Ambassador Julie Smith on NATO's Trust Crisis

You're listening to American Power. On your host, Nat Towson, Stan of Comedian, speechwriter, many other forms of writer,

“and most likely to illicit follow-up questions”

from my seatmate on the airplane, podcast host.

I am joined as always by my panel of experts.

Our expert on the military and foreign policy, Chad Scott. Chad, how's it going? Outstanding today, super excited for this show. Also, interested in Matt's new color of hat. That's a new one he's got there, so.

Interesting that they didn't use the color of my checkered shirt, which has been quite a topic of conversation of previous podcasts. I introduced a little pink and purple here. I thought that was going to be a real wave. What's the phrase I'm looking for?

Oh, you'll check different shades of plaid. Like why is my hat sitting still? Because, because, you know, I'm changing things all the time, but it's like, it's like Pepsi changed their logo over here or something. Okay, yeah.

And the man speaking to you, of course. The Pepsi of this podcast, as I've just recently described him, a man who's look is so signature that changing hat color, causes ripples throughout the internet. He is our expert on all forms of energy, renewable oil,

global oil markets, gasoline markets.

“You know him as Mr. Global, Matt Randolph, Matt, how's it going?”

I was doing great till you called me Pepsi. I would really like to be known as Coke Zero, if that's at all possible, because-- Wow, that's like Coke Zero, changing their logo. It would be devastating to some of us who know

what the Coke Zero logo is. How's it going, Matt? Beyond the perceived slides. Just another unbelievably busy day under a Trump administration.

Like, I mean, it's never worked so much in my life.

That's the fate of the current events tick talker. There's a lot of current events at the moment. And I'm excited to bring it to our panel to our show today. A special guest, our guest today, is a distinguished non-resident fellow for defense and security at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs

and a leading expert on US European Defense Policy, transatlantic relations and geopolitical risk. Under President Barack Obama, she served as principal director for European and NATO policy at the Pentagon. And as Deputy and Acting National Security Advisor

to Vice President Joe Biden, under President Biden, she served as senior adviser to Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, and as US permanent representative to NATO. Her recent writings include co-authoring Beyond Defense Spending, what's at stake for NATO in Ankara, published

by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs,

as well as Middle Eastern crisis, NATO in disarray the stakes

for the Ankara summit, published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Thank you for bearing with me. Please welcome to the show Ambassador Julie Smith. Great to be here. Great to be here.

Thank you so much for being here. Now, I know we have a lot to chat about. Yes. And I want to thank you so much for joining us here on the show. I actually want to let Chad jump in

“because I think he had a question he want to start with.”

Yeah, just again, thank you so much, Ambassador for joining us here. We just went through the Ankara summit in Turkey. In your recent analysis, the price of pragmatism, which was published by Global Affairs, you argued that the real measure of success in the Ankara summit

isn't simply how NATO spends its money, but what that spending actually produces. Over the next 12 to 24 months, what should NATO, what should we be watching to determine whether Ankara was truly a success

and what should NATO be doing or producing that would be driving success for the future? Yeah, well, thank you. A couple of things on that. So the NATO summit took place in Ankara a couple weeks back.

I mean, it was a major achievement, right? So the Europeans are spending a lot more money. And this is something Americans have been asking for for a very long time. And so we have to applaud those changes.

And the increase in spending. But I guess I have a couple of questions. One is, how is that spending coordinated? Are you going to end up with every nation in Europe, taking large sums of money and dedicating it

to more or less the same set of capabilities? So if you can imagine a good ol' fashion potluck dinner, you want to make sure you got a good mix of everything at the table. And the concern is that countries will tilt towards

the more affordable, cheaper capabilities and that no one's bringing stake to the potluck dinner. That's 0.1. So are they coordinating all this spending in a way that brings collective strength to the alliance?

where the NATO summit is increasingly just focused

on managing us the United States? Because we're pretty unpredictable right now. We have a president that isn't a big fan of the NATO alliance. It doesn't really want to double down on the article five.

All for one and one for all clause in the NATO treaty. And so my concern is, look, NATO's a big shop. 4,000 people work at NATO. They work on all sorts of things, emerging tech issues, cyber attacks, to some information, climate security, you name it.

But some of that work is starting to take a back seat. And the alliance isn't focusing as much on the future and future challenges.

“And frankly, I think a lot of allies are just”

trying to get through these big summits with the US president relatively happy and not announcing that the US is leaving the alliance. How do you balance those two concerns? Because they both sound completely legitimate.

But the first sounds a little bit like it could be fueled

by the power of noise and tendencies of the Trump administration. We talked a bit about this in a previous episode, but there's been a lot of this sort of maligning of NATO by miscategorizing it. I say, oh, we pay for NATO, or we describing it as a line item

almost for the United States, or as a security force that we provide, just really mischaracterizing what it is. But this is a lot of the narrative among the Trump administration around NATO. How do you navigate those criticisms of is everyone paying

their fair share? Are these things being meted out based on what countries can actually afford, how is that spending going to be equitable? How do you tease that apart from this sort of narrative of the US is paying for everything

and NATO is a bill for us?

“Because it's a for people are afraid of putting into that,”

as well, because Trump's so volatile. Right, so I mean, the burden sharing issue, again, is a longstanding one. And allies have been talking about burden sharing for decades.

And we want our European allies and our friends in Canada to spend more on their national defense. And frankly, I'm relieved that we're now-- we have a new target in the alliance. It used to be, you had to spend 2% of your GDP on defense

and now it's 5%, I'm good with that. But here's the problem. The way in which it's been portrayed to the American public, they're increasingly getting the impression that NATO's a raw deal for the United States.

I mean, and it's not. We are in the NATO alliance and we created NATO because we fundamentally understood two words, stronger together. And it's better to tackle Russia, China. All of the challenges out there in the world

with allies that are capable and that you exercise and train together rather than trying to go at a loan. And so NATO, for decades, for 77 years, has served US interests. Now, has the burden sharing issue been skewed?

Did it need a course correction? Absolutely. And when I was at NATO, we went from six allies spending 2% to 23 ally spending 2%. So we too made progress.

Less progress than what we're seeing now. But the point here is that let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. I mean, NATO is an important alliance. I would argue it's one of the most successful military alliances.

And we need our allies as much as they need us. Yes, we provide the nuclear umbrella. We've provided a lot for their security. But let's not forget, on 9/11, we declared Article 5 for the first time in NATO's history.

And allies helped us and went into Afghanistan for 20 years in terms of joining a counterterrorism mission. So I just want to be careful about messaging this burden sharing point. Yes, they need to do more.

But let's not assume that that's the only issue

and that we're only focused on the bottom line

and how much cash is everyone spending. I'll give you one example. So let's take Italy. Italy has never made it close to the 2% threshold. And now is kind of clawing its way to the 3.55% target.

But Italy is a country that has said look, it's really difficult to increase defense spending in Italy for lots of reasons. But we will contribute in other ways. We will lead NATO missions.

We will send our troops into harm way. So my point harms way. My point here is that NATO allies aren't all about just what they're spending on defense. They do things for us that are important

and they contribute in other ways.

“And does increasing the 2% to 5% for other nations?”

I mean, just for the sake of our accumation, does it decrease the U.S.'s control contribution

No, so GDP change for that at all.

Yeah, so this is where it's gone off the rails. So the way the president talks about it, he kind of describes it like a country club, like everyone's paying dues and there's like one big pot. And actually, that's not at all what we're talking about.

So Americans, many presidents have wanted our friends in Europe and Canada to pay more into their own national defense. So that means you buy more capabilities. You invest more in your troops.

You invest more in infrastructure. And it's not about paying into the NATO budget. There is a separate NATO budget, but to be honest, it's pretty small. Compared to the sums we're talking about collectively across the alliance. So if let's say Germany now is spending more money

than one could ever imagine on defense, which is something if you had told me five years would be happening. I would have said you're crazy. But so they're spending a lot of money, but that doesn't necessarily detract.

It means over time, Germany will be prepared to take responsibility for more of Europe's security. But it's not us pulling into a common budget and that Germany pays more and we pay less. So I think there's a little bit of a disconnect here

in terms of how it's portrayed to the public.

“Well, that's why I'm asking because a lot of the dialogue or discourse”

rather around NATO and from the current administration does make it seem like, oh, we're putting all the money in the piggy bank. The NATO is spending, which is a pretty inaccurate way of looking at it. If I had to come up with a better metaphor, it's making sure every country has a rainy day.

Every country in NATO has a emergency fund or something. Yes, we are more likely to spend money on other people's emergencies if they don't have an emergency. Right, so they're true, yeah.

Second, there's that consequence of it, but it's not literally

these countries are taking more of the pop that we're paying into. That's not a metaphor, what it comes to. But I think that is a lot of how it's talked about. Yeah, I think that's right. Like they're taking some money that we put in to NATO for their things.

Yeah, no, no, it's not a country club. I mean, you just have to think about it differently. We want them to invest more in their own defense and that will ultimately lift up and contribute to the collective security of all allies.

But just because country, A and country, B and subspending more does not mean that the U.S. ends up spending less. It just doesn't, that's not what we're talking about.

“So what would you like to see NATO spend more on our focus more on?”

I obviously we see a Ukraine and a massive need for interceptors. That potentially drones, but obviously the U.S. provides a capability across the board, whether it's intelligence all the way up into our nuclear umbrella. There's a lot of heartburn that comes with countries like Germany, for instance,

that it's almost an absolute no, they'll never do it.

France has come forward and said, maybe will extend our nuclear umbrella as a replacement. But that would require more, more oomph from them. So to speak, they would have to be bolstered their arsenal. What would you like to see NATO not assert to replace the United States? But just in case we have someone like a Donald Trump an office that they can't count on us,

per se, so they have to go it alone. What do you think would be best for them right now? Well, the Europeans do have to develop their own capabilities in every category. We want them to be stronger in air defense, in armor, artillery, ammunition, lift, air to air refueling, everything, right?

And that will come over time. It's not going to happen within the next one to two years. But I think what's slowing them down right now, and frankly, what's slowing us down here in the United States is we have an issue with speed and scale. It's not like the defense companies out there can flip a light switch and say, oh,

you want double the number of patriots. Great. We'll just produce those.

“That's also not how it works. It takes time to build the manufacturing plants that you need to”

hire the laborer that's required. And so I guess in terms of my wishless number one, we need greater defense production on both sides of the pond because the money is there now, and so industry has to respond. Number two, I'd like to see the Alliance continue its focus on Ukraine. The United States decided to stop providing all security assistance to Ukraine, last year when Donald Trump arrived in office.

Now the only thing we do is we allow Europeans to buy American weapons to send to Ukraine. And even that has become difficult because of everything we've used in Iran. Now there's less for Europeans to buy to give to Ukraine. So I'd like to see the Europeans try to identify other sources of capabilities that they can send to the Ukrainians. And that may come from places like South Korea and other corners

on what we call kind of the hybrid tactics? And those are things like cybersecurity or energy

“security starts to get involved in all of that climate security. Undersea cables being cut, air space”

violations, drones falling out of the sky. These are the things that are a little bit harder for the Alliance to tackle because at the end of the day, NATO knows what to do when tanks roll across NATO territory. NATO knows less about what to do when it's a cybersecurity attack. Is that an article five situation or not? So I do believe there's plenty of work to go around, both in terms of the spending that's happening in Europe. Certainly more coordination, like I said, speed and

scale remain a problem and then those gray zone challenges. So I would add all of those on the list

and don't forget Ukraine because they do still need our help. What would better coordination for

those, I guess, newer forms of attack look like. Obviously some of this is just evolved since the charter was written to not only cyber attacks, but drone warfare for that matter is a very different, you know, it lands in our previous definitions of war a little bit differently than when the charter was written. What would progress in that front look like to you? So well, there's two things here. So talking about autonomous systems and drones, I mean the Alliance is trying to

ready itself. It's inserting more doctrine about how to use these capabilities in tandem with more conventional capabilities. We're all quickly trying to extract the lessons from Ukraine.

We've watched very closely how the Ukrainians and the Russians now have more technical know-how

than all of us put together. No one has more experience right now in real combat with Russia than the Ukrainians themselves and they've used technology and just countless innovative ways that we couldn't have imagined, you know, just a few years ago. So NATO is trying to move out not only to acquire those capabilities, but extract the lessons from Ukraine and understand how they could be utilized inside the Alliance for Future Warfare. So that's part one. Part two is on the cyber front.

So on cyber security, the Alliance has actually done quite a bit. If you're attacked, if you, if let's say the lights go out in the middle of Tallinn in Estonia or some other city in Europe or Canada in the United States, NATO now has a little bit of a playbook in terms of

“what it can provide. If you need forensics help, you need to know who did it and how. Maybe your”

systems are all offline. NATO can try to help you with that. Maybe you want to fortify your systems against future attacks. NATO can help with that. So in cyber security, I think the Alliance has done more. Where it's harder is undersea cables. You know, we've seen ships that have been Chinese or Russian flagged. They drag an anchor and cut a cable that can provide energy or electricity or, I mean, all sorts of things under water to NATO allies between NATO allies, between safe

inland and Estonia. That's harder for the Alliance to figure out what should they be doing, what should the Alliance be doing? Because obviously you're not going to have ships up on the water monitoring every single undersea cable that would be impossible. But I think the Alliance needs to toy with the idea of trying to think through the risks and consequences of responding to those types of incidents, what kind of signaling can it do to the Russians or the Chinese? Are there

asymmetric tactics that NATO can use to send a message? There's a lot that the Alliance could be doing in that space. But I admit it's tough. It's much more complicated than a tank rolling across the NATO border, where again, NATO knows what to do. So Ambassador President Trump has argued that NATO should be responsible for helping get the straight-of-arms open and unfortunately Iard Marco Rubio sort of mirror those remarks and say, you know, what is the purpose of NATO

if they're not doing this? Do you believe that our NATO allies should be, you know, should have an obligation to assist us in this particular instance given the manner in which we entered this conflict? A couple of things to say about that. Number one, if you want your allies to join

“you in some sort of intervention or mission, you have to go first to the Alliance and explain”

what it is you're trying to do and explicitly lay out what you need and what requirements exist. And that's not what happened with Iran. Israel in the United States went to war with Iran

"We don't really need Europe, but this is just a test that I want them to pass." And I think

“our allies, I don't think I know that our allies were bewildered and shocked by those statements”

wait. You didn't consult us on what you're doing. You actually don't need us and yet we failed because we didn't come to your aid. Now, on the other hand, I will argue that having the straight-of-hormes closed as we all know has a huge impact on Europe and in many ways in those

first few weeks of the war, they felt it faster than we did. And so they have an interest in getting

the straight open. And so there were groups of countries that were meeting in London and Paris trying to figure out, "Look, what's on offer in Europe? We have mine clearance. We have a relationship with the Iranians diplomatic relations where the United States doesn't have those relationships. And so rightly, they've tried to think through, "Okay, when the smoke clears, what could we Europeans offer to help maintain an open straight?" But we're not there. And in fact, right now,

we're headed in the completely different direction. And I guess the last thing I would say is that this isn't a NATO mission. This is NATO is there to protect the territory of the Euro-Atlantic area. It's not really designed for a mission in the straight-of-hormes. I do believe a handful of countries that have strong navies in Europe might lend a hand at some point. But in my mind, this hasn't unfolded in any conventional way that would actually trigger a positive response

from our closest partners and allies. If you're looking for a capable allies,

look no further than Europe. While they don't always spend as much as we want on defense,

“they actually are extraordinarily capable. And they do have things to offer. But you have to go”

to them. You have to sit down. You have to have a conversation. You have to consult them. And I think the way in which this was all gone down is just honestly moving our friends in the opposite direction. They're rolling their eyes. They're frustrated. And at least in the case of Spain, they denied the U.S. the use of its airspace over Spanish territory. Now that didn't have a huge operational impact, but still it was a signal that obviously upset the president tremendously.

Yeah, and you saw you brought up something kind of within this confusion or this expectation that the United States has. It's causing confusion within the alliance. We also see things like Greenland coming out where Trump is expressing the United States should basically just own Greenland and we'll take it by whatever means necessary. Sometimes it's just a business deal. Sometimes it even has military rhetoric. Some of the discussion we've talked about earlier

when we were talking to you was getting Europe to move. During your Bloomberg interview back in April, you argued that uncertainty surrounding American commitments usually with the article five, but also with Greenland with Iran comments. Those can embolden and potentially even Xi Jinping. Where is the line between healthy pressure on allies to carry more of the burden and rhetoric that actually weakens deterrence against. Or where are we actually weakening our deterrence against

Russia here because we're going way too far when it comes to some of the more ridiculous ass from Trump, like Greenland. I mean, I feel like we're emboldening them. What are your thoughts in that room? Well, look, Greenland was really a turning point in our relationship with Europe. And I'm glad you raised it. You just cannot underestimate the impact that Greenland has had on

the transatlantic relationship for the largest and most powerful ally in NATO to talk about

getting the territory of another NATO ally is unprecedented. And I can't remember an episode in NATO's history where things have really been this dark. And it's scared the living daylights out of our European allies to contemplate what they fight US forces in Greenland if it came to that. And they had to have those discussions. Now, Greenland came and went and I think a lot

“of Americans say, oh, yeah, I remember that. It's now in the rear view mirror. It's not for Europe.”

I'll tell you without it out. They remember Greenland and it sent a chill down the spines of our friends in Europe. And it does have an impact. It raises questions about a predictability,

defense spending. And they were ready to move and they did. And so instead of taking the win,

the Trump administration could have had champagne toast and said, we got him there. This is great. Let's celebrate that. No. Then we turned to this darker chapter on Greenland. And that has just set us off on a completely different world. And I mean, now we're in a world where they have to imagine going up against US forces to defend the territory of Greenland against some sort of US invasion. So it has not left their memory. It will be there for a very long time. And what I have

really seen in spades is that there is an enormous trust deficit now with Europe. And that does have an impact on our ability to work together in a crisis for Europe to share intelligence with us and us to share intelligence with our closest allies. And Putin must be sitting in Moscow and she over in Beijing and celebrating this moment where the transatlantic partners are really coming apart. They really didn't have to lift a finger. We in essence kind of did it for them.

“And that's the great tragedy. I think of the current state of the transatlantic relationship.”

I don't want to speak for, I don't want to do the thing where I say no one realizes this and then be exposed as the only one who hasn't realized it. But I do feel that in the, no, I mean, in left side left leaning political discourse in the US, Greenland was kind of treated like a joke. At least after it happened, it became another hilarious Trump gap. I mean, maybe not quite to that extent. But I think to some degree, Trump, you know, we know this Trump strategy is to

overwhelm the new cycle. It's to overwhelm our institutions, not only the media rhetoric, so I think to some extent the defense to get to that is that we have learned to deal with bluster. We've learned

not to react proportionately to every threat because most of them fizzle out in the first 24-hour

to 48 hours. And that exhausting of our, not only, you know, institutional resources, but emotional intellectual resources of, we had to respond to this new crisis has, you know, really was really exhausting in the first Trump term. We learned that he really controlled the news that way. And I think as a result, a lot of people have learned to not take him seriously when it comes to things that sound like cartoon villains plans. Oh, he's going to take over Greenland, why? Because he wants

to, to be mean. And I think literally as a result of that, I don't think a lot of, I thought, again, maybe it's my ignorance. But I don't hear a lot of liberals talking about how severe of threat that was to our allies in Europe because we all thought on some level that it was just him looking

“for attention again. But of course, if you have to be asked, I'm going to say, yeah. So how do we,”

how do we, okay, you know, this isn't the fault of people not realizing how serious this is, but how does the US, I'm just like noting the disconnect because even I was kind of surprised by that, even I, yeah, like on the master of this, but I know everything, this was my one oversight that's happened ever, but I'm being very big by admitting this. And, but for the lesser than me, how would we, how would the US, like, how do we rebuild trust so then our, in our allies,

is there anything we can do while Trump is president? And even, let's say we get someone a little more even killed, or hopefully a hundred percent more even killed in office in a few years, what is the road to a functional NATO look like? And I don't just mean like a new charter, I mean like what you're describing is a, that exactly emotional, but it is like a safety issue. It's like, how do we rebuild trust is different from how do we create another agreement, right? Like how do we really

rebuild trust in that agreement? Yeah, well, first of all, I don't blame anybody if they're not

tracking every little detail tied to NATO or Greenland. I mean, there's a lot to keep up with,

“and I think a lot of us feel overwhelmed by the breaking news that seems to come in every 30”

seconds, and I'm called the NATO nerd for a reason, and so I guess it's my job to know all the details about the NATO alliance, but I will say that the president mentioned Greenland again when he was at the Ankara summit. He arrived in Turkey, and on the first day in Ankara, and he did a press avail, and he started listing all these grievances. He has against our European allies that some are still not spending enough. They didn't show up for us in Iran, and then he goes on

and talks about Greenland. Now, not everyone was watching this press avail, people tune out, and the Ankara summit wasn't on the top of everybody's mind here. I appreciate that, but for the Europeans to hear the word Greenland again, it was a trigger, and they're worried that it's going to come back, because a couple months ago at the beginning of the year, he said,

But Europe's worry is this is something that's going to come back, and he is going to try to get that territory. But your question about where we go in the future, let's say there's a change, and we have someone else come in in 2020, and that really wants to work to recover from this very dark chapter in the transatlantic relationship. What's interesting is when President Biden

came back after Trump's first term, he had this slogan. He kind of went around the world and said,

"We're back," meaning this is in the U.S. administration that's recommitted to our shared values, to our shared mission, to the relationship shared history, international organizations, we love

“alliances, we respect our allies, and it resonated, and I think the world wanted to believe that”

the United States was back. But this time, 100% I guarantee you that if any future U.S. president said we're back, you just see shrunk shoulders and our allies rolling their eyes, whether they're in Europe, Asia, and Middle East, or elsewhere, so there will be no going back. I don't think our allies are ready to return to the status quo, and I don't even think many Americans are

ready to go back to the system that we created after World War II. So that begs the question,

what comes next? If we're turning the page on 80 years of working hand in glove with our European allies in a system that was constructed for a different era, where do we go from here? And I think this is the exam question across the United States right now. Many national security circles are debating this question. Many of us are traveling back and forth, speaking with our allies to say, what will we focus on in the future? How could we rebuild? Should we work on AI, preserving

Western standards and values? Should we lock arms and talk about China? Are there global health

“concerns you want to talk about? And I think the jury's still out, and I think this is going to be”

one of the hardest questions for a future administration to take on in terms of the rebuilding exercise. What are we rebuilding? What do they want us to rebuild? I mean, I'll tell you one of the things I've heard from allies is, look, all we have to do is de-risk from you. We used to talk about de-risking from China, but now we really have to de-risk from the United States and not rely on you guys as much. And I don't think that's a great strategy. I mean, if Europeans want

to be more independent from the United States, less rely on us, fine. But I don't want to see us run in different directions because in all honesty, for whatever the North Koreans, Iranians, Chinese, or Russians, or someone else is going to throw at us, we're still back to that tagline. We are stronger when we work together, and so we should continue to find ways to do that.

“But I can't answer your question yet. I think it's going to be tough, and we're probably going”

to need a couple of years to sort this out. And to be clear, you're saying, basically impossible

under Trump, and to the current administration. And whatever falls, I don't. And I'm just paraphrasing for everyone. That's where everyone starts. Yeah. So whatever follows that, so it's basically damage control from anyone who with an ambassadorial position for the next few years. And then we don't actually all like that guy. And then we got to do a lot of, like, I do this all the time for the audio listener. I'm tugging at my collar, looking at someone over my shoulder, untrustworthy. But

not only that, we're not rolling back the clock. Like you said, there's no resetting to where we were with NATO. So you're saying, essentially impossible to do anything, but damage control while Trump is in power. And then after that, essentially, we need to look for a new status quo that would involve good faith, a relationship with NATO. It can't be built on words. It will have to be built on action. We can't just say, hey, we love you guys. And remember all the great stuff we did

together. And, you know, truth be told, we had peaks and valleys with our, we had the Iraq war. We've had a lot of ups and downs with our allies. But this is one of the darker chapters without it doubt. And I think, frankly, it signals a major shift in change. And so we do have to construct something new. But we have to do it through actions that will signal to our closest allies that we can be trusted again. And that's not going to be easy. It's not going to be hard. Those actions

military, is that investment? Like, what do we do to damage it? It could be anything. It could be policies. It could be new initiatives. It could be investing in new types of tools or initiatives. It could be launching something together. I mean, it could take many, many different shapes and sizes. But it just can't be rhetorical. Like, you know, trust us, things are going to be okay.

We don't know if you guys, whoever you are, sitting in the Oval Office in 29, whether or not

“you're going to be around in four years. And then what comes next? You've got this up and down.”

You love us. You hate us. You know, we can't handle the unpredictability. The one thing we

always had going for us was the consistency and the reliability of the United States through your

political cycles. And now it's so unpredictable. We literally don't know what to expect from one year to the next. So essentially, we need to demonstrate the behavior of a reliable and safe ally for a amount of time that is beyond rhetoric, but actually behavior. But it's not demonstrative. It's we essentially need to practice good allyship and diplomacy. Yes, actively until, as we gradually use our actions to rebuild trust. That's, yeah. Thanks for explaining. Matthew,

sorry. Yeah. So, you know, this was an appropriate question. But today, Donald Trump slapped 50% tariffs on Canada, on the broad range of goods. And I'm curious about this because this feels like amateur hour to me, but I'm also not an expert in this kind of stuff. It just feels like, um, are there any communications that occur prior to this stuff happening? Or does one

of our NATO allies just get slapped with this out of nowhere? And wouldn't you this ultimately

result in us just going back to them basically with Hat and Hand at a later day saying, how do we repair this relationship? Because it's obvious he just wants something else. And he's trying to use leverage and power of the United States economy over our allies, which doesn't

“feel right to me. It feels, it doesn't feel like a partnership, right? What are your thoughts on that?”

Yeah. And this is what you hear from our allies a lot of the time is they say, we feel like you're using the tools that you used to use against your adversaries. You like to use expert controls and sanctions and tariffs to exert pressure and use those tools as punitive measures. When you were unhappy about something with an adversary, but now we get hit with them as much as

your adversaries were right there on par last April when Trump first rolled out all of these new

tariffs. You couldn't really tell the difference. You looked at the list of countries and it was hard to distinguish ally from adversary. Kind of everybody was getting hit all the time. And now Canada feels certainly like it's in that boat. I mean, Carney has had a really rough ride with

“President Trump. It hasn't been easy. He's been repeatedly told that we consider Canada to be the”

50 first state and somehow they should just join the United States. But he's feeling the heat. And now with this new layer that's coming out, I just, I don't know how you recover from this. And what I will tell you is if you talk to a lot of businesses that work with the Canadians and in Canada, they're feeling this. I'll give you an example. The F-35 produced by Lockheed Martin, this is a company that was preparing to sell 88 F-35s to Canada, a huge investment that would mean

years of cooperation between the United States and Canada because it's not just selling them the jets. It's the maintenance and sustainment that comes with that over many years. This would have been a huge new chapter in our defense relationship. And because of all this friction at the end of the day, Carney decides to do a split by. And he says, I'll still take 44 F-35s, but now I'm going to go with the sub Swedish company that produces the grip ends, different jet. And I will do that

because of the way in which you're treating me and because I have to hedge a little bit. I don't know what kind of relationship I'm going to have with the United States going forward. Maybe you're going to sell me these jets, but then you're going to put everyone has this idea of a kill switch. So that Trump if he's upset, he can just make all of these weapons inoperable. And so you see those types of decisions over and over and over again. I'll give you a second example, which really

makes my heart sink. So in Denmark, a couple of guys have created an app, Danes download this on their phone, and they go through the stores and they scan with their phone, all the products and the QR codes and the app will tell you to what degree that product was made in the United States so that you

for as long as I have been working over the last 30 years or so. And for me to imagine, Danes trying to avoid US components in a television or a lamp or whatever they might be purchasing

“or a food product. I mean, really tells you all you need to know about how our allies are feeling”

about us. So these actions like this announcement against Canada, they have devastating long-term effects and it's making the leaders in those countries think twice about working with us. It will have ramifications for US investment and sales abroad. Irrespective of what industry

you're in. So this is really hurting the bottom line of our own companies. It's not just

inflicting pain. We do a lot of business with our friends in Canada and our friends in Europe, and the chickens are coming home to roost. And I think mapping up from this is going to be a bear, you know, just to make some sense a little bit. What's that's really behind the drawing? What's really mind-boggling to me, though, is the things that he has the most grievances with

“are the things the agreements that he came up with and celebrated in the past? That's what he”

complains about the most is his own policy. Yeah. This is no one telling him like, dude, this is your deal like you did this. Like is that not a thing? Yeah. I mean, you're right. This is

this is in Canada's case. It's just unbelievable because in his first term, he was the one that

crafted the big trade agreement between Mexico, Canada and the United States, right? And so for this, he will take some of his signature achievements in another administration, apparently in another era, and then just decide their worthless. And then we wonder why our allies don't trust us at the end of the day. This is part of the reason because they think they have a deal and they think they can finally rely on the United States because there's something on paper and it's signed

“by the president only to wake up a few years later. And that documents been put right through the”

shredder. Well, Ambassador, I just want to kind of respect your time a bit here, but I do want to spit it for a last question or two on something that's a bit more practical, a bit more real, specifically Ukraine. Obviously, when we talk about NATO, there's a lot of pontificating, a lot of policy, but they're actually fighting a very real war. I firmly believe

Russia will ultimately fail to achieve Vladimir Putin's stated goals in Ukraine, although feel free

to challenge that, by all means, but we've spent years talking about helping Ukraine. It seems like though under the Trump administration, and when you look from a European perspective at broader American policy, the wild shift between Biden to Trump, that we just can't define what our success would be. What does success for NATO look like at this moment when this war eventually ends all wars eventually do? And is it simply that Ukraine survives as a sovereign state,

or is there a broader strategic objective objective that the alliance wants Ukraine to retake Donbass region or even Crimea? Are those things that NATO wants his goals? Or are we just trying to end this war hopefully find a way to secure Ukraine? And then allow Russia to almost take a victory lap on claiming Crimea and parts of the Donbass? Well, the answer to that is one that depends entirely on the person you're asking. There are countries in Europe that are

absolutely determined to see an outcome where Ukraine is able to retake and control all of its form of territory going into Crimea and beyond into the Donbass you name it. There are others that are saying that feels unrealistic, a victory should be an end to this war where Ukraine has control over its own sovereign territory, perhaps without bits of the Donbass or Crimea, but the war comes to an end Ukraine survives, and that's going to have to be the good enough solution. But where everyone

agrees is that NATO will not dictate the terms under which Ukraine goes to the negotiating table. That's for President Zelensky to decide. And we will not develop at NATO the idea or the scope of a victory. Zelensky has to determine. I mean, there was a time when Zelensky said, we're going to ensure that we can take back every inch of Ukrainian territory. There were other moments where he seemed to, in a very subtle way, acknowledge the Crimea might be out of reach.

Now, different situation, they're challenging the Russians in Crimea. Essentially, now Crimea

into that peninsula and created a really difficult situation for the Russians. So now we're back

“to the frame of, well, maybe they could get back everything. But this will all have to be terming”

not at NATO headquarters in Brussels, but by President Zelensky and his team in Kiev, but I will say, NATO has a deep appreciation that Ukraine is essentially fighting on behalf of the West and of on behalf of NATO allies. I mean, they are preventing the Russians from going further. Our biggest fear when the war started at NATO was that perhaps Ukrainians wouldn't be able to hold the line and Russia would succeed in seizing Ukraine and then go further. And thankfully, that hasn't come to pass

because of the incredible courage of the Ukrainian forces, but also their ingenuity and innovation

in using new technology. So there is an element of gratitude across the NATO alliance and appreciation for what Ukraine is doing right now and for Zelensky's leadership. But it's kind of anybody's guess how this is going to go. It does seem right now, though, that Ukraine has the upper hand.

“Thank you for explaining. Sure. I'm excited. Sorry, I spoke over your note. What was that?”

I was just saying I'm excited about that, by the way. I am too. You and me both. You and me both. It is really surprising. I mean, I'm no expert on foreign policy or the military, but it is one of the remarkable surprises in modern political history that, you know, I thought what happened in Crimea was going to happen again. And it's like shows what I do. But it's kind of fascinating. You see the tide. So two things. I don't know. So just one quick final. And then we'll let you

go. Thank you so much for your time, but what are you most concerned about in the NATO alliance? What keeps you up at night? And what are you most optimistic about going forward? I worry about a scenario where the guns go quiet in Ukraine, Putin's under enormous pressure at home, and he decides to start something new with the NATO alliance. And that would be described in my mind as a hot piece where there is peace in Ukraine, but he kind of turns the dial up on

those hybrid actions that we talked about earlier. And suddenly he's challenging the NATO alliance in many uncomfortable ways. And something horrible happens. Maybe there's loss of life. And the U.S. ops out and doesn't respond. In which case, at that point, article five and attack on one is an attack on all kind of goes by the wayside. So that's that's the scenario that stresses me out. And there's this interesting point in time over the next two or three years where you have

U.S. disengagement. We're kind of backing away from Europe. Europeans are frantically trying to spend more on defense, but they're not there yet. And they can't provide for their own security. And we have a U.S. president that is at best what's the best word for that uncertain about how he would respond to an article five contingency. And so I wonder whether or not Putin could potentially try something. In terms of optimism, I will say it is unbelievable what Europeans are doing right

now in terms of providing for their own defense. I have never in my life seen European countries

move out so quickly on spending more for their own defense. And frankly, they should have done it 30 years ago. And I'm glad it's happening. I don't like the way in which it's unfolding. But I think between the current U.S. president and the war in Ukraine, many allies have started to see, yes, we need to invest in their own security. We cannot make the U.S. provide for our security indefinitely. We have to take more responsibility. And I think ultimately, if NATO survives,

that will lead to a stronger, more capable, better balanced alliance that can withstand the

“test of time. And so that's what gives me more optimism these days when I'm feeling pessimistic.”

If you have just a minute, do you mind if I tag a follow question on to that? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, I'm just curious. We spend more on the military than any of our allies than

basically any other country, our incredible percentage of our GDP has spent on the military. And

as a result of the forever wars, it's resulted in a, basically, generation with a lower standard of living than the previous generation for the first time in a long time in America. None of us want war, obviously. And America, by having such a high military budget and

smaller nations that don't, is there a future for a more equitable NATO that would allow America

to have a slightly more balanced or significantly more balanced domestic budget, but budget, which would allow us to spend more domestically on quality of life, education, arts, things like that.

“Yeah, I mean, look, I'm fairly hawkish on the US defense budget. I think we need to have a strong”

defense budget. I am not with Donald Trump. I'm not suggesting 1.5 trillion and, you know, sums that make your eyes water. But I think you can do it in a thoughtful way and try and find ways to use these autonomous systems that are, you know, just systems that are much more affordable. They can be made more easily. We're not talking about constructing F-35s. We're talking about inexpensive autonomous systems that are attributable. Now, they won't replace the jets that you

also need. But I think we're going to see an interesting evolution in the US military where these autonomous systems are going to be brought online and be used more in tandem with conventional weapon systems in ways that I hope will allow us to find occasionally some savings. So we have to be smart about it and it can't come at the expense of the other domestic requirements and needs that we have that are very real here in the United States and desperately need to be addressed.

But I certainly would not find myself in the camp of folks that are saying, okay, just zero out,

“you know, the defense budget. I think there's a lot happening in the world that should give us pause.”

There are many crises and conflicts that can continue to unfold and I still believe despite our words that and particularly what's unfolded over the last year and a half that we continue to have a unique role to play in the world. It doesn't mean we have to take control or responsibility for everything and provide for everyone. But we do have a unique ability to build

coalitions, bring countries together. I mean, for the first three years of the war in Ukraine,

it was the US that was bringing 50 countries together to ensure that all of us were providing security assistance to Ukraine, not just the United States and that remains our superpower, getting everybody to step up and join us. But we do that often by putting our offer out there first. So I hope we can return to that superpower without breaking the bank and ensuring that our people at home, you know, don't have what they need. We must ensure that we can address the severe

affordability crisis that's unfolding in all the rest. So finding that balance will be the challenge of course for the next US president. And I hope we can find kind of a smart way to spend on defense that won't come at the expense of our domestic challenges. Well, thanks for explaining. And I do hope that we regain our ability to do to lead into diplomacy. That would be a superpower that we really should invest in. Indeed. Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us. They're

happy to do it. I really appreciate you and want to respect your time. So feel free to get on out here. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us. I really do feel I personally have a better understanding of the situation right now. It's given me a lot to think about going forward. Chad or Matt is there anything else you'd like to say before our guest leaves us? No, just again, thank you so much for your time. Just love your brilliant analysis and

have fun down at the lake. Thank you. Thank you. Great doing this with you guys. I learned a lot from you tonight, and I really appreciate that. And I will share that. Excellent. Thank you so much for joining us here on American power. And that was our conversation with Ambassador Julie Smith. Chad, how do you feel about it?

“Yeah, just brilliant analysis. That's what's so great about bringing experts like her on.”

It's really comforting to hear that there is optimism and from someone like that. She sees the political world of this. Like I was a guy on the ground. I helped NATO countries deal with what Ukraine is dealing with with a Russian threat more from a tactical point of view. Yeah, I have an education in the strategic point of view, but to actually have someone with her expertise or experience that come on and say, yeah, there's some problems. The US has wards. The US is in kind of a dark

place right now, but there is optimism going forward. That's always good. And I think the American

people need to hear that because so often when we have a leader like Trump, where it's just the hammer of negative constantly being banged into us, we constantly just hear about how

It's just, and even on the geopolitide, we see them rolling their eyes now at some of the things he's saying, but to hear that there are those out there who have walked the walk say, hey, this is a dark time, but I think we're going to get through it. And I think Europe is going to be better for it, for sure, as well as, you know, potentially hopefully the United States managed to last a long time,

but ultimately the long-term flaw or weakness in grievance-based politics is that the group of

people who share the grievance with the leader is increasingly small as they eventually realize he's nothing like them. And so I think, you know, domestically, that kind of reactions that we have, you know, like you said, you're even getting laughed at a little bit on the right, but it can, even if you, if you roll your eyes at that stuff, like we said, it can be actually hard to escape that narrative. So it is, it is interesting to hear about this stuff from just a different framework,

regardless of where you are politically positioned in America, because our thoughts are so necessarily

“reactive to the current administration that is actually kind of hard to, that's what I say with Greenland.”

Like, I actually downflayed that mentally, because I didn't realize how, I mean, of course it would be a serious threat, but we're so ingrained in, like you said, this like constant hammer of negativity that I was like, yeah, sure, he's going to invade Greenland. It's can be hard to see what's proportioned outside of this. So it really helped me, yeah, see things from like the the international political perspective. Now, what did you think? Any thoughts?

I, I thought it was great. I thought it was fantastic. I, I don't know the last time I set and learned so much from somebody. Of course, I'm not like Chad. I'm not educated on NATO, but man, I learned a ton and that is mostly about the way the money's allocated and, you know, the way all that works, don't try to make this all believe that we're just giving all these NATO nations all this money. Nothing could be further from the truth. It sounds like that wasn't true,

but I needed to explain to me how it works. So I could see the difference. You know, I understood it wasn't a piggy bank, but I was like, what is the, what is the grievance here?

Yeah, we're spending money within our own country, basically, you know, or making money off of

our defense spending and a portion of that meets NATO obligations. That's, it's as simple as that. How I didn't know that before is beyond me, but I didn't. That's Chad's fault. He should have told me that. I didn't know that. I don't listen to this podcast. Well, you guys, this last scene

“over a corner now, too, be fair. So here's the thing. So last episode, I kind of brought it up,”

but that, but the big fair, it hits so much harder and makes so much more sense when you have someone like, like, ambassadors to explain it. Like, I can sit here in my chair and tell you guys, this is what happens. And people be like, who's this guy? He just, like, I was, I was like a, he was like a trigger polar in that hot Ukrainian tattoo Russians in Europe. Great. To hear from him from an actual ambassador, that makes a huge difference. And it makes a huge difference even for me.

So just to have her on, so so gracious for her to bring it beyond. And I just was, it was a great conversation. And I think, I think we can definitely hope her have her on. And I do know that we potentially have some other really great guests coming on later and then coming weeks as well. So yeah. But what were you thoughts on that? What did you think? I thought it was really interesting. And like I said, elucidating for, you know, kind of getting out of the internal dope of U.S. political

“discourse. I think it was interesting to me. One, one little note was when she said, you know,”

works in all, in spite of the last 1.5 years that I was like, oh, I could, I could name some earlier warts personally. I would have, I don't know if I would think there were warts so much as lesions. But one thing I did wish I could have asked her was a little bit about, you know, how is our relationship with Israel affecting our relationship with NATO? But I understand that's like less at her purview. And I didn't want to, that's such a big issue. You know, I think personally us following Israel

is destabilizing a lot of trust in the world, like for obvious reasons. But I also know that that's not specifically, you know, our actions in Gaza are actions in Iran are not specifically over the purview of NATO. So I didn't want to distract in our limited amount of time to talk about that. But I thought it was really interesting to talk about, I mean, effectively, how can trust be rebuilt?

And, and her to, for her to say, effectively can't be under Trump, and also we're never going back.

Like it has to be a new, I know, which is an terrible thing. It has to be a new modern agreement, new modern relationship that works for the 21st century. And I, I thought that was interesting. Because I think even among, you know, a lot of liberals, there's this thought of like, well, how do we, how do we get back to the good America? How do we get back to the way we used to act? And the answer is, it's, we don't, we, we, we build a new America. We build a new relationship with the world.

Any other thoughts on the interview before we go on?

“I think, uh, well, I just, just to kind of piggyback real quick on what you were saying is, um,”

a question I really wanted to ask her, and we just for respecting her time was transitioning into what is being called the NATO 3.0. This almost euro led NATO. And I think that that is kind of the way ahead. And it might actually solve a bit of the problem. Well, it's supposed to solve a bit of the problem that you have met with the defense versus domestic spending, which I think we all have. I would prefer, even as a product of defense to spend more on education to spend more on social welfare programs.

But if Europe takes more control of their own defense, there is a bit of a an ability, maybe not a willingness, but definitely an ability for the United States to step back. And God forbid, maybe reduce hard defense budget, because we could do that and still be okay. And so that's that's kind of what I think the hope is, it's just not going to happen, because that is,

if there's a more powerful lobby than a pack, it is the defense lobby. They will get their money,

they will get their budget, whether it's necessary or not, that's a, that's a several show thing. But, um, yeah, I did enjoy the time with her. So yeah, I mean, that's something I'd like to unpack a little more. I was getting at the last question, which is just like, I'm very hawkish on this. Personally, I'm less so. I'm not an ambassador, so I'm not going to speak as an expert, but I do think that we do a little bit of this circular reasoning where we go, well, because the US is the biggest military

power, we have this responsibility to take care of other countries, which is why we have the responsibility to spend so much on our military, which means we have to take care of these other countries. And I do think that diplomacy obviously needs to be a big part of how we de-escalate that, but a more equitable treaty or a treaty in which we are not the bully or treaty in which we are

not, you know, that we always have been in NATO, but under Trump, especially a treaty in which we

are behaving more like an ally and not like the top status ally, like ally in quotes that still gets to call shots, because we are, you know, we have this big military. I do think a world in which we are able to de-escalate a bit that way, and or at least stop seeing ourselves as the world police. I think that, you know, that would result in a better America. We were able to do that for a long time because we were so prosperous that people didn't recognize the effects of not spending domestically,

and unfortunately it took people really feeling the hurt to recognize that, you know, still still blaming it on the wrong things in many cases, but I think a NATO 3.0 in which Europe is more equitably at the table strikes me as, you know, a step forward, and I'm like you said

“defense contractors, I mean, that's why we run this show, the most expensive things in the world,”

our energy and the military, and that's that's where all our power is flexed, but I will say I have a slightly 4% more optimistic take than you, which is I, I don't think that that is an a indefinitely and impossibly unbreakable power group. I think that that control, obviously it's the most money in the world, and it's being spent on, but I just don't refuse to be defeated about it, I want to see a world in which we don't spend that much on defense and live a more

prosperous future. Yeah, I hope you're right. Yeah, I mean, I'm being optimistic, I'm well aware of that fact, like we said, this is American power, these are the most expensive things and these are things that we use to wield power globally and domestically. I want to talk speaking about optimism about our final segment on the show, which we use to highlight something, if not, positive, less negative than the rest of the news and something that really interested us in the week and we

“call it the least worst part of my week. Would either of you guys like to go first?”

Robert Peters of Tipton, Indiana has been delivering pizza to the people in Tipton for 31 years. That's a long time and his car broke down. So what did the community do? They bought him a new one. Can you imagine having a pizza delivery guy that is so star-spangled awesome that your town literally buys him a new car because his old junker they'd been driving for 30 years broke down the delivery pizza. That's exactly what happened.

One of his customers who had he had been delivering pizza to this guy for over 20 years found out his car broke down and started to go fund me for Mr. Peters and they raised enough money to buy him. It's a use car, but like a 2018 or something, Malibu, they even raised enough money to put insurance on it and give him a $500 gas card so he could continue delivering pizza for the good folks in Tipton, Indiana. I think you guys in Tipton are great for doing that because it's just

all about community obviously in that town in Indiana. If it wasn't, that kind of stuff wouldn't

but you made up for it. It's right. People working the same job for 31 years should be able to afford a car. However, that's not the reality and you guys made up for it with community and I think that's awesome too. Chad, you got what I guess I have a question. Before I get to mind, I do have a

question. Again, people of Tipton, that's incredible. However, my question is, if I read the story

ready, we're for Pizza Hut. Come on, Pizza Hut. Just buy a car, man. You're the second largest pizza company behind Domino's now. Grossman deliver pizza for 31 years. Clearly, you could have gotten a car, like cool on the people of Tipton and just for my own, I googled, not again, this is googled information. There's no, there's no reporting that said Pizza Hut even donated to the go fund me. So, exactly. Come on. Yeah. That's a bit. That's a bit. Not to put a damper on it. Again, the focus is

“on the people of Tipton. No, that's why I said we have no social safety net. Like there's all sorts of”

things. Job should have a better security and better resources for their employees. But the whole community is, you know, great. A slight correction for Chad. Don't ask me how I know this. I'm full of useless information. But the largest pizza franchise in the United States is actually hunt brothers. Oh, really? I think there's nothing like hunt brothers. Hut brothers is a pizza franchise that sells

cooked slices of pizza and in pizzas in convenient stores. And these two brothers, the hunt brothers, decided they wanted to start a pizza franchise where they didn't have to cook it. They didn't have to serve it. They didn't have to do nothing. So they sell the community stores the ovens and the ingredients. And they are billionaires and that is now the largest pizza franchise in

the United States. And most people never even heard of it because they don't recognize the name

when they're buying a slice at the convenience store. Oh, bigger than Dom and it's probably all eaten at Mama Mia. What have you done to my culture? God, that's so depressing. Why I know the most I know the world is from seven. I don't want that information. It's actually good pizza. It's actually good pizza. They cook it there. You can't tell me that. I'm sorry. I just don't maybe it is, but my body will not accept that information. Okay, it's not New York pizza. I can

tell you that. Yeah, for Oklahoma, it's pretty good. Oh, yeah, I mean, well, if you're introducing

“relative standards, yeah, that'd be great in a bowling alley, too. I think you can buy individual”

slices of the bowling alley still. The hunt brothers are probably behind that now that I think about it. Well, I got, I've got a story or Chad, do you have a story? We haven't even gotten to you yet. Yeah, I can do mine real quick. Mine's a mine's another people helping other people's story like Matt's here. So, but mine is the people of South Korea have implored their government. The government listened to renew their funding for UNICEF Syria, resilience for children plus partnerships.

So, what this is, countries generally will come forward and provide help for children around the world through this program. Syria is one of those where it's extraordinarily problematic to get aid to because of the war zone. So, they're in dire need. And in the wake of Trump dismantling USAID, and a lot of these government programs that used to help things like UNICEF and these other

“programs that help children. A lot of other countries have stepped up and South Korea is one of them.”

So, every little bit helps, they estimate that this is going to help at least 400,000 vulnerable children and women in Syria, and especially hard, there's not just Syria, but it's in that kind of impacted area of Syria with the refugees. So, just wanted to highlight that is really great good job. People of South Korea, United States, you are the pizza hut in this conversation, not helping a damn anybody because your boss is a dick. So, there you go, wait, thank you,

what you got Matt? That's good. I feel like here's this way more meaningful than mine. I was like, "Oh, okay, well, children are safe." No, I actually had a really interesting experience. Just yesterday, just over the weekend, the first ever New York occurrence of Gonsofest was this past weekend. Gonsofest was a festival established in 2010 in honor of Hunter S. Thompson, the great writer and political activist, and I had the honor this past weekend of being the first ever stand-up comedian or comedian

of any form to be asked to perform at Gonsofest. It's normally artists and panels and politicians

and a lot of musicians, poets, and they've never had comedy before, but felt that I was

philosophically in line enough with Hunter's mission to book me, and I feel very honored for that.

who gets kind of written off as dorm room poster fodder at this point. By some people, I think

he's very, you know, a countercultural icon who then people who want to roll their eyes at counter culture, then roll their eyes at. But I found his report is writing as a young writer, especially to be really important to me and informative in developing my voice as specific as an anti-fascist. Like this was someone who saw through the relationship between corporatism and fascism, you know, 70 or 50 years ago and really or even earlier and really understood the direction that America was going. And this

is a little depressing, so I feel a little bad for including at my least worse, but I want to highly recommend that people read his writing beyond fear and loading in Las Vegas, which is excellent, but is a very small percentage of his writing, read fear and loading on the campaign trail. But specifically, I would encourage you to read the essay that he wrote one week after 9/11,

“which was published in ESPN, or ESPN, the magazine, I think. It's called "When War Drums Roll," and”

it is, it was massively influential to me as someone who witnessed the events and as someone who felt like the national discourse was really not speaking to the truth of it and it's refreshingly clear. And if you read it today, it is an eerie prediction of where America will be 25 years after it was written. So as much of this sounds like a little negative, it was a really important part of my week to see that so many people, this festival events all day, all weekend, going into

for the morning, they were packed out, so many people are still hearing and inspired by these words and creating art and creating art of resistance and creating political organizations against fascism and inspiring anti-fascist media. As a result of their love for this one person and the work that he put out in the world and whether or not he's your favorite person, I highly

“recommend that you do read "When War Drums Roll," and check out the works of Honduras Thompson,”

and look out the check out for the next Gonzo Fest. So again, that was my least worst part of my

week was being the first comedian ever to perform in Gonzo Fest and seeing how many people

are still sticking to that spirit of counter culture and are dedicated to fighting fascism. That's a, I really, I really like, I like Honduras, his, his fear and loading on the campaign trail. And I didn't, I haven't read all this stuff a few more well read into him than I am, but this notion that we are just participants in a machinery, essentially, of elections, like we almost don't necessarily control. I, by, I really found that to be very profound, but also

I liked how he rounded it out where he talked about how the machinery can be broken down by, what I'm quote, "staring" at it, which by took to mean by being a part of it. So when we see corporations and Matt talked about this previously in one of our episodes where corporations and this corporatism, they, we have citizens united allowing them in this most recent, that Supreme Court, I can't remember what the actual name was, but the most recent Supreme

Court basically, the funding of money. I, even with that kind of hopelessness and stuff, it was really great to have Honduras Thompson talk about how when you engage and stare at the ritual machinery of the campaign trail, it starts to show. And then you can start to be the breakdown of it. You can get in there and start breaking it down. So it's a great, it is. It's very, even though it's from 1972, it's very apt for today. It's probably more so

today now than it was back then. So it's good stuff. Yeah, and a lot of that writing is like

deeply negative and critical, but it's never quite hopeless. Like he, he is kind of someone to

say, this is all bullshit, but like you said, he's a participant. Like he believed that it should

“be observed. He believed that the political discourse should be participated in. And I think that's,”

you know, it's worth acknowledging. It's worth reading. Yep. Well, you heard us, listeners, take a handful of pills and a fifth of whiskey and cut that up. And then listen, listen to some Honduras Thompson audiobooks and just not offer a while. After the episode, of course, you can cut that out. Or you leave it in. We'll find out. Don't check what the pills are first. My name is Natausen. You've been listening to American power. Thank you for

listening. This has been our episode with Ambassador Julie Smith. We'll be back next week with another episode for Chad Scott and Mr. Global Matt Randolph. I'm your host Natausen. And this is been American power from Findout Media. Remember, power corrupts, but American power corrupts. Americanly.