yeah, I think one of the issues is that you have
people who are here and are notAmerican citizens and we, as
American citizens basicallybecause we don't put our
frontline police through hey,you need to figure out if this
person's a citizen or not acitizen, because you have
(28:29):
different rights, you know.
But you know constitutionalrights are specific to US
citizens and we kind of havegotten to a point where we apply
(28:58):
these rights to everyone,including the right to the
American government.
You have to question are thesefolks we want to have in the
United States?
They're not citizens, you know.
They're here as guests.
We should treat them as guests,but they should act as guests,
(29:21):
but they should act as guests.
And we've started to say no,you have the same rights as
citizens.
And I think that's kind of aline in the sand that you may
see.
Next, if you know, especially ifpeople are protesting, you know
the government and you know,because we know that some of
these students are, you know,paid organizers, and so you know
(29:44):
you can go on Craigslist andsee that they're hiring people
to participate in some of theseprotests not all of them, but
some of them and so, if you know, where's that money coming from
?
Is that?
Is it coming from communistChina?
Is it coming from?
Where's it coming from?
Is it coming from a domesticsource?
Is it coming from a foreignsource?
And so you have to kind ofquestion, you know, are we
(30:05):
allowing ourselves to oursovereignty to be diluted by
international voices on our ownsoil?
Speaker 1 (30:15):
You mentioned before that sometimes unconventional
outcomes occur as a result ofpolicy decisions, and Trump with
his very upfrontthrowing-down-the-gauntlet
approach to Colombia.
Definitely we'll see how thatplays out.
But another place where he'spulled that card is with the war
in the Gaza Strip.
(30:35):
I mean, he showed upimmediately and sent who was it?
Steve Witkoff, his Middle Eastenvoy, over there and shut the
thing down in a couple of daysand basically got the same deal
that Biden could have had backin July.
Just didn't want to yank thatchain on Israel.
Where do you think that mightplay out?
(30:56):
Because Trump, who's alwaysoutwardly a as a real supporter,
gives them everything they want, along with every other
American administrationessentially for the past,
however, many years just showedup and ended their party and
completely stuck a middle fingeroff to what's essentially the
largest lobbying group and mostpowerful lobbying organization
(31:17):
in America domestically.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
Well, the one thing that I think is different
between 2016 and 2017, 2025 isTrump tried to be a politician
and now he's being a CEO, andyou know.
So he waded into this area ofoh, this is how things were done
.
I'm going to try to keep thelegacy of all these political
(31:43):
things that need to happen andget some people from BC to help
guide me through this, and Ithink the four years that he had
in between really kind of Ithink he kind of saw that as an
error, and so I think right now,he's leaning into.
I'm hiring CEOs, I'm going tobe a CEO, and CEOs take action.
(32:07):
They don't sit around and study.
They don't have a two-weekstudy between eight different
agencies to determine whatshould we do with the two plane
loads of people that Columbiaturned around.
No, I'm going to take actionright now, and I think that's
what you're going to see out ofthis president for his entire
four years.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
Well, just as an aside, maybe if he did take two
weeks to think about things, hewouldn't have had so many
bankruptcies, but that's aseparate issue.
Speaker 2 (32:37):
Listen, I've never claimed bankruptcy, but maybe
I'm thinking it's a better youknow financial strategy because
it seems to work out for him.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
I can't argue with the results.
Speaker 2 (32:46):
I can't argue it's just an accurate observation,
not arguing with the results.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
I'm just like he's done better than I have.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
Yeah, yeah, like, don't throw me in that briar
patch right.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
Yeah, Now, one thing that would be really if I could
ask one thing of the Trumpadministration and what Doge is
doing.
If there's one thing that theycould fix which I think would be
amazing for our nationalsecurity and amazing for our
budget, is reforming theDepartment of Defense
procurement process, Because theway we purchase munitions and
(33:20):
purchase weapons and develop allthat stuff it's incredibly
expensive, it takes forever,it's non-responsive to the needs
of the warfighter, but it's allgoverned by this massive
federal acquisition regulationsdocument that unless you are a
full-time contracting specialistlike the one number.
One thing you need to do to sellthe federal government is not
(33:41):
develop a product that thewarfighter wants or anything
like that, or solve an issue forthe warfighter.
It's.
You need the right consultantsand the right accountants and
the right contract managers tomake sure you check all the
blocks so that your stuff isacceptable, because the people
buying it have no relation tothe people using it.
That's a good idea buying ithave no relation to the people
(34:04):
using it.
So that's a good.
In a world dominated by likeLockheed Martin and Raytheon and
all those large defensecontractors and all the pork
barrel spending that they getout of Congress, do you think
they got a shot at fixing thatCause boy?
Could we use some help there?
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Do they have a shot?
You know you're rating intolike.
Certainly that's not.
My expertise is governmentprocurement.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
And I haven't even heard them talk about it, though
that's a weird thing, like I'mnot even sure there's a where
that that problem exists outthere.
Speaker 2 (34:30):
Well, let's try to use this podcast to make them
aware, because I, you know, likeI, there's so many ways that
the government wastes our moneyRight, and it's.
The problem has become thatit's many of those ways are seen
as oh, this is the way it hasto be done.
And so, if it, if we can nowturn some of that, and I think
(34:53):
the only chance we have ofchanging, I think the only
chance we have of changing thatis to bring in non-traditional
disruptors.
And you know so I've alwayssaid that the people who voted
for Donald Trump voted for him.
And the difference betweenpeople who voted for him in 2025
, who did not vote for him in2024, who did not vote for him
(35:16):
in 2020 is the people who didnot vote for him in 2020 did not
appreciate the fires that Trumpset.
They came back and voted forhim in 2024 because he leads us
through fire, despite the fireshe sets.
And so I think the electoratehad a mindset change, because
Biden was so horrible that theysaid, okay, he's going to set
(35:39):
some fires, but he's going tolead us through.
And I think part of I thinkyou're seeing that play out with
all of these things Like, okay,the Columbia thing, all right.
Well, that could have been afire set, right.
But at the same time, you'relike I have confidence that he's
going to lead us through.
And I think the same thing withthese cabinet picks, you know,
(35:59):
are one of the one of thesecabinet picks going to be a fire
?
Probably Right, but is isDonald Trump going to lead us
through it?
Yes, he will, and I thinkthat's the confidence that he
has with the American peopleright now.
Speaker 1 (36:15):
So one of the areas where he's really leaned into in
his first couple weeks inoffice and it's no surprise is
cutting back on DEI initiatives.
And if you're going to look fora place in government where
there's a bunch of money beingspent with very little to show
for it, I'm not sure it's at thetop of the list.
But I'm not going to say it'snot on the list, because it
(36:39):
means a lot of different thingsto a lot of different people in
a lot of different places andit's not clear that, no matter
how much money we spend, we'reactually achieving the results
that most DEI initiativesactually purport to achieve.
So just taking the initiativesat their own word, it's not
clear that they're actuallyworking as intended.
So why even fund them?
To be a whitewashing of thecontribution of folks with very
(37:07):
different gender ideologies andsexual orientations have made to
our national security in thissmaller, more professional
military that we have right now?
I firmly believe that no onehas a right to serve.
Serving is a privilege.
Lethalities are number oneNorth Star, so everything that
gets sacrificed on that altar,including personal preferences
and lifestyle and whatever else,it was deemed to be
incompatible with a lethal force.
(37:27):
But I know right now, with theexecutive orders that have been
signed just in the past severalweeks, that there are trans
service members who are servinghonorably in the military in
non-deployable roles.
So that issue is off the lineand they're wondering what does
their future in the armedservices look like if they get
(37:48):
kanked at 14 years?
Do they get a pension?
They've done nothing buthonorable service so far.
And also, since the militaryit's a closed labor market.
You can't just kick a major outand hire a major in to replace
them.
You've got to promote thecaptain which then draws up and
then draws up.
That's a whole other discussionabout the closed labor system
of the US military, which weneed to address at some point.
That's an aside.
But as it stands right now,there are trans service members
(38:12):
serving in key billetsthroughout the Department of
Defense and they're wonderingwhat's about to happen to them.
Do you think Trump's approachwith these executive orders that
he's signing right now, do youthink they're a net benefit?
Do you think they're a net loss?
Speaker 2 (38:28):
I'm not, you know.
Speaker 1 (38:29):
Because there are no solutions, only trade-offs.
But this seems to be veryheavy-handed to folks who are
serving in uniform right now.
Speaker 2 (38:36):
Yeah, I think that what Donald Trump is going to
look at or Pete Hegseth, I think, will look at in these
situations are people.
Were people promoted simplybecause of their sexual
orientation, color, trans,whatever?
Do those folks then get fired?
(38:58):
I don't know the answer to that, but the problem with the DEI
and I think we all agree that wedon't you know, our system's
based on conducting the will ofthe majority, while protecting
the rights of the minority right.
And so we haven't always done agreat job of protecting the
rights of the minority.
In this case I mean just thefewer voters, not necessarily a
(39:22):
racial or whatever minority, butwe need to apply it to those
things as well.
So the problem with DEI is thatit flips the script right, like
DEI is in place to promote theminority over the majority.
So while you have DEI and Idon't know what the percentage
(39:45):
of people are quote DEI whetherit's 20% or 50%, the percentage
doesn't matter.
But let's say it's 30%, itapplies to 30% of the people in
these positions, but it also itbecomes a situation where it
applies to 100% of the jobs andpromotions, and so you end up
(40:07):
denying 70% of the majority theopportunity for jobs and
promotions because hiringmanagers and promoting managers,
whether it's in the military orsomewhere else, are afraid of
being sued because they haven'tapplied this DEI barometer to
the hiring process.
(40:27):
So what ends up?
Hiring is only DEI.
People get hired and promoted,and so I think that's a
situation where somebody who'strans in the military could be
impacted, and I don't know howmany people that is, or what
promotions they received, or ifthey received promotions because
they were trans.
But if I were in there, I wouldbe trying to look at my
(40:49):
promotions and try to justifyhow I deserve them, regardless
of my sexual orientation orwhatever.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
Yeah, well, it's curious because already just
talking about DEI and talkingabout immigration and Trump's
approach to foreign policy,we've already reached a level of
nuance that we haven't seen thepresident or his cabinet picks
or close advisors get into, andit's a messy conversation, no
matter where you start, nomatter where you end.
Speaker 2 (41:20):
But it's very it's.
They're very complex issues.
I mean, we, you know, and we'vewe kind of campaign.
I'm a political consultant, soyou kind of campaign on the
headline you can put on a mailpiece or bumper strip or you
know, so it's, and so the publicstarts responding to that
bumper strip and they're like,oh, you have to govern to the
bumper strip and you know, know,like and and it's too complex,
(41:48):
it's more complex than that whenyou actually are trying to
govern.
Speaker 1 (41:49):
Yeah, so let me ask you, as the consultant, you have
a chance to sit down with trumpor his key cabinets picks or
someone up there, um, would youadvise?
You know?
Hey, slower approach, morenuance.
It appears they've alreadylearned some lesson.
Speaker 2 (42:02):
Absolutely not.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
Absolutely not, come on.
Come on, give me something here.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
Okay, scott, so here's the practical.
Speaker 1 (42:11):
Yeah, tell me why.
Speaker 2 (42:12):
Here's the practical application issue, like because
I don't disagree with you, likeI'm not disagreeing with you,
it's just that politics moves sofast, and you you know.
But because everybody, oh, he'selected for four years but the
mandate, whatever mandate he has, is probably 18 months at best,
(42:35):
because the next congressionalcampaigns are starting, the next
congressional campaigns arestarting, and so as those folks
start campaigning and you starthaving public discussions on
these issues, on these decisionsthat are being made today, they
now become part of thecountry's conversation, starting
(42:57):
in January.
So, really, what he wants toget done, he needs to go ahead
and get done Like he needs to.
You have to move because themandate can stop, you know, at
any moment of time, or you canhave a international incident
where the country says, okay,now we're, we're not focused on
this stuff anymore and we'regoing to, you know, focus on
(43:18):
this.
I mean that happened to GeorgeW Bush in 2001.
And we're going to focus onthis.
I mean that happened to GeorgeW Bush in 2001.
You know.
So, you know he had a mandate.
He didn't have.
People would argue he didn'thave a mandate, but you know,
but he was kind of moving alongfor eight months and then
September 11th, right?
So?
(43:45):
So you don't know.
You don't know what the futureholds, and so you have to make
as you have to make, you have to, um, make as many positive
changes you can as quickly aspossible.
So that's the reason why Iwould say just keep, keep as
long as he's willing to lead usthrough fire.
I don't mind the fires he sets.
Speaker 1 (43:56):
Okay, and of course we're not talking about the
fires in California.
We are not.
Speaker 2 (44:03):
We're talking about political fires.
Political fires, yeah, okay,boy, I really threw you for a
loop on that one.
Speaker 1 (44:18):
No, I just got like 5,000 follow-ups and I'm not
sure where to start first.
Okay, when it comes to tradethese tariffs, it's one of the
hallmarks of his foreign policystyle and we'll see which ones
actually get put into place.
And you know, we certainlysurvived the ones that we had
with China last go around, Notwithout pain, but we got through
(44:38):
it.
And again, to have to caveat,there's no solutions, only
trade-offs.
But do you think that his styleof imposing tariffs to coerce
other countries to fall in linewith his policy directives, do
you think that's going to workfor him?
Do you think that's somethingthat the American people are
going to support throughout allfour years of his presidency?
(45:00):
Or do you think this is allbark no bite, Because we haven't
actually seen him put a bunchof stuff in place yet?
Speaker 2 (45:09):
I would not suggest that.
He's all bark, no bite.
I think the Columbia thing wasreal.
I don't know that when he madethis broad thing, I don't know
that he realized the completeimpact of it.
And at some point you startasking 150,000 South Floridians,
(45:30):
who are his neighbors, to leavebecause their visas got revoked
.
That has an impact, right, butI don't think there's any
questions.
He's willing to impose thesetariffs and, you know, the
question becomes how much doesAmerica tolerate before they
(45:52):
start seeing a positive impact?
Are we going to enter kind ofthis cold trade war, you know,
with people over the threat oftariffs?
And my guess is that we don't.
You know, donald Trump is such aunique leader and I've worked
(46:16):
with a couple throughout mycareer who I would say, normally
I would suggest this, but foryou it could be different,
because they have there's,they're, they are unique leaders
and so when you have a uniqueleadership style, it's um, you
know, sometimes they have to goby gut, because if they go too
(46:38):
much by the book, three, threesteps down the road, their gut
is not on the same page as thebook, right, and so and I think
that's what Donald Trump did inhis first term.
He's like you know, my gut'sokay with step one, all right,
step two, step three, but you'regoing to stay.
You know page four of the bookand now my gut is in conflict
(47:01):
with the book, and that's wheresomebody like Donald Trump has a
problem, or as you know.
So I think this time he hassaid no, I'm going with my gut
and the whole way, because Iknow when I get to step four,
I'm still going to be with mygut.
Speaker 1 (47:16):
Yeah, Well, we've seen.
Speaker 2 (47:18):
I'm not sure if I answered your question or not,
but hopefully that was close.
Speaker 1 (47:23):
Yeah, yeah, well, we've seen.
I'm not sure if I answered yourquestion or not, but hopefully
that was close.
Yeah, it's all good stuff.
What are the unique thingsabout Trump's style, and
especially how he talks abouttariffs and other countries, and
he's talked about immigrationproblems in Europe and trade
issues over there.
He's got a very uniquerelationship with the European
(47:47):
continent compared to previousAmerican presidents, but he's
been incredibly critical of theNATO alliance and the inability
of NATO members to meet their 2%spending goals as members of
that alliance.
At the same time, though, he'spromised to talk down this war
in Ukraine and get that wrappedup.
How do you think he needs towalk that line between holding
NATO members accountable formeeting their commitments but
also presenting a unified frontso that there is a bulwark
(48:11):
against Russian expansion?
Because he hasn't really donethis yet, but if we go back to
his previous term, we know it'scoming.
As he picks on Europeancountries for not fulfilling
their commitments, it also opensup fissures.
That allows Putin to keepfeeling like he can drive
forward in Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (48:28):
Or do you?
Speaker 1 (48:29):
think Trump's style of just like I'm just going to
talk to Putin top to the bottomof the scale, wrap this up,
screw everyone else kind of likewhat he did in Israel Do you
think that style is going toplay out there?
Speaker 2 (48:39):
I think it could.
You know, I've said for 20years our biggest issue on the
foreign policy front is if China, north Korea and Russia
actually join forces in a realdiplomatic type of access.
If you will, and you know, wesaw North Korea give Russia
10,000 troops right before theelection.
(49:02):
It was barely reported, and sothose three are incredibly.
The issue is certainly Chinaand Russia.
I don't know that North Koreahas the ability, but China and
Russia both have the ability totry to do the same thing, so how
(49:24):
well do they work together toattain them to then be against
each other, and so it'squestionable how long an
alliance there could last.
But it was scary to me thatNorth Korea even made the
overture to give 10,000 troopsto Russia and Ukraine.
That was a scary moment for meand probably to me meant the
(49:46):
greatest ability for that war toescalate in a meaningful way,
and you know so.
You know I'm going to trust thepresident until I can't, until
you can't, right Like, and Ijust believe that he thinks that
he can get it done, and Ibelieve he can, and you know, is
(50:08):
he is this one going to be theplace where he's more measured
and takes a little longer thanyou know he certainly.
You know day one right, and youknow I joke that.
You know Biden screwed thingsup so bad that you know Donald
Trump will probably have to waituntil the second month to fix
Ukraine.
So he's fixing so many thingsdomestically that he's going to
(50:30):
we're almost there.
Speaker 1 (50:31):
We'll see what happens.
Speaker 2 (50:31):
Yeah, right, but I do think you're correct.
Donald Trump's a man.
I think the difference betweenthese two presidents, sees, is
that he has been a man of actionthrough his entire life and
some of those have been failures, and I think he's willing to
risk the failure to get thingsdone, and so I think he's going
(50:52):
to trust his gut and try to getthe things done that he's told
the American people he's goingto accomplish.
Speaker 1 (50:58):
Yeah, he's told the American people he's going to
accomplish.
Yeah, and the North Koreanexample, just to pick on that
for a moment.
It's very interesting to mebecause if North Korea is
sending 10,000 troops somewhereelse, even if it's a war zone,
they don't like their folks totravel because they don't want
them to realize how good it iselsewhere.
Right, and even traveling fromthe North Korean border to the
Ukraine front, they're going tosee a lot of stuff which leads
me to believe that once those10,000 troops cross that border,
(51:19):
they ain't ever getting crossedback.
But we'll see how that playsout.
Speaker 2 (51:24):
Well, you've heard the story, you know.
You've heard some stories inforeign press of North Koreans
trying to surrender.
Oh yeah, like, hey, take meplease, do you want?
Speaker 1 (51:36):
to go back to North Korea, or do you want to be a
Korean POW?
Speaker 2 (51:40):
You're a Korean POW.
One of them was held.
One of them got arrested by theNorth Korean army because he
wouldn't get off his bed,because he kept watching the
Internet Like, wow, this isgreat, you know, and so I think
you're.
I think you're right with that,and they probably don't want to
come back and share with peoplehow different the rest of the
world is.
Speaker 1 (52:00):
Yeah Well, we're getting close to time, but real
quick before you go.
If you had one thing thatyou're hopeful for with the
Trump administration on theforeign policy front, what are
you hopeful about?
Speaker 2 (52:12):
Gosh, I was hoping you would just ask me carte
blanche and I would be likepermanent daylight savings time.
That's my number one goal.
Speaker 1 (52:23):
Well, hey, it's good to have goals.
Speaker 2 (52:25):
Permanent daylight savings time.
Don't go to standard time.
I hate it getting dark so early.
What's the number one foreignpolicy goal?
Wow, and he's put a lot on thetable that no one expected.
Speaker 1 (52:42):
Greenland- Panama Canal.
Speaker 2 (52:45):
Canada, and you know.
So I don't know that any ofthose three make my top, but I
think you know people want toreturn to you know where we're
not under this threat of war orwar expansion in Europe, and
(53:05):
certainly what's going on in theMiddle East, and so I think
that's kind of the goal.
You know, you start lookinglonger term and you start
thinking of, you know, thethings like the Panama Canal and
China's influence over it, andplaces like Africa and China's
influence over it, and you knowwe certainly can't have an
entire continent go becontrolled by China, Another,
(53:27):
you know, and so I think thoseare some of the things that the
administration is thinking aboutlong term, but they're, you
know, I don't know that theaverage citizen is going to see
major movement.
I guess in Panama the Secretaryof state's going down there
immediately and the president ofPanama said you know, there's
(53:48):
no negotiation, there's notalking about the Panama canal,
but there is going to be talkabout China's influence and how
we're not going to allow that,and so I think that's probably
how that conversation goes.
Speaker 1 (54:04):
Cool, well, jamie, we're coming up on time.
Really appreciate you takingthe time to talk.
Speaker 2 (54:09):
Hey, it's been my pleasure.
What a great conversation.
Speaker 1 (54:11):
Yeah and hey, before we go plug your stuff again,
when can people find you?
Speaker 2 (54:14):
So, yeah, you can find me at Reasonable Arguments
on both Substack, youtube andanywhere you watch podcasts.
Me and my wife have a podcastcalled Reasonable Arguments News
and Nonsense.
My wife is completelynon-political and so we argue
about things that husbands andwives argue about with politics.
But then she brings in somenews stories.
(54:36):
I like to say and I'm showingmy age here a little bit kind of
Paul Harvey-ish.
I like to say and I'm showingmy age here a little- bit kind
of Paul Harvey-ish Don't evenknow who that is.
Speaker 1 (54:45):
No reference Paul.
Speaker 2 (54:47):
Harvey at one time was the highest paid entertainer
in America.
He was a radio host and so, yes, so if you're a podcaster, you
should know Paul Harvey, becauseyou may remember Paul Harvey's
when he would tell one of hisstories and he would end with
and now you know the rest of thestory Nothing, no idea.
(55:09):
Go study Paul Harvey and let meknow Like he was.
That sounds vaguely familiar,but no, I can't say I'm really
showing my age, but, but it's a.
I'm really showing my age, but,but it's a.
So she brings stories that youdon't see in the mainstream,
that are more entertainingrather than just political, is,
I guess, the point.
(55:30):
So and so maybe we're resurgingPaul Harvey, we'll quit
mentioning him and we'll juststart mentioning Jennifer Bash,
my wife, and she'll become the,you know, the new voice of.
I don't want to.
She's the one who picked theword nonsense.
I always feel bad saying thenonsense stories, but you know.
But she's so that.
(55:50):
And then I've written a bookcalled Great American American
Speeches that Changed History.
You can find that on Amazon.
So that's a non-political book.
It's just a collection ofspeeches, with me writing a
short introduction to each andwhat they meant to me and kind
of why they were important forthat moment in time.
Speaker 1 (56:09):
Awesome, cool.
Well, links to your stuff willbe in the show notes for folks
to look up and appreciate yourtime.
Sir, thanks for speaking withus, thank you, thank you
everyone for listening in todayIf you liked.
Thank you everyone forlistening in today.
If you like what you heard,please follow the podcast and
share with your friends, andeven consider going to the
support the show link in theepisode description.
(56:30):
Thank you and I'll see you allnext time.
Popular Podcasts
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.