JD Vance on AI, Entitlement Fraud, Iran War, Israel, H-1B Abuse & the Midterms

of the United States. So help me God. Congratulations, Mr. Vice President. We're the senior partner, we're the world's superpower. That's the way that it works.

This is not just theft of the American people's money.

This is also theft of critical services that the American people rely on.

This is a problem that is festered in this country for far too long. You stop socialism by making people's lives better.

“And that's what we're trying to do every single day.”

We've got to take care of business this November. Then we'll worry about what comes next. Please welcome Vice President JD Vance. All right, nice to see you, Mr. Vice President, how are you? I'm good.

I'm good. Jason, I caught the very tail end of that paneled discussion. You were asking somebody about how their life had changed. I couldn't see how it was. But asking how their life had changed as they've been in the big house, which it appears

to me you meant prison. But I thought you were talking about the Michigan football team. Very different understanding of what you were talking about and what was actually going on. Well, it's great to have you back.

We always appreciate that you take the time to join the besties and have a very

candid honest discussion.

“This is your, I think, third of fourth time on the program.”

And it's a great time to be on the program because you're halfway through your term approximately and the midterms are coming up. Maybe you could assess what's went really well for what you're proud of with this first two years. And then let's get into some things that maybe your own constituents are not happy with.

And let's start with the positive, what do you think you've accomplished in these first two years? Well, look, I think that the two things that I'm most proud of are first of all. We actually got controlled southern border, but started a reverse to flow of illegal immigration. It's just about three million lower today than it was when we came into office.

Obviously, there's a lot more to do. But if you look at the history of Western governments in the post where era, they open the border.

They invite border invasions, but they never actually reverse it.

At best, they slow it down. I think President Trump is the first president in my lifetime to actually reverse that flow of illegal immigration. I'm extremely proud of that. I'm also proud, as you guys know, I've been obsessively focused on this. I've been obsessively focused on this for a long time, which is the idea of re-industrializing

and recapitalizing the manufacturing base of the United States of America. And this was a bipartisan consensus that leaned into globalization, sort of bought into this idea that you could have a prosperous economy that was built entirely around services, tech and finance. And the reality, of course, is that to have a truly prosperous economy, you still have

to make stuff.

“And I think Donald Trump understood that better than anybody else.”

Obviously, it takes a long time to rebuild the manufacturing base of the country. But if you look at the trillions of dollars of new investment, the new construction, the new manufacturing facilities being built, I do think that you're seeing the obvious signs that over the past 18 months we've reversed a 40 year trend. Now, Rome wasn't built in a day.

It's going to take longer to fully undo the damage brought by the last 40 years. But the fact that we're actually on the right pathway is this signature achievement of Donald Trump. But I think it's the thing that he will be remembered for even more than the border. He will be remembered for ending the sort of consensus around globalization and actually

enacting policies that get us on the right track again. I think we all agree with those two, and just absolute congratulations on that. You guys have crushed it. I think we all concur. Your constituents, the people who voted for you are extremely frustrated about two issues.

Let's just tackle them head on. The first is, you promised us you wouldn't start a foreign war. You promised us you wouldn't start a foreign war in the Middle East specifically. And then you promised you would get inflation under control. You haven't been able to get inflation under control still three or four percent this year.

It's not looking good. And Americans, specifically the people who voted for you, Mr. Vice President, are very upset about starting this war. What is your message to them? How do these two issues get resolved?

Because people are very unhappy about it. Yeah, so Jason, I understand that. And I certainly hear from people. And what I would say first of all is we invite people into the coalition who disagree with us.

You don't have to agree with us on every single issue. But on the war specifically, what I would say is, look, the President came in and yes, he wanted to keep the United States out of foreign entanglements. He also said that he was committed to Iran not having a nuclear weapon. And I think that wanting to keep the United States out of foreign entanglements does not mean

that you can never use the military in order to accomplish the American People's Objectives.

not just of their nuclear program, but also of the Iranian conventional military, we've

seen the Iranians shooting at commercial shipping even in the midst of peace negotiations.

“And I think the President has actually done the responsible thing here, which is to try to”

ensure that world energy markets, despite Iranian terrorism, continue to get that flow of oil and gas. And so what I would say to anybody who's frustrated right now is the alternative here, which is the United States effectively says to the Middle East, you're on your own, would mean necessarily a worldwide energy crisis, so long as the Iranians keep on shooting at

shipping, which we know that's exactly what they would do. So I think the President is taking the responsible course of action. He's protecting America's assets in the region, while also ensuring that world energy markets continue to get a supply of oil and natural gas. And on the inflation, Jason, I think we've made a lot of progress to my point earlier,

Rome was not built in a day, but under the Biden administration, we had inflation.

I think at nine and a half percent annualized, that's the highest rate in about 48 years. The right three and a half percent is still too high, but you've seen substantial progress. And of course, we're going to keep on making progress. I guess my pitch to the American people and to your listener certainly would be, do you want to reelect the people who have made substantial progress, accepting there's still

a lot of work to be done, or do you want to go back to the people who caused the problem in the first place?

“And obviously, I'm biased, but I think that you should elect the people who have actually”

made substantial progress while recognizing a lot more progress needs to happen. Mr. Vice President, one of the other things many of us were excited about with this incoming administration was addressing the fiscal deficit. It seems to become more apparent to markets that this is potentially a risk to the U.S. dollar over time.

The third year, I think, is around 5.2 percent now.

What's your -- you know, when the administration came in, there was an effort with those, but it's been very hard to get congressional action to take the steps necessary to reduce the deficit. Maybe you can share the administration's view, your view, on what can we do to write the fiscal course for the federal government now and over time?

Yeah, look, it's a very important and fair question. I mean, I think that, fundamentally, the anti-fraud efforts that I've been focused on, we've saved about $250 billion of the American taxpayer's money that would have otherwise gone to fraudsters. In the scale of a $7 trillion federal budget, obviously $250 billion isn't the whole thing,

but it's a lot. And it's something that we're very proud of.

“I think we have to continue to sort of just tackling the basic fraud and waste that's”

in-demic to our government. And of course, we are going to need some real bipartisan legislative solutions to give markets confidence, not just that we're going to be serious about the deficit, but that hopefully the president who comes after in the Congress that comes after is going to be serious about the deficit.

I think fundamentally the problem here, and I think what the markets are responding to at this moment is the perception that neither congressional Republicans or Democrats are serious about the debt of the deficit. Obviously, I think the administration, I'm biased. I think that we are serious about this issue.

If you look at what Scott Besend, who I'm going to meet with in a couple of hours actually, what Scott Besend has talked about is, you know, let's be realistic. We have, we inherited a two trillion dollar fiscal deficit. And you're not going to get back to a balance budget by cutting two trillion dollars out of a seven trillion dollar budget overnight.

What you can do is you can cut smartly, but also grow and get the economy in a position where that fiscal deficit is closer to three percent of GDP. Now, yes, we've got to make more progress. But if you look at what Scott has done at the Treasury, I think that we are on pace to get to a point where we can get the fiscal deficit to a sustainable level.

And then, of course, you get it to do a sustainable level and you continue to make progress from there. But it is certainly a very serious problem, something that we're very focused on. And I guess what I would say to markets is we've got a Secretary of the Treasury, but also a President who are very focused on the problem.

But it's going to require a long-term solution. Ideally, something with some bipartisan consensus, which is something we'll have to see about, because let's be honest, a lot of people in Congress, not just Democrats, but a lot of people in Congress have not shown a willingness to be serious about spending, we have to change that.

Let's maybe double-click on that Mr. Vice President. One of the ways that we can get out of this is through growth and productivity growth, but there is this crazy dynamic where it just seems like there are forces. Many inside the United States that try to slow us down. Whether it's data centers, and you may have heard yesterday, but the President called in and

tried to help debunk it with Jensen, Meta was here debunking Microsoft was here. But it just seems like a whack-a-mold problem of trying to actually get the truth out. Just talk to us about how we've ended up in this situation, where there are these forces

>> Yeah, so this is something that I think we can spend an hour talking about.

“I know we don't have that much time to moth, but fundamentally, when I see the backlash”

to data centers, what I see is the necessary, the inevitable consequence of the United States not building enough power for a generation. And so we've talked about this before, but when I talked to people, I'm out there campaigning a lot, I'm talking to people a lot. There's definitely some basic nimbism in the anti-data center thing, but there's also, you

talk to a guy who a year ago, his power bill was $290 a month and now it's $580 a month.

And the reality is that in blue states where we've made it impossible to build additional

electricity generation, you're seeing a backlash when people start paying additional power costs. Now, my response to that is you can't just stop building because of it. What you've got to do is build the things that you need specifically power. So Elon talks about this all the time, but I talk about it too, if you look at the

amount of power generated by the PRC, the people's Republic of China, and compare it to the amount of power generated by the United States of America. In 2005, they crossed the line, meaning they started to generate just a little bit more power than we did in 2005. And since then, we have effectively flatlined, and the PRC now generates three times as much

electricity as the United States of America does.

I think that a lot of our problems are downstream of that fundamental problem, and we just

have to build more. We have to build more power. I mean, I think we have to have this vision in the United States of electricity that is too cheap to meter, and that's I think the way that you push back against some of this ridiculous, you know, sort of anti-building power comes from the failure to generate the

electricity that we need, and I just, I don't understand how we ever got here as a country. I think the environmental movement obviously has a lot to do with it, but we've just

“got to build more power, and that's how we solve this problem fundamentally.”

And then, you know, obviously some of this gets into the broader AI stuff, Chimuth. And you know, the president, I think is very rightly asking the question, why is it that the people who are at the frontier of the AI economy are throwing up their hands and saying, well, we've built Frankenstein, and the solution to Frankenstein, apparently, is to create a one-world governance structure for artificial intelligence.

What I would say to those people, if you're building Frankenstein, stop, or maybe build, you know, if the cat is out of the bag, then build the defensive mechanism against Frankenstein. And, you know, I don't know Dario Well, I've read everything that he said over the past couple of weeks, everybody that I know tells me that he's very earnest, that this is a deeply held belief.

It's not cynical. It's not about regulatory capture, but he genuinely cares about this. But at the same time, I talked to tech companies. I'm sure you guys talked a lot more tech companies than I do. At the same time that you have this sort of cyber hacking tool that's come out of anthropics,

newest models, you have companies that are desperate for the defensive mechanisms to defend against that cyber hacking tool, and they're being denied access to it. So if you're going to create Frankenstein, don't come to the government and say, we need regulation, look inward and accept that if you're building Frankenstein number one, you should stop.

And number two, when the companies come to you and say, we need the tools to fight back against Frankenstein, give them those tools. Right. Oh, it's incredibly consensical. Brad and Ben, maybe, Sachs?

Yep. Mr. Vice President, great to see you. You know, the president called it yesterday, he's on top of the AI issue. You're working for somebody's the most incredibly entrepreneurial and risk-taking president perhaps in the last 50 years.

I just had a, you know, personal level. How is it working with somebody who is willing to take the risk that, you know, some people, you know, Jason criticized some of the things that haven't happened in the first 20 months. But the fact of the matter is, unlike a lot of people who occupy that office who are just

looking to stay the course and take the safe path, he's taking a lot of risk.

“And then you have to help explain some of those, I would say, I would put Trump accounts”

in that category, the mainstream agenda. But, you know, just talk to us a little bit at a personal level, how working with him, how hard it is to keep up with his energy as enthusiasm as entrepreneurialism. Yeah, Brad, you know him well, he sleeps less than any person that I've ever met. I don't sleep that much, but I certainly sleep more than him.

You know, Scott Vassin and I always joke that he'll call us at 2 30 in the morning and

he'll say where you up and it's like, no, sir, I wasn't, but I am now. So let's, let's talk about what's on your mind. He's working in all hours the day, but your point, Brad is, is very well taken.

And I, I think, you know, you asked, what it's like working for a guy like that.

Well, one, it's never boring.

But two, he's constantly probing, are we taking the easy path or are we taking the right path? Maybe this thing is going to cause some political backlash or maybe the payoff is not going to be obvious until, you know, two years from now, five years from now, ten years from now, but I think it's the exact right mindset, you know, what, one of the frustrations

I've had just looking at the economy, you know, pretty much my entire life is that there's been this division between pure entrepreneurs and managers, between bureaucrats and people who are genuinely innovative and willing to take risks. I think that we've had way too many caretaker presidents during my lifetime, frankly, way too many caretaker CEOs and not enough people who are genuinely innovative and willing

to take risks. Obviously, he gets criticized for it from time to time, but I'd much rather have a president

who's willing to take those risks, who's willing to take on the big projects.

“It's the only way I think you're going to reverse America's long term decline is to be willing”

to take those risks. Thank God for the past 18 months. We've had a president willing to do just that. Mr. Vice President, Jake Alfragataask, his normal Gotcha question on the H1Bs. Oh, that's because they took my advice and they raised the price, you were at SIG on that

one. You know, it's an issue that the tech community cares about the same time. We have learned that the program was riddled with fraud. I'm curious, can you give us an update on, you know, where do those efforts stand? And what's happening with that, the H1Bs?

Yeah, now this is the Venn diagram overlap of Jason Calcana since Steven Miller. It's a very small area. Yes. Look, man, we looked at the fraud in the system and we said, you know, one, Congress is not going to pass a law changing this.

There just isn't the political world to do it. So what are the things that we can do administratively to ensure that if a tech company is going to try to get an H1B visa, it's an action. Social genius. It's a person that is going to significantly enrich the tech ecosystem or the American

economy. You know, you're not just replacing one accountant who makes $60,000 with a lower wage for an accountant who makes $45,000 a year. That is not what the program exists for. And so we came up with this idea to impose a $100,000 fee, we're also looking at various

ways of preventing companies that use H1B visas from laying off a bunch of American workers. So, you know, one of the things that I find just shocking about this is you'll have a company that applies for an H1B, and they'll say, oh, we're desperate for workers. We can't find the workers. And then you go and look at their history and they've laid off 5,000 people.

Well, that's ridiculous. If you're laying off American workers, you shouldn't be going to the market searching for foreign workers to replace them. So we're doing a lot within the confines, of course, of what we're allowed to do legally. We've gotten sued on some of this stuff.

“But I think fundamentally we're on the right on both the law and the policy, the H1B should”

not exist to replace American workers with low-wage foreigners. It should exist to enrich the American economy, and that's exactly what we're trying to make sure it does. Mr. Vice President, can I ask, I think your title, the frauds are now, and just going back to the deficit question every week, we're seeing these videos.

We've got Nick Shirley here this afternoon. I think he really started this trend of some of the citizen journalists going out and trying to find the fraud and the system themselves. And every week there's a new story that's being uncovered that's just mind-blowing, tens of billions of dollars over and over again.

How much fraud do you think they're-- and this California high-speed rail, there was a guy

that got paid half a billion dollars for not working, some billionaire and Italy who owns

a football team. I couldn't believe it. I tracked all this stuff. I'm like, your head starts to spin. How much of our $7 trillion federal spending do you

“think it's tied up and fraud in this kind of system of waste and this corruption?”

And what's your sense of the scale of the problem? Yeah, so two quick things on that first of all, Elon during the height of doge said that it was 20%, that's $1.4 trillion, whether it's 10%, or 20%, you're talking about something on the scale of hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. The biggest problem with finding fraud is actually that the states where it's worst are also

the states that have the least willingness to cooperate with what we're doing. So when you look at some of the bigger ticket items for fraud, you know, you're looking at Medicare fraud and California, people who are illegal people who aren't even human beings, they're just like a completely made-up, you know, shell of a person. But unfortunately, the state of California is not actually helping us fight back against

that particular fraud or we know that there are hundreds of thousands, maybe more illegal aliens in Illinois, New York and California who are on Medicaid, that obviously is billions

So the basic fraud that exists is the big programs in states that have allowed themselves to be overrun by illegal immigration. Another very good example, and this was shocking to me when we came in and started doing this work, is the way the SNAP program, this is the food stamp program that ensures that

low-income Americans have access to food that they need, obviously one of the most important

things that we do in the federal government is make sure that, you know, poor kids can eat. But that program is right with fraud in part because the way it works is, you know, California builds us once a month for the cost of their SNAP program. It's $7 or $8 or $9 billion depending on the month that we're talking about.

So what happens is the federal government wires $9 billion to California, no questions asked. So it's not an exaggeration to say that we have no ability to know who is even on the SNAP program, whether they're a real human being, whether they're a legal resident of the United States of America.

And when we go to the big blue states and say, why don't you help us just confirm basic eligibility, we get totally push back. We get no cooperation on this basic fact of good governance, confirming eligibility for federal programs.

So my guess is that if the number is $700 billion, a few hundred billion of that is in the

blue states and we could deal with it just by checking eligibility criteria, we're working on innovative ways to force that, but it's actually legally much harder than it should be to force the blue states to comply with some basic anti fraud initiatives. At JD before we wrap here, I want to ask you another hard question. This one about our relationship with the state of Israel and the president's relationship

with BB Netanyahu. Many people in the Republican Party, MAGA are now moving to a new party, America first, America only, there's a rise in anti-Semitism, and there's a persistent belief amongst a lot of the people on the right that maybe our foreign policy is too influenced by the state of Israel or BB Netanyahu.

Can you take us into the relationship right now where it stands and the ministrations

“position on collaborating with Israel on a lot of these military activities?”

Yeah, you know what the president has said, Jason, is obviously Israel has been an important partner when it comes to military technology when it comes to intelligence sharing, but

also sometimes the United States doesn't always agree with Israel.

Well, I think that more than frankly, any president, the last 40 years, he has shown a willingness to actually part ways with BB Netanyahu when he feels like the interests of the American people are different from the interests of the government of Israel. And I find it a little ironic, Jason, that you have Democrats criticizing Donald Trump for his relationship with BB when Donald Trump is the one president at the last 40 years.

He's been willing to say, you know what? Yeah, BB's a good partner, but also BB and I have a different opinion on this, or BB's wrong about this, or maybe BB's right about this from the perspective of Israel, but the American people need us to go in a different direction. So I just think that rooting this relationship like all relationships in America's interest

is the way to actually have a rational conversation here, because when you're talking about whether a given policy is an America's interest and you keep yourself laser focused on that,

“I think that's how you make sure that the American people know that you're fighting”

for them, but I also think that it allows us to actually rationally focus and force ourselves to have a conversation about when something that maybe sounded good or maybe has become a cliche or a slogan for the past 20 or 30 years, well, maybe we have to do something different now. And I think that that's how we have to approach not just this relationship, but all relationships.

By the way, you see a similar pushback when the president makes the argument that he's made about NATO, which is yes, obviously, a lot of important relationships, a lot of important partnerships in NATO, but that doesn't mean that we're going to completely make our European foreign policies subservient to NATO in the same way that we cannot let our Middle Eastern foreign policy be subservient to the state of Israel.

We're going to work with people when we work with them, we're going to disagree when we disagree, and we're going to pursue America's interest, that's the only way to have a rational foreign policy. I know Trimop wants to get one last question in here, just before he does, tell us, how is Marco Rubio doing in his job so far?

“Can you rate his performance in the first two years?”

He's doing great, man. I love Marco. Jason, the funniest media narrative is that somehow Marco and I are like hyper-competitive, we sit around like thinking about how we're going to run for president against each other in 2028.

I literally, what a time is it right now, it's 25, I have a call with Marco in five minutes, so Jamaz got to ask us question first, I got to answer it quickly, and then Marco and I have to go do the business of the American people.

So, maybe as we wrap, there's a very consequential midterm coming up, I think, a poll

“on one day will say that the Republicans are going to keep everything as is, the poll”

on the other day, say it's going to be a socialist sweep of America. It's very complicated, but can you just give us an insight into what's actually happening on the ground, and what is the message that needs to be delivered so that folks can come to the right conclusion November? You know, I guess I have two basic messages, there is a lot of good that we've done

over the past 18 months.

“We cut taxes, bigly, we cut taxes on overtime, social security, and tips.”

Those are tax cuts for middle American workers, not just for the elites in Washington in New York City.

We've had an amazing success with the border with immigration.

We've pursued H1B reform that prioritizes American workers over foreign nationals. There's a lot of good that's been done, but there's a lot of work left to do. Don't give power to the people who cause the problems that we're fixing.

“Give us another chance or give us another couple of years to continue to work on the”

amazing things that we've been doing for the past two years.

And the second argument I'd make is, even if you don't agree with us on every issue,

the other party is consumed by craziness. They're consumed by people who want to steal everything, who want to give the country over to illegal aliens and criminals. They actively brag about it. I mean, I've heard a lot of crazy stuff guys over the past, you know, a few years in politics,

but when I heard somebody running for Congress in New York, say that July 4th was about the liberation of Puerto Rico in Palestine, I thought to myself, this person needs to be checked into a mental hospital, not give it a seat in Congress. So to the American people, I'd say, send these people back and put them in the mental hospital, do not put them in Congress, because even if you don't agree with us on every

policy issue, it least were motivated by common sense and American interests. They're just motivated by left wing interest groups and radicalism, and they're going to do a very bad job if we give them power. All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm Vice President Judy Manz. Yeah.

Thank you all. Good to see you guys.