Marco Rubio and Tulsi Gabbard - Megyn Kelly's "Double Feature" of Fascinating Interviews

the least. [Music]

“Hey everyone I'm Megan Kelly welcome to the Megan Kelly show and today's Sunday”

double feature mega episode today we are looking back to two deep-dive conversations we had with members of the Trump administration on the week where we just had another one with Vice President JD Vance who we sat with on Tuesday you can go and find that on YouTube and all podcast platforms but today I look back at past conversations with Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio and DNI tells the gathered

from the beginning of the Trump admin in 2025 in fact when we did this one Marco had not yet become National Security Advisor he was just to the Secretary of State it's before he been asked to do every other job in the admin and it still holds it's such a good overview of the Trump foreign policy vision and the Rubio foreign policy vision and we covered all you know Greenland Panama Canal like you you listen and you will hear a comprehensive vision

for Trump 2.0 that you might find very fascinating and tell C2 who sadly will not be DNI any longer thanks to her husband's cancer unfortunately but came in loaded for bear and ready to really shake things up in the intel field and now we're just arguing over who will be her success on whether we can get that person confirmed there's been some drama around that this week and the meantime enjoy the following interviews and we'll see you Monday.

Today our exclusive interview with the 72nd Secretary of State Marco Rubio this is his first

long form sit down he said it was his first interview since taking on the new role just over one week ago of all the Trump 2.0 nominees he's the only one so far who gained I mean entirely bipartisan support passing unanimously by the Senate with a 99 to 0 vote and as the only nominee to receive a vote on day one of the second Trump administration on the eve of his first foreign trip as Secretary of State interestingly to Panama we get into everything we go to Greenland

we talk China we talk Iran is real and we do get into the deep state enjoy. Mr. Secretary thank you so much for doing this thank you it still feels weird to hear that it does right it's your week in now eight days but I'm not counting I was saying it's been eight days and eight nine days there there's so much I want to go over like the change between the Senate and here what how you're you know what's it like to be the heart of the deep the deep state but

let me start with the plane crash it's so awful it is it's horrible I mean just from the human standpoint of it to think these are people though I mean they were landing we've all been on these planes you're getting ready to land you're excited you're getting ready to go maybe your phones are already connecting because you're ready to get on the ground and then something like this comes out of the blue and it's a horrible tragedy and we don't forget that there were

service members involved and this is well who lost their lives and this terrible accident obviously

“the it's not a state department function but um the key to these is first to honor those who have”

passed and and understand the pain of these families the second is to figure out why this happened

so that it never happens again that's a very busy airport and um and there's a lot of traffic

going in and out through the city so but it's just heartbreaking and I'm sure as we hear the individual stories of the people involved will be even better does it underscore it all why President Trump needs his nominees confirmed quickly yeah especially on the response part of it right I mean so ultimately there was a failure here at some point like helicopters and airplanes are not supposed to crash into each other in the capital of the United States at one of the

busy airports in the country this isn't supposed to happen so it happened for a reason and someone needs to lead a process to figures out why and then you need to lead a process to make sure it doesn't happen again and look at happen here could happen in some other city too and so you need to have someone at the head of these departments that are in charge of this and um and it may be multiple departments because it's going to involve DOD it's going to involve the Department of Transportation

“but it may involve other elements of the U.S. government and you need to have somebody running the”

agencies or they want to be you're just not going to get the same responses yeah God forbid we had something happen on an international basis you're installed but Tulsi's you know that could take a while and there's been a little foot dragging um all right so you've been in the job now for eight days what's the biggest difference between being a U.S. senator and being the secretary of state

well two things first of all my boss is President Trump is a person that moves very quickly I'll

give you a perfect example this weekend we had a disagreement not with Columbia with the president of Columbia who got for something in the morning decided to turn around flights that he had agreed to we have an in writing they agreed these are a Columbia nationals illegally in the United States and they had I mean under international agreements they have to take back their nationals and they agreed to it at 430 in the morning he for whatever reason was either awake or about to go to bed

other had just taken off and ordered them turned around and so in a traditional administration I would

have taken about two and a half years to react to it it would have gone through all this and all these policy options with President Trump it happened within a matter hours it was very quick and so the ability to execute on action on directive is a big difference between being in the senate the senate the house play a very important role but it doesn't have the executive role and the executive

“part of it is the one that I think is the biggest difference the ability to see a problem and”

under our authorities address it and when you're working for someone like President Trump it's going to happen very quickly it's not going to be a lot to debate you know in the wake of that plane crash I had to wonder last night whether you know the their predecessors from the prior administration were calling Pete Hexeth we're calling Sean Duffy have you spoken with Anthony Blinken at all was there any sort of good tidings sent your way well it's out of the state department

it's possible because when we're in our offices we don't have our phones here in this building because for security reasons so it's possible they've reached out as of this morning but the the truth of the matter is you know this is well there may be a state component of there were international on the flights of citizen of another country you know we obviously would notify their embassy or consulate because their families and loved ones for that notification

but but I would expect that at DOD because obviously that was the department of defense that was a military helicopter three service members have lost their lives and then most certainly in department of transportation because they have the primary jurisdiction over the FAA and the broader you know airplane safety challenges but what about just since you took the job is there is like does he give you a letter in the way that Biden left you there he loved a very nice note

and you know basically said welcome to the best job in the world and I'm here to help anything you need

and and it's like I said it's a really important job it needs to become even more important the state department in my view over the years has become less and less relevant in the making a foreign policy for a variety of reasons not because there aren't talented people in the state department there are and and I've known that from the past interacting with them but because it moved too slowly because it took too long to action because it you gave a

directive and it took so long for the state department to do something because of internal processes or whatever that largely administrations would start to work around the state department and I want the state department to be relevant again I want it to to be at the center of foreign policy making and and so that's by providing advice to the president who ultimately makes the decision about what we're going to do so so it's it's a great job and and I tell you it's not just

the position but to be secretary state for Donald Trump is a great job because you know you're not going to be wasting a lot of time so decisions made you're going to get to act it's such a tricky time to be secretary of state especially as a republican because you look at the republican party and it's fractured internally about where we should be on foreign policy it's not like during the bush years where it was you know we were much more neocony on the right and now there's a

real division within the right within maggot even on how what should we do about Ukraine there's

“most of the party I think once and nothing to do with that anymore how what kind of saber”

rattling should we do be doing about Iran you know there's a large strain that believes none we should be focused on china and we should stop demonizing Iran and Russia and keep our eye on our biggest threat I know you think they're our biggest threat as well so how just give me the 30 thousand foot level view of how you're going to navigate that fraction well I think we spend a lot of time in american politics debating tactics like what we're going to do who we're

going to sanction what would let over we're going to send or whatever I think it really has to start with strategy what is the strategic objective what's the purpose the mission and I think the mission of american foreign policy in this may sound sort of obvious but I think it's been lost the interest of american foreign policy is to further the national interest of the united

states of america right i mean america everything well and that's the way the world has always worked

the way the world has always worked is that the chinese will do what's in the best interest of china the Russians will do what's in the best interest of Russia you know the chalayans are going to do it's in the best interest of chile and the united states needs to do what's in the best interest of the united states where our interest align that's where you have partnerships and alliances where our differences are not aligned that is where the job of diplomacy is to prevent

conflict while still furthering our national interest and understanding they're going to further

“theirs and that's been lost and I think that was lost at the end of the cold war because we're”

the only power in the world and so we assume this responsibility of sort of becoming the global government in many cases trying to solve every problem and there are terrible things happening in the world there are and then and then there are things that are terrible that impact our national interest directly and we need to prioritize those again so it's not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power that was not that was an anomaly it was the product of the end of the

cold war but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multi polar world multi great powers and different parts of the of the planet we faced that now with china

have to deal with so now more than ever we need to remember that foreign policy should always be

about furthering the national interest of the United States and doing so to the extent possible avoiding war in armed conflict which we have seen two times in the last century be very constantly you know they're celebrating the 80th anniversary this year of the end of the second world war

“you know that I think if you look at the scale and scope of destruction and loss of life”

that occurred it would be far worse if we had a global conflict now and life on the planet and it sounds like a purbally but that's not your multiple countries now who have the capability to end life on earth and so we need to really work hard to avoid armed conflict as much as possible but never at the expense of our national interest so that's the tricky balance so I think returning us to that now you can have a framework by which you analyze not just diplomacy before

an aid and who we line up with and the return of pragmatism and that's not an abandonment of our principles I'm not a fan or a giddy supporter of some horrifying human rights violator somewhere in

the world by the same token diplomacy has always required us and foreign policy has always required

us to work in the national interest sometimes in cooperation with people who we wouldn't invite over for dinner or people who we wouldn't necessarily ever want to be led by and so that's a balance but it's the sort of pragmatic and mature balance we have to have in foreign policy. How do you think we did in the last administration because Jake Sullivan and former national security adviser when now former under Joe Biden said our alliances are now stronger as they

left office our adversaries and our competitors are weaker rush as weaker or runs weaker

“China's weaker and all the while we kept America out of wars what's your response to that?”

Well a couple points the first is and we're looking forward and moving forward but we have to analyze

where we stand the world that we inherited and I would disagree with that assessment I think it

really begins because the Biden administration from my view had internal fractures between state department and the national security council between different elements of their party you saw that come to fruition for example with our position on Israel or you had a group that wanted ahead in a different direction that's really a fracture within the democratic party as well. If you look around the world I would say that in many cases our adversaries are stronger than they've

ever been and became stronger over the last four years certainly Russia does not consider itself weaker than it were four years ago they now control territory they didn't have when Donald Trump left office. I think if you look at the Middle East we had the outbreak of a war that can that's been incredibly costly and divisive it started on October 7th when these savages came across and committed these atrocities that were worn in Europe as well and Ukraine as I mentioned a moment

ago so we had the and I think really one of the lynch pins that sort of triggered all of that was that chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan I think that sent a very clear signal to someone like Vladimir Putin that America was actually in decline or distracted we can move and he did I think you see it in the Indo-Pacific where every day it's not just Taiwan it's the Philippines are being aggressively challenged by the Chinese militarily or coercion is spreading throughout the world

the Chinese are using coercive tactics not just in their near broad but in other parts of the world as well so I I don't agree with that assessment I think we have a lot of work to do and I'm going to tell you and this is something that's not often appreciated enough countries what openly complain about the US being very firm and being engaged in these things in a very firm way but privately in many cases they welcome it they welcome US engagement they want to know what they want

clarity in our foreign policy and then they want us to take action to be reliable and I know of no president certainly in modern American history he was more clear than Donald Trump and I know

“no one was more action oriented than president Trump and so that's what the state department's”

going to reflect and how we how we perceive how much is wondering as you listen to you whether you think Joe Biden's mental infirmity which we all witnessed especially during his last year in office cost us anything with these adversaries yeah look our both adversaries and allies analyze everything just as we do right we we would watch foreign leaders in how they behave and make decisions upon that and there's no doubt that foreign adversaries are going to look at

how our leaders not just presidents but anybody else react and make assumptions on the basis of it and sometimes you know there look the China's perception of America this is China's perception of the world China's perception of the world is that they are in a they are inevitably going to be the world's greatest power by 2035 2050 whatever date they've said in their mind they believe that they're on an irreversible rise and we are an inevitable decline that the West and large but the

U.S. and specific is a tired spent former great power in inevitable decline and they believe that foreign policies about managing our decline and their rise and they want nothing to interrupt it that's how they view the the West writ large in the United States in particular and so anytime

they have and frankly invites them to do things that perhaps they wouldn't do they have a different

calculus of us and by that logic we got safer the day Trump was inaugurated there's no doubt I've seen it I mean I'm telling you that for if you look at what happened with Columbia you know generally speaking if a leader had said I'm going to turn back these planes I'm not going to take and we would have sent a note of the march to call it you know complaining about it and we would have then had a high level out reach back and forth and we had to figure this out and I would have taken six

weeks or what have you in this particular case we presented President Trump with options he immediately took action and the back channels existed there was a lot of conversation with other figures in the climbing government who had agreed to this and we're trying to figure out a path to get us right but it didn't take six weeks or six months it took six hours were they shocked when when Trump sent out his

“week shocked no I don't think they were shocked I think it reaffirmed what they believe about him”

and that is that this is not a traditional sort of orthodox American president who is going to

be tangled up by interagency you know impediments in our government this is someone who's action oriented and is going to do things actually going to do what he says so yeah I mean I I don't think they were shocked I think it was a good reminder and look I want to be clear that most of the people in the climbing government are friendly to the United States they were horrified but what was happening I mean there were leaders of their congressional branch over there that were putting messages on

X like this is crazy our presidents are not case I mean they were writing that that's their internal politics but I think it reaffirms with a lot of leaders believe about America under Donald Trump and that is we are led by someone who is not very mysterious he's going to tell you what he's going to do and he'll actually do it and I think foreign policy works a lot better when you're led by someone like that now is that just that make your job easier done easier no doubt so you

“can just say hey look the bosses said exactly what how he feels yeah I mean I think often times people”

think there's there's posturing going on well they don't really mean this so they're not really going to do it I think in my particular case my I don't have to make that argument right I mean I think they understand it I think it's also a lot of pragmat every conversation I have a foreign leaders to the extent it's been conflictive or that we've had areas of conflict to talk about I've been very clear and that is look I expect you to do what you're doing because that's you're

actually acting in your national interest and I know you've gotten used to a foreign policy in which you act in the national interest of your country and we sort of act in the interest of the globe of the global order but we're led by a different kind of person now and under president Trump we're going to do what you do and one of the terms that president Trump's like loves his reciprocity and it's very simple but it's I think people would understand it if you charge us a 50%

tariff for an American product to enter your country we should charge you a 50% tariff here maybe 55 you know president Trump likes to have leverage too and who would not argue that that's not fair and how can you argue against it but that's been our policy in many cases in country after country around the world we have no access to their markets but their products have open and

“free access to ours how can that continue that's absurd I think anybody would have comments”

sense would argue that frankly I think a lot of these leaders have been wondering why it took a so long to figure that out but under president Trump they know we have the near times said okay you guys got away with this with Colombia but you're not going to be able to pull that trick with Russia with China with Iran if you try to sort of bully these stronger nations in this way it's not going to go very well is that a fair point well we're not interested in bullying

anybody and we don't feel like we bullied Colombia we feel like we had a deal Colombia signed a deal they signed a piece of paper that said yes sent to these airplanes and then halfway into the flight they broke it and so our answer was well now we flew these planes we had to bring them back to the United States so now you're going to come pick them up why are we going to pay for those flights because you canceled them it's not bullying it's they broke a contract that we had made with them

obviously look China has nuclear weapons they're tough people there's no doubt about it they're tough people have nuclear weapons they're a great power with a large economy they're going to be a

global power but it can't come at our expense and so ultimately when you're dealing with great

powers like China it's going to be at the you know at the highest levels of their president and ours they're premiere and ours and our president and that interaction will happen in the case of Russia the same obviously there's going to be whatever happens where Russia will be a Putin Trump dynamic but I think most certainly sure I mean the world is the way you do treat not the way you treat countries but the way you approach a nation has to be based on the strategic balance but

I don't view that we bullied Colombia nor do I think these articles about all they're going to turn to China that's absurd that's an absurd argument I think the overwhelming majority of people in Colombia country I know very well don't even like their president I mean this guy had an election I mean lose well he'd lose I mean he's unpopular in Colombia I mean that's not up to us people there will get to vote and they'll decide who they want to lead them but I think a lot of their people on their

business class were like what's this guy doing this is absurd I mean it's normal that you would

there are illegal American immigrants in another country we would have to accept them coming this way right so

“I don't pay a lot of it that most of the people unfortunately that are lying on the more I have been”

dealt into foreign policy and the more I read people who claimed to know them but foreign policy the more I realized that a lot of the people we believe are experts have no idea what they're talking about there's a large delta you mentioned China did you recently have a call with the the foreign minister and there was a report that you were you received a sort of warning that you needed to be somebody to tell me that and that's sort of two things that the game that they play

number one is they put out an English translation and they put out a Chinese translation and

they don't always overlap the call was very straightforward and I basically said you're acting

in the best in China we're going to act in the best interest of America we're two great powers and in areas where we can work together there's probably no problem in the world we couldn't solve working together in areas where we have disagreements we have a responsibility to manage it so it doesn't escalate into something catastrophic but be clear that we're going to do these things I

“did not at least the translator that was on the call did not say anything to me that I felt was”

over the top but then they put out these games they like to play these games they put out these translations where it says one thing in English and then it's translated in a different they use a different term in Mandarin so he was warned not to overstep himself they never said that and they had I would have told them well I would say the same to you don't overstep either and but that didn't happen at least not on the call or at least maybe they're interpreted

didn't want to interpret it that way but that was not the readout we got but it's it's silly and irrespective of any relevant what really matters is the decisions we make moving forward and you know China wants to be the most powerful country in the world and they want to do so at our expense and that's not an our national interest and we're going to address it we don't know we don't want to war over it but we're going to address it well that brings us and we have

more on China but that brings us to Panama where you're about to go and China's obviously playing a roll down there and is one of the reasons why Trump has been saying President Trump has been

saying we want the canal back we never intended to give it to the Chinese that was never the

game plan they don't technically control the Panama Canal but they do have interest down there can you explain it so yeah so they're all over Panama a few years ago Panama made a decision that they were going to de-recognize Taiwan and align with Beijing and with that came all sorts of money that was provided to the then President's administration to for projects and things of that nature but also Chinese investment and one of the main investments they have is in these two

port facilities on both on the entry on both sides of the canal and and all kinds of other infrastructure cranes in the like and so people will argue well that's not China that's a company based on Hong Kong well a company based on Hong Kong is the government of China you are not a company in China if the Chinese government doesn't control you it's similar to the argument about bite

ants in TikTok which is every company that operates from China or Hong Kong which is controlled

by China more than ever controlled by China it's no longer autonomous they have to do whatever the government tells them and if the government in China in a conflict tells them shut down the Panama Canal they will have to and in fact I have zero doubt that they have contingency planning to do so that is a direct threat so it's a technicality but in reality if China wanted to obstruct traffic in the Panama Canal they could that's a fact and it's my view that's a violation of the

treaty agreement and that's a President Trump is raising and we're going to address that topic it's one of deep concern that dynamic cannot continue not simply because we built it a great cost and lives and treasure but because it is contrary to our national interest it is not in the national interest of the United States to have a canal we paid for and we built used as a as a

“leverage and a weapon against us that can't happen so what's the solution well that's what we're”

going to have to talk about and I think the President's pretty clear he wants to administer the canal again obviously the pan minions are not big fans of that idea but we you know we that message has been brought very clear and there are a lot of other areas we can work very closely with Panama on I mean their government generally is pro-american on a number of fronts but this is a core national interest for us we can work together in a lot of things and there are a lot of things we can work with

them on that are very positive on migration and they can be very helpful on all sorts of things and I hope we'll get resolution to those very soon but that does not in any way replace the core reality that the Panama Canal we cannot allow any foreign power particularly China to hold that kind of potential control over that they do that just can't continue. What could they do I mean are they these you know Chinese control or Chinese businesses along

the canal very large ones that could easily be turned into military facilities do they have to get rid of them do they have to like what what what are the kinds of things we could ask for that would satisfy us. Hong Kong based companies having control over the entry and exit points of the canal is completely unacceptable that cannot continue because of the China and if

US can't engage in trade and commerce so that the US military enable fleet cannot get to the

“Indo-Pacific fast enough they would have to do it they would have to do it and they would do it”

and now we have a major problem on our hands that's number one number two we have to talk about the fact that we built this thing we paid for it thousands of people died doing this Americans and somehow our naval vessels who go through there in American shipping that goes through their pays rates some cases higher than other countries are paying or you know for example a vessel from China that's also not acceptable it was a terrible deal when it was made it should

never have been allowed they're going to tell you that it's set by an independent administrative entity

not the government that's their internal problem they'll have to figure that out but we should not be in a position of having to pay more than other countries in fact we should be getting a discount or maybe for free because we we paid for the thing they are too like you mentioned with Colombia is there a risk if we play too hardball we drive them into the arms of the Chinese well I would argue that the canals already in the arms of the Chinese so I mean that's one

I aspect I would say and we can't operate that way like we can't operate in the world saying well we can't defend our national interest because of not these countries will turn to China against us I mean we wouldn't allow that to happen it would be against our national interest so but that said I hope we don't get to that point right we have a on so many topics have a very good working relationship with Panama and with our government and I want that to continue but we have a core

“national interest that's at stake they should understand that and I think that they will understand”

that and it needs to be addressed and we'll do that we'll do it in the right form we'll do it appropriately I'm not here to them we're not here to embarrass anyone or cause internal friction or problems for them but I can assure you that it was the other way around and that was a canal that the Chinese had built they would be very forceful about it so we can no longer operate in the world with two hands tied behind our back people need to understand that Panama is not exactly

about Panama it's about the Chinese which you've been jumping up and down about for a while and at warning that people may not realize just how grave the threat is and you said something I think was at your confirmation hearing to the effect of if China gets what it's want would it what wants in 10 years or so life could look very different like maybe you had it for us for yeah so I mean they can today control me we love our technology and we need it for all

kinds of advances all of that depends on critical minerals at the end of the day ranging

aluminum cobalt you name it they have gone around the world buying up mining rights and they control not just the mining of it but the the refining and the the production of it and the use of

“it for industrial purposes so I remember during COVID everybody was freaking out because we couldn't”

get the masks because they were all made in China and then we really couldn't get this because they were all made in China we had lost and given away our industrial capacity this is even grave this is the rare earth minerals this is the raw materials necessary for some of the things that go into our most advanced technologies in the defense realm and in the in medicine 80 something percent of the active ingredients in generic pharmaceuticals in the United States

are made in China we can't make them so if they decide we're going to cut you off from these things they could we'd be in a lot of trouble because we gave away our industrial capacity on those things that can't continue that's a vulnerability that we face and they will use it as leverage in fact they are already using it as leverage for the first time ever they have actually

imposed export controls on on critical minerals to damage the our national security

but ultimately our our technological capacity as well so it ranges topics but ultimately if China controls the means of production for both raw material and industry then we're they have total leverage on a economically and that's the world we're headed to and I was wrong maybe not in ten years maybe in five so I mean it's a dicey situation Trump President Trump knows all this and yet one of the top Chinese leaders attended his

inauguration he understands that there's it has to be played very carefully we don't want to make an open hot war enemy out of them but we've been passive for too long yeah first of all one of the interesting things about President Trump is is incredibly accessible people don't believe this but I mean you you're if you're a man rank and file not even leadership member of congress and you call the president of the United States the chances are you're

going to get a call back and you're going to get a call back from him and you might get a call back that very day maybe within an hour or two he's incredibly accessible to both Americans and also to foreign leaders his policies generally have been all meet with any world leader you know all all engage with any world leader that doesn't mean just because you're meeting with them you're giving anything away but he's willing to engage in the case of China there's two

things I've just described one which is the grave threat that they post to our national interest and the other is the mature realization that no matter what happens China is going to be a rich and powerful country we are going to have to deal with them in fact and I said this in my call with their foreign minister but I've said this publicly the future the the history of the

that somehow we're not going to engage with them is absurd now we we should engage on our national

“interest that is engagement and concessions are two different things what's been horrifying”

is that for 25 or 30 years we've treated China as a developing country and we allowed them to continue to do things that were unfair we said go ahead let them cheat on trade let them steal our technology because when they get rich they'll become just like us they became rich they did not become like us and now they want to continue to have these unfair benefits that has to stop and they built up their military their military their industrial capacity but all over the world

they're a control of critical minerals again I go back to because by a land in the United States

buying up farming land in the United States in particular as well because they need to produce food and they want to be able to control that they're doing it because it's in their national interest they are doing frankly what I would do when maybe not though human rights violations but they are doing what anyone would do if they were the leader of China they are acting in China's best interest what's been missing is American policy that acts in our best interest and that needs to

return how does Greenland fit into all of this well the Arctic which has gotten very little attention but the Arctic circle on the Arctic region is going to become critical for shipping lengths for how do you get some of this energy that's going to be produced under President Trump these energies rely on shipping lengths the Arctic is some of those most valuable shipping

lanes in the world as some of the ISIS melting there's become more and more navigable

we need to be able to defend that so if you project with the Chinese have done it is just a matter of time before because they are not an Arctic power they do not have an Arctic presence so they need to be able to have somewhere that they can stage from and it is completely realistic to believe that the Chinese will eventually maybe even in the short term try to do in Greenland what they have done at the Panama Canal in another places and that is in stall facilities they

give them access to the Arctic with the cover of a Chinese company but that in reality deserve a dual purpose that in a moment of conflict they could send naval vessels to that facility and operate from there and that is completely unacceptable to the national security of the world and to the United the security of the world and the national security of the United States so the question becomes if the Chinese begin to threaten Greenland do we really trust that

that is not a place where those deals are going to be made do we really trust that that is not a

“place where they would not intervene you don't think Denmark would stop them I think that's been”

the President's point and that is that Denmark can't stop them they would rely on the United States to do so and so his point is of the United States is on the hook to provide as we are now we have a defense agreement with them to protect Greenland if it comes under assault if we are ready on the hook for having to do that then what we might as well have more control over what happens there and so I know it's a delicate topic for Denmark but it's again a national interest

item for the United States so there was a conference call between President Trump and the Danish Prime Minister apparently didn't go very well reportedly involved some sort of a meltdown on the Prime Minister's part they don't want to give it up so what does that what options does that leave us because President Trump did not rule out economic or potentially military use I think President Trump's what he has said publicly as he wants to buy it he wants to pay for it

and how we worked on something like that how something like that is approached obviously is probably done better in the appropriate forms as a lot of the stuff is done publicly and it's not helpful because it puts the other side in a tough spot domestically so those conversations are going to happen but this is not a joke like what he is saying is pretty accurate people don't talk about it for years we do have this is not about acquiring land for the purpose of acquiring land this is in our

national interest and it needs to be solved President Trump's put out there what he intends to do which is to purchase it I wasn't privy to that phone call but I imagine the phone call went the way a lot of these phone calls go and that is he just speaks bluntly and frankly with people

“and ultimately I think diplomacy in many cases works better when you're straightforward as opposed to”

using platitudes and language that translates to nothing so when President Trump said he might use economic or military coercion what does that mean well I don't remember him saying military coercion he was asked you know what would you rule it out right I don't think he's in the he listen he he also brings to this he said no I won't rule it out because he brings to this this is a businessman who's involved in politics not a politician involved in politics so he

approaches these issues from a transactional business point of view so he is not going to begin what he views as a negotiation or a conversation by taking any leverage off the table and that's that's a tactic that's used all the time in business it's being applied to foreign policy and I

think to great effect in the first term you look at the Abraham Accords and the Democrats mocked the

Abraham Accords when they were made and then by the end of the Biden administration they became the

been a transactional approach you look at what is envoy to the Middle East he would cough has achieved

that that the Biden administration asked wood cough they asked for him to be involved in these conversations he has brought a businessman's approach to a very delicate and intractable foreign policy challenge and deliver it a ceasefire that obviously is tenuous and has long-term challenges to it but there are hostages being released every day that didn't happen for over a year and a half until he became involved and that's the president's envoy very close friend who's brought the same kind of

business approach to to some of these challenges so let's look forward for years does the U.S.

“on Greenland we'll see I mean obviously that's the president's priority he has made that point I think”

that what I can tell you about four years without getting into specifics because I don't you know I'm not we're not in the position yet to discuss exactly how we'll proceed tactically what I think you can rest assured of is that four years from now our interest in the Arctic will be more secure our interest in the Panama Canal will be more secure our partnerships in the Western Hemisphere will be stronger will be stronger we need to understand a lot of these countries in central America they're not

destination sites they are countries that migrate to come through and that and that these human trafficking rings run people run people through it creates tremendous instability for these countries at a tremendous cost as well they would welcome help in stopping that migration corridor from continuing because it's destabilizing their countries so I think we're going to have a Western Hemisphere it's more secure in our national interest in all parts of the world that's the goal

are going to be more secure from the Arctic the Central America to even Africa and certainly the end of Pacific we talked about Colombia that's part of President Trump's effort to shore up our borders and get rid of the illegal aliens who came under Joe Biden part of that's going to include yes Canada he said that as well but also obviously Mexico and President Trump is threatening to slap tariffs on both of them if they don't get in line and start doing some of the

things that we want them to do as soon as the Saturday they're jumping up and down saying we want to cooperate let's work diplomatically before you slap tariffs on us where do you stand on that well we've had conversations with Mexican government officials I met yesterday with a foreign minister of Canada I think there are two topics and they have to be separated but they're interrelated the first is the migration particularly with Mexico there are parts of Mexico many parts of Mexico

in which the government doesn't control those areas they're controlled by drug cartels they're

the most powerful force on the ground and they are plowing into the United States they're

facilitating illegal migration but they are also bringing in fentanyl and deadly drugs to our country that's in our that's a national security threat and that needs to stop so we expect their cooperation on that because they should if it was the other way around they would expect that as well and that needs to be addressed similar secondarily to that is the president feels that we have a trade on in balance and unfairness with Mexico on a number of products including agricultural products

that are dumped on our markets but also the Chinese with the Chinese are now doing is creating these front companies are investing in Mexican manufacturing and then back during using the USMCA the free trade agreement to get Chinese goods into America and so it creates this trade in balance and that needs to be confronted so when the president talks about tariffs he talks about it on two fronts as obviously a leverage and pressure point when it comes to

cooperation on migration but separate from that it's also related to unfairness in our trade relationship with the Canadians obviously the borders one of the biggest if not the biggest border land border in the world we share common interest there I think they don't want to see their country filled with fentanyl either I think if I were them I'd be concerned that with the crackdown on illegal immigration in the United States people would flee north in the Canada so you

would think we'd be able to work with them very cooperatively on border security and then there's a

“broader trade in balance with them that the president wants to address as well and so that's why”

those conversations are important these are not hostile moves there just tears gonna kick in as Saturday we'll see I mean that's the president's decision to make and you know we'll be prepared to address it from a foreign policy perspective whatever decision he makes on those things that's his decision to make whether he makes it this weekend or a week from now or a month from now he clearly

wants to address both the illegal migration but ultimately also our our economic interest

is more likely to be the 51st state to Canada or Greenland well again look I think that you know word of long ways from that point I think the president's made his his view on this very clear and that is our interest in Greenland or endangered and that needs to be addressed and he's willing to buy it and our interest with Canada particularly you know I think if you go back and I think he said this publicly he had a conversation with Trudeau and he asked Trudeau

well what would happen if I impose these tariffs on you and he said well we would be done as a

“country we would be finished and his whole point is well if the only way you can survive as a country”

is by having a trade imbalance with the United States the maybe you should just become a state right and that was the genesis of that conversation so we have issues we need to address with Canada

them and but there are some issues we're going to need to address but what what are the risks

“to us because you've got the premiere of Ontario saying we can't bring a knife to a gunfight here”

if they're going to do this to us with these tariffs we got to fight back the same way we supply them with a bunch of electricity let's shut it down so it can Canada shut our lights off well then who would they be selling it to we're also they send that electricity I mean it would hurt them as well they would have no market to sell it to and I would also argue that the United States and that look that's a I don't think Canada is a strategic to the United States I'm not

comparing them to China or what have you but it brings to mind the point of energy independence

and how critical that is we don't want to be in a situation you mentioned that about Canada

imagine of in the future the argument is not Canada's threatening that well who's threatening that is China who's threatening that is Russia I mean one of the great mistakes that were made is by unilaterally disarming when it comes to energy production by not fully utilizing our energy resources in this country other countries didn't follow the same line they for example China today has the largest capacity of unused they're they are able to process more oil than any

country in the world right now they've they've and they build more coal plants than anybody in the world right now they'll talk about green energy and batteries and cars but they are using all of the above strategy on their energy we've unilaterally disarmed on energy they've all they've done it's continue to increase their capabilities on energy because they know you need energy to fuel all this AI alone was going to require an extraordinary amount of energy that the world right

now can't produce to fuel it whatever country has energy resources that are cost effective is

“going to dominate AI which is going to dominate many many fields so I think at the end of the day”

it's a reminder when you talk about Canada of why energy is a national security matter and why the US must be able to have a reliable and consistent source of energy or we are in a lot of trouble our planes won't fly our ships won't be able to sail and our economy will not function with that energy one of those issues that's become dicey within the Republican party is NATO which we've talked a lot about these other countries doing their fair share and doing their

part and this is why NATO has become controversial because there are many people who believe what are we doing this for it's I mean it made sense right after World War II but does it make sense today in the United States tends to be the dominant player the Europeans can support themselves they don't need the United States to be the big babysitter of the world and it creates more opportunities for us to get involved in foreign conflicts that we shouldn't

be involved in to that you say what I said well the president's position on NATO is the same every other president has had and that is that our allies many of our allies in NATO do not do enough to provide for their own security every other president has made the same complaint he's just

“actually been serious about it and that's what he's pointing to and look it's interesting and”

in fairness Poland let's weigh any Estonia the closer you are to Russia the more they're spending as a percentage of their GDP on national defense but then you have countries like France okay

or you have countries like Germany these are big economies powerful economies and they don't spend

as much on national security now they they why because they rely on NATO they say well we don't need to spend that much on yeah we don't need to spend as much on defense because America has soldiers here and they get attacked they'll be on national defense so we can instead spend all that money on this enormous social safety net when those countries why can't you spend more on national security their argument is because it would require us to make cuts to welfare programs to unemployment

benefits to being able to retire at 59 and all these other things that's a choice stay made but what we're subsidizing that so I think if you were to wear a ticket of the president's point on NATO's number one they need to do more and I do think long term there's a conversation to be had about whether the United States needs to be at the front end of securing the continent or as a back stop to securing the continent and if you talk to countries on the

eastern periphery the ones closest to Russia all of them are building the capability to be at the front end the polls the checks you know all of these different places and if you move further west to the richest economies Germany France they don't Spain they don't spend enough on national security they're relying on us to be the front stop and that that's not an alliance that's that's a dependence and we don't want that we want NATO we want a NATO in which we have

strong and capable allies you know Finland's very capable of they make weapons they bring something to the table we need more countries like that to behave in that matter in the alliance and then it'll be a stronger alliance and it'll be able to work cooperatively not just in Europe but another challenge is we face around the world hopefully even the Indo-Pacific potentially Ukraine's another issue that's got the party divided you know you've got a lot I'm sticking

with in Republicans now because it's a whole other debate with the other side of the aisle but who say no you know Putin's bad actor Russia's growing threat and we're doing the right thing by backing Ukraine and I would say the majority of Republicans now are against that viewpoint and think we've

lost we've spent too much it's any place from 105 billion to 187 billion and they've lost we just

ground and we need to negotiate a settlement now before we keep throwing good money after bad and we

“can't afford it we've got Americans who are suffering now I think that's the majority of you”

even on the Republican side now it also happens to be the reality on the ground first let me say this

we think we're Putin that was terrible invading a country the atrocities he's committed he did horrible things but what the dishonesty that is existed is that we somehow let people to believe that Ukraine would be able not just to defeat Russia but you know destroy him push them all the way back to what the world looked like in 2012 or 2014 before the Russians took Crimea and the like and in the result what they've been asking for the last year and a half is to fund a stalemate

a protracted stalemate in which human suffering continues meanwhile Ukraine is being set back a hundred years their energy grid is being wiped out I mean that someone's going to have to pay for all this reconstruction after the fact and you know how many Ukrainians have left Ukraine living in

other countries now they may never return I mean that's their future and it's endangered in that

regard so the president's point of view is this is a protracted conflict and it needs to end now needs to enter negotiation and any negotiation both sides are going to have to give something up I'm not going to pre-negotiate that I mean that's going to be the work of hard diplomacy which is what we used to do in the world in the past and we were realistic about it but both sides in a negotiation have to give something and that's going to take time but at least we have a

present that recognizes that our objective is this conflict needs to end and it needs to end in a way that's enduring because it's an unsustainable on our sides it's ultimately unsustainable for Russia's paying a big price for this and their own economy their inflation rate in the like

“but at the end that's the president's position and and it's the truth and I think even a growing”

number of Democrats would now acknowledge that what we have been funding is a stalemate a protracted conflict and maybe even worse than a stalemate one in which incrementally Ukraine is being destroyed and losing more and more territory so this conflict needs to end and both are who's the bigger problem in reaching a final negotiated settlement there right is it Putin or is it Zelensky there's a report out that that the Ukrainians are just banking on Putin digging his heels in and becoming annoying

the president Trump on this because he won't give an inch and they're hoping that president Trump will come back over closer to their worldview about Putin about Russia about this conflict so who do you see is the bigger obstacle in getting a negotiated piece there well I think there's the public and then there's the private right so and and what you see portrayed publicly in conversations and what leaders say a lot of it is speaking they have domestic politics and political considerations

even Vladimir Putin who controls media still has to care about what public opinion is in Russia and his image and and what you know how well his entire personalities built around why do you think he does the shirtless pictures he didn't do those anymore I think it's been a while you know I asked him I asked him why do you do it when I interviewed him and he said I give the people what they want no well you know the point is that he has got his own domestic considerations and so does Zelensky right I mean at the end of the day he's got

if you imagine if you're a Ukrainian the Russians have made you suffer so much and are you going to let them keep land I mean you people would be upset about that in Ukrainian you would understand it and then there's the mature realities of life on this planet and that's where this work is going to have to be defined both sides are paying a heavy price for this both sides haven't sent it for this conflict to end both sides are and it's not going to end with the maximalist goals of either side and there's going to have to be

a lot of hard work done and I think only the United States under the leadership of President Trump can make that possible but it won't be easy and it'll take some time but it's certainly something I know he's strongly committed to being seeing happen and then there's Israel and then return to the hostages still which still include Americans right supposedly we're going to get three the

Americans back in the first the first launch the first phase of this hostage deal if you believe we will

and what are we going to do if we don't well I expect we will because that's the agreement that was made and but that the core problem here remains and that is ultimately as long as there is an entity like Hamas that which is expressed purposes the destruction of the Jewish state who is willing to commit horrifying atrocities against civilians against teenage girls at a concert and do the things that they've done and take hostage for a year and a half babies and elderly and murder

and all the things that they did that's a threat to Israel's national security what country in the work can be expected to live alongside an enemy armed capable and willing of committing horrifying

“atrocities you can't so I think that the ceasefire is important because abroad and end to some”

of the destruction and certainly allowed hostages to be freed on an extraordinary cost I mean we're talking about a ratio of one to you know you get a teenage hostage and exchange for 250 killers Hamas killers that I released from prison just think about how unfair that trade is but it tells you how much you know we value life compared to what the other side the Hamas animals view this now that said

going to govern Gaza who's going to rebuild Gaza who's going to be in charge of Gaza because of the

“people who are in charge of Gaza are the same guys that created October 7th then we we still have the”

same problem past this brother it is and so now the good news in the region is in Lebanon we have a government that hopefully will become more powerful than Hezbollah in the Lebanese government and there's a ceasefire that was extended there that ultimately will lead to that in Syria a group has taken over these are not guys that would necessarily pass an FBI background check to say we're not coming over if there's undead in here but there's an opportunity in Syria if there is an

opportunity in Syria to create a more stable place than what we've had historically especially under Assad were Iran and Russia dominated and were ISIS operated with impunity we need to pursue that opportunity and see where that leads and if you have a region in which you have a more stable Syria a more stable Lebanon where Hezbollah is not able to do the things it does not be half of Iran a week in Iran who's now lost all of these proxies it now opens the door to things like

a deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel which would change the dynamic of the region and then ultimately not make easy but make easier resolving some of these challenges that we face with a Palestinian question and in particular with the Gaza question so there's a lot of work to be done there none of it is certain all of it is hard but real opportunities that we couldn't have even imagined 90 days ago. Domestically, Trump pulled the security around Mike Pompeo

who was his secretary of state and I wonder if that what your reaction was to that because his defenders are saying is an outrage and that you know he's expecting it now. Look the president has the president has the authority to make those decisions and to execute those orders I can tell you they're all we're run through the process that exists for assessing threat versus cost that process was executed on there was agreement that this was something that

could be done I've never taken lightly and if and if circumstances change and new threats emerge

or additional threats emerge that will always be an option to address but if you look at some of it is also not sustainable I mean theoretically Iran decided or things got out to the Iran wanted to continue to kill people we would have to provide everybody a security detail so there's a balance there we don't want to see any Americans harmed but those decisions about who we provide security for have to be based on a risk assessment and those risk assessments were

done and and it led to that outcome in that conclusion. On the subject of risk assessment we pulled US foreign aid we we postponed US foreign aid with humanitarian exceptions and then there was a bunch of negative blowback on how this was stopping critical medications and other humanitarian aid that was being provided to our you know third world allies now we've loosened that's big it again so the criticism is that we got too far ahead of our skis by pulling too much too soon in which you

response you said I mean we didn't issue a pullback we issued a clarification we always said from

the very beginning with the exception of you know Israel and Egypt because that security assistance is a cornerstone of that camp David Accord and the deals that were made there and critical to that region with the exception of that we said all foreign aid is paused for 90 days except for things that save lives and what was mentioned in the executive order was things like food and the like we went back people say people we have medicines that we've paid for and that are deployed

and it's sitting on a shelf somewhere and we are not authorized to give it to people so etc it makes no sense for us we already paid for the medicine not to distribute it and

“give it to people we don't want to see people die in the like but this I think what's important”

is to talk about the purpose of this pause okay if I went to these foreign and to the 60 billion dollars a year if I went to these and said okay show me your foreign aid programs on what they do historically we've gotten very little cooperation but if you go to them and say okay your money is stopped until you tell us what you do now you get a lot more cooperation so now a process exists and that process is you apply for a waiver and everybody knows how to apply for a waiver

they know how to come forward to say this is what our program does this is why it's important this is why it makes America safer stronger and more prosperous this is why it's in our national interest now we get details about these programs and we may say okay the program gets a waiver

or we may say well the program gets a partial waiver you do five things three of them are critical

two of them remain under pause that's what it gives us the opportunity to do now thinking of it

“almost as an audit but not an audit in which we're voluntarily asking for cooperation I think we're”

now getting a lot more cooperation because otherwise you don't get your money and and so I think as the weeks gone you will see more and more programs come back online because we've had a chance to review what they actually are some will be partial some will be full but we've got to get control of this we have this thing that I've called the foreign aid industrial complex all these entities

make sure that it's aligned with our national interest that we are prioritizing that and that we're

“spending it on things that really matter and are really producing like we don't want 50 million”

in condoms to you know it's they decide that that's true the far the the Biden administration did not well but okay but part of it was they made deny the number but they can't deny that there are things that we were doing in Gaza that nothing to do with saving lives on the short term or even helping with a ceasefire here's the broader point and I don't know the I'm rounding numbers here but on USAID about 11 less than 12% let's let's be fair let's say 12 and a half percent of

every dollar so 12 cents of every dollar ultimately reach the end recipient that means the rest of the money was going to fund some NGOs somewhere some organization maybe there's a justification for it but before I stand before a congressional committee of the American people and say we sent a dollar to help this cause but only 12 cents of it really got to the people were trying to help the rest of it went into the hands of an organization how do we justify that I can't just

to find that I need to know answers to that and so these are the kinds of things that we have to go to and ultimately our foreign aid has to be a tool that we used to advance the national interest

“the US government is not a charity it spends money on behalf of our national interest there are”

a lot of great causes in the world and the private sector can raise as much money as they want for those we taxpayers are going to invest in the things that further our national interest and that's the process we're going through right now and the pause has helped accelerate it I'm going to wrap it up but I do want to ask you about just a couple more things number one eight years ago you and I were crossing each other on a debate stage Donald Trump was center stage

and he was insulting both of us and things have really changed in eight years yeah I mean can you talk about that? Yeah I mean so I I love like mixed martial arts and boxing right and I see

people go on the ring and I've never had no I never heard a new one ask a boxer why did you

punch him in the face and the third round and the boxer would say because it was a boxing match and so you know campaigns are a competitive environment and you know President Trump's a tough guy and so these things were going to get rough and tumble but there's another difference I didn't know Donald Trump when he ran for president I mean I knew who he was but I didn't know him as a person then he became president I was in the Senate those were the four best years I've ever had in the

Senate because we got a lot of things done working with him I got to work around him I got to know him as a person not as the character sure on television but as a person about the way he works the way he makes decisions you learn from being around someone like that as well the things he does on an interpersonal basis with people the the acts of kindness that are never going to be

reported that things he does for people you're never going to hear but that he I've just and over time

as there's a big difference between the way you know someone and when you don't know and I would also say this you know I worked in the Senate 99 of my college with 98 of my colleagues as I voted for myself 98 of my colleagues these are people I strongly disagree with these are people that have accused people who hold some of my policy positions of being some of the worst human beings on the planet and yet on a personal level I had to figure out a way to work with them and get along

with them and they're in the other party so I don't understand this idea where if I'm if a Democrat and Republican run against each other you lose the election you're expected to now okay the elections over you guys need to work together in the interest of our country if that's expected among people that are in opposite parties what should be expected of people that are in the same party they should be expected to also work together in the end I'm in this because I want to

serve my country not because I want to be an enemy of anybody else is on a personal level in the case of President Trump I've worked alongside him and I've gotten to know him over the years and I hope that the we've gained a mutual respect for one another as well and and so much so that I was honored to be as nominee for Secretary of State and now I am and it's an exciting time to be here you gave it back to him just as good and I gave him a few punches too so we you know it was fair

game we were both fair game back when that was having almost ten years ago now that debate that August 15 debate I mentioned it's probably interview fluently the deep state thing you know it is a real concern but from for a lot of people that there's there's like a group of people at state and

“elsewhere who will actively work to undermine your agenda and President Trump's well I think that's”

going to be true in any large organization you're going to have people that are not aligned with

a mission and not aligned with caring things out and I think I always am careful about it not because

I'm resistant to the idea per se but because I also think they're very talented people who may not agree with me on policy but but will or will do what the mission is they will carry out the mission and I think we expect that a people all the time you know I mean if you think about it when I don't know who the pilot on maybe it's a terrible analogy on a day like this but we don't know when we get on a commercial aircraft who the pilots voted for you know or who they're but I don't think they're

going to harm us I don't you go to a doctor I don't necessarily check their voter registration and we expect doctors to treat us well and I think the same is true for people that work there a lot of professionals that work in the state department who will carry out the mission but they need to have a clear mission and they want the state department to be relevant again and have deep expertise on topics that we need their support now look if someone is going to be actively

that and I think any president would argue that in the end the state department and foreign policy is not separate from our republic in our republic the American people elect a president and that president is the executive officer of our country and is in charge with executing our foreign policy and our agency's job is to execute the president's foreign policy we don't have an independent foreign policy independent from our republic independent from our people independent from the

outcome of elections and so our expectations is that no matter how people may feel about political leaders or me or the president or anybody else their job is to execute on the policies the

“American people have chosen through their elected representatives and that's what we're going”

to do with the state department and I think the overwhelming majority of our workforce will comply with that. Pretty cool your parents were from Cuba they immigrated here in the late 1950s I think your dad was in May 27th, 1956. Mom was in a hotel as a maid and here you are a secretary of state final bot on what that says about the United States of America. That it remains the only place for anyone from anywhere can achieve anything and I think for more example is what other countries

we hope will try to emulate in their own nations and so it's a testament not just to the country but to the people of this country and the greatest gift my parents ever left me is

they never discovered never did my parents ever say you can't be that people like us can never be

that they've always encouraged us to have big dreams and pursue them whatever they may lead and if you work hard you can achieve what they are for some people that dream is I just want to have a really good job and raise a family and and we able to leave my kids better off than themselves and for others it's professional dreams as well and I have blessed to be a citizen of the only place in human history where that's happened for so many. Those dreams have led you to this

“position and soon to Panama where we need you you got an important job good luck. Thank you.”

Thank you so much. Great to see you again on the front. Thank you.

We have a very special program for you this morning all about Tulsi Gabbard when I first met

Tulsi she was still a Democrat and it was early on in her career when she first came on this show we didn't even have audio we didn't even have video it was an audio only podcast and you could hear her with the birds tweeting in the background from her home state of Hawaii and the two of us were wondering what our next move was in life this podcast was fledgling she had been ostracized by the Democrats and the Democrat party and here we are five years later both in very

different places she's now running at the top of 18 intelligence agencies and I'm down here interviewing her at the office of the director of national intelligence so many did not want her

“to get this post because while Hillary Clinton and others accused her of being Putin's puppet etc”

what crushes them about Tulsi Gabbard is she's no one's puppet she won't be bought she won't be bullied and she won't be cout in saying how she really feels by the military industrial complex or anyone else so we just completed a fascinating hour-long talk about so many different things it's Tulsi like you've seen her a bit before you know still straightforward and moving and honest in her commentary but in a brand new really big rule enjoy

I'll keep the average I'm so excited to be here with you there's significance to where we are why yes so we're sitting here in the lobby of the building zone is liberty crossing of the office of director of national intelligence this organization was formed because of the disaster of the intelligence community that led that could have prevented the attack on 9/11 had there been an integration of intelligence had the CIA been talking to the FBI and all of these different people who had different

pieces of information but weren't talking to and sharing that information intelligence with each other followed by the the intelligence failure of the Iraq war that ultimately led to the creation of this organization so we're sitting here in the lobby this is the very first interview that's ever been done in this lobby and potentially in this building anywhere so I'm honored it's a special day and this is the 20th anniversary of the the founding of this organization wow yeah your role was

created after 9/11 yes as a result of all that now you oversee 18 intelligence agencies yeah I just asked here's a practical matter you come in you had a background in intelligence when you

were in the house it's not like you'd never touch in I was on the arm services in the foreign affairs

committee so it was interesting as a member of congress there for eight years on those subject matter committees I was a customer of intelligence very frequently some of the highest levels of intelligence

a level of frustration that's common if you were to ask most members of congress in that the

“briefings that we received then more often than not were things that we had already read about in the”

newspaper or seen on the news the night before and just didn't get much value from it to better inform the decisions that we had to make related to our military or military operations or foreign policy decisions and and that was you know I I left congress and my last day was January 3rd of 2021 and as I was going through the confirmation process for this job and I was meeting with the different senators it was interesting that they expressed that same frustration to me and many of

these senators were members of the intelligence committee which really spoke to how much work

there is to do so you show up here you get confirmed yeah I mean what's the first thing that

as a practical matter do you say like let me see the JFK files like what do you do

“I have a long list of things I'm working through but honestly the first thing that I did was”

actually send out an email to all the people who work here and said I'll be down here in this lobby where we are right now I think it was at 12 o'clock and if you're free I'd love to come and introduce myself and say hello it was standing room only here it was grateful to be able to have the opportunity to just immediately address those who work here intelligence professionals analysts people who are subject matter experts in different areas some of the support staff who are

here and kind of keep the lights on and and they gave me a very warm welcome and I laid out who I am my background and the mandate that the American people delivered by electing Donald Trump and why I'm here the purpose that we all are here for to serve the American people to ensure their safety security and freedom first and foremost and let me just tell you this I got a number of notes I told them let me know what you think is is going right let me know what you think needs fixing

you can find my email address you can find my number and I started to get notes from people

one of which came from a guy who has worked here since it's founding and it really I'll never

forget it because he said not once has any other director ever come and done anything like this wow and second he said I'm so happy that you're here and the changes that you seek to make now I can finally breathe oh wow so a simple gesture of coming and saying this is who I am I look forward to working with you to serve our country to refocus the intelligence community back on its core mission to get rid of the distractions the weaponization and all of the other noise

that is undermined the trust that the American people may have had a long ago in the intelligence community it it just speaks to the vacuum of that leadership that unfortunately is existed for so long

“so how do you I have no doubt that the people on this building like you as a person but you have to”

fight the deep states loathing of your boss right I mean there's no question there's a fair amount of loathing by democrat you know lifers that work in these buildings for him yes and that's why I think we see leaks you know whether it's at the Pentagon or from here and you've had a couple and you've handled them very well and very firmly but how do you battle that I mean it's like you know they have an agenda yeah well I'm sure there are people who work here and within the intelligence

community community who probably don't think or speak very kindly of me either specifically because again through the president's leadership and the mandate of the American people I know exactly what I need to do here and how deep the rot is within the intelligence community that has to be rooted out so yes bringing about transparency and accountability shining a light in areas that that haven't seen the light in a very long time if ever really pushing for the declassification

of of documents that the president has listed in several of his executive orders and reminding people here especially in the area of declassification there's so much protection we've got a hold on to all the secrets instead of really thinking about what is in the best public interest and so obviously starting with the assassination documents related to president John F. Kennedy Senator Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr is the starting point

but there are many other areas where we have to bring about transparency we have in order to

single day that the American taxpayers pay for this building yeah there are secrets exactly

“they keep the lights on they are the ones who who are funding your paycheck that's paying for”

your rent your mortgage your ability to feed your family that the American people are who we work for so any other level of protectionism of like we don't want this agency to be embarrassed by what we are going to expose and the truth to the American people it's a wrong-headed mindset and speaks to the the huge culture shift the mindset shift that has to take place here and and this is this is the bigger thing that we are tackling here and that the that the

president is tackling and we're attacking across the entire federal government did we learn

something new in the RFK and JFK documents in particular my I didn't follow it that closely

to be honest but my takeaway was most people thought it didn't add that much and my wrong I got to say I'm not someone who has studied these over the years so I'm probably about where you are yeah there were new pieces of information did you get a briefing from somebody who said holy god it really was the CIA no okay and those who are experts on this who've studied this for a long time did not find what they were looking for so yes there was new intelligence and

information that was declassified that had not ever been seen by the public before there were new revelations that came through but in both of those cases and in a few days we're releasing another I think 50 or 60,000 pages related to Senator Robert F. Kennedy's assassination because we had to go out and find those files stuck in other warehouses but whether or not it delivers the quote unquote smoking gun the important thing is that the transparency is there's even more reason

“to release it if it doesn't have anything you must have looked at some of this and said”

why was this kept a secret for so long exactly it just sends people spinning exactly on the subject of documents that we'd like to see but haven't COVID and its origins sure you saw that just before we sat down tonight the Chinese state council information office I don't even know what that is but it sounds bad they have determined that COVID came from us that it's more likely than not that COVID originated in the United States and not in China

I'm wondering whether you have any dispute with that based on what you've seen over here the intelligence community has been responsible for trying to figure out in part yeah how does things started so I created a kind of a special team's group the director's initiative group that is focused on investigating a number of the president's top priorities and and the things

“that the American people really deserve and want to know the truth about the origins of COVID-19”

is one of them so they're actively working on that a lot of the work that's been done is on covid.gov have you had a chance to look oh he picked Trump changed it it's yeah it's a great transformation of the website for anybody watching if you haven't seen it check it out it's been knowing website to which YouTube and all sorts of social media used to refer people with algae talking points and now it's been completely completely completely reversed so

so a lot a lot of what's been found is is already there but the thing that we are working with Jaybada charia the new NIH director on with as well as secretary Kennedy is looking at the gain of function research that in the case of the Wuhan lab as well as many others or many of these other bio labs around the world was actually U.S. funded and leads to this dangerous kind of research that in many examples has resulted in either a pandemic or some other

major health currently as specifically because we already know that eco health alliance was

partnering with this Wuhan lab to create to do gain of function research right we just have never

been able to have somebody say and it was that exact experiment that led to this COVID bug but it have have we gotten there what's the new thing that you're digging in on we we are we are working on that with Jaybada charia and look forward to being able to share that hopefully very soon okay that that specific link correct between the gain of function research and what we saw with COVID-19 I mean that would be extraordinary because just so the audience knows if that's true

if it was Peter Dazzick's research with the Wuhan so called bat lady that caused this pandemic then we did fund it then Anthony Fauci helped fund the pandemic things that are denied over and over and over to Senator Rand Paul's questioning that's right under oath it it an under oath exactly so it is is it any wonder that he saw a preemptive pardon for anything during a certain period

Dr. Jaybada charia anybody who came out and said I don't know if that's natural this actually

“smacks of lab and and the reason why this is so important is not just what happened in the past it's”

because this gain of function research is happening in bio labs around the world I got attacked and I think you saw this we've probably talked about in your show before when I warned against US funded bio labs in Ukraine when the Russia Ukraine war kicked off for this very reason who knows what kinds of pathogens are in these labs and if release could create another COVID-like pandemic and for that I was called a Russian asset you're you know trumpeting Putin's talking points all of this nonsense

simply for speaking the truth and stating facts that by the way are still on US embassy Ukraine's website today about how the US has funded these bio labs in Ukraine but in order to my point is in order to prevent another COVID-like pandemic or another major health incident that could affect

“us in the world we have to we have to end this gain of function research and provide the”

evidence that shows exactly why and how it's in our best interest the American people's best interest to bring about an end to it. Can I just ask you one other question on that why did the intelligence community why were they so reluctant to just say that you know under Joe Biden it was split the FBI eventually said well we kind of think it was a little bad part of energy said lab but then the other agencies were like no we think more natural origin long past the point

when it did not look like natural origin they tested 80 or 90 thousand animals they never found

this version of virus so what was going on with the intel community you know it's a it's a good question and I don't have a specific answer to it but I want to point to the contrast of how in some cases they are very unwilling to come to express a view or a certain opinion on something and in other cases even if they don't have decisive or conclusive evidence per se they're very quickly to come to an assumption this this gets to the real heart of the challenge here

in the problems that we've seen is the politicization of intelligence to meet a certain objective or to influence a certain policy and that that is what has been the problem this goes all the way back to why this organization was founded when you look at the so-called intelligence that really was used to spur the Iraq regime change war and look at what that has cost our country in lives in treasure look at what it's cost the world look at what what Iraq is today now essentially a

proxy of Iran when Iraq that that would not have happened had that regime change war not occurred that's right so so again this is this is really what is at the heart of needs of what needs to be addressed within the intelligence community and why leadership matters so much just as a reminder to our audience you were a young 21 year old state assembly person in Hawaii and two years after that you signed up you enlisted in the national guard and when you were deployed to Iraq so you

know firsthand about the blood and I served in a medical unit and it was it was with a unit out of

Hawaii brigade combat team and my first task every single day was to go through a list of

all of those who had been casualties a day before those who were injured I was the first one notified when there was someone who was killed in action and ultimately to make sure that those who were injured either got the medical care they needed that they were evacuated just quickly as possible and then making sure that they were getting that care all the way until they got home or getting them back out into the field but every day going through this list of

names and thinking about those at home who I knew because I heard from my parents we're worrying and terrified of their phone ringing and the most terrible outcome of their loved one their husband or wife or son or daughter or brother or sister being in a position where they have paid the ultimate

“price and service to our country and this is this is such an important thing because too often as”

you know very well covering all of these issues for so long that you have politicians who debate whether do we go to war here or there or do we go topple this government or that government and and too often it is so detached from the real consequences that come from those decisions

the intelligence community who perhaps in some cases have become too detached from the impact

“of their work on those who are making life in death decisions for our country and the potential”

to either go to war or to prevent war as President Trump is trying to do on many fronts and you have those who are co-opted by the military industrial complex abusing their position to feed or manipulate intelligence as we saw with the Iraq war to start a new war this is this this intelligence community the work that gets done in places like this every single day has that power to be the the fodder the fuel the seed that can lead to yet another unnecessary you you're overseeing the group

that could cause it yes eat hexes overseeing the group that would have to do it right and

both of you are in very powerful positions in advising President Trump about the risks and rewards

right there was a New York Times article within the past month saying you he jade events and his chief of staff Susie Wiles were altogether in urging him to not go too far on our actions against Iran that we should not give Netanyahu what he wanted by either participating in or boldly and robustly supporting Israel bombing Iran that that's a proxy for us and we there's no way we wouldn't be heavily involved and that is not the position of the United States wants to

be in and President Trump did not do it he did not give Netanyahu the answer he wanted I know you're not going to get into the specifics of what you advise the president but can you can you explain your view of the dangers of barreling toward a potential conflict with Iran yeah the the the the New York Times article was a result of an unfortunate unauthorized and illegal leak of of a very private conversation between the president and his advisors

I won't get into the details but it was a very robust discussion that really speaks to President Trump's care and thoughtfulness as he makes his decisions around these very serious issues of

war and peace you know ultimately what we're doing is providing the president with the facts

intelligence here is what the intelligence is telling us as as the secretary of defense here are the options that are on the table and the likely outcomes that could occur if you go with course of action a b or c and ultimately it's the president who who makes the decision and he is made it clear time and time again that his goal with Iran first of all they cannot be in a position where they can develop or have a nuclear weapon and that he believes in his confident

in the the opportunity that this moment provides to be able to achieve that outcome through

“peaceful means through diplomacy and through negotiations and he knows that that's what's in the”

best interest for the American people and for the world on the Iran front here is the argument that the New York on crew makes all right this is from Mark Duboitz of defense of democracies one of these think tanks in Washington that wants a hard line toward them he recently tweeted quote the Islamic Republic is weaker than ever hated by most Iranians hammered by the idea of a messod it's terror armies meaning Hamas the Houthis and Hezbollah air defense missile production

capability are in ruins never a better time to dismantle its new program and finish off the

regime will another president blink how is Iran first of all the military option is always on the table

the president often talks about peace through strength and he means what he says when he talks

“about his objective which is also prime minister Netanyahu's objective and I think many countries”

in the world would agree that Iran cannot be in a position to have a nuclear weapon or to develop a nuclear weapon that is unequivocal how we get there is really the question the president is of the mind as he has been consistently through his first term in office as he is now if there is a way to achieve what is in our best national security interests through peaceful means through negotiations not blind trust like okay we're just going to believe whatever they say not at all

any deal that is potentially made with Iran will have to come with a very very rigorous set of verification means nothing like the failure that was the JCPOA that President Obama

in Steve Wittkov is negotiating is a deal that will best serve the security interests of the American

people do you feel the push tell see the push of this like strong neoconstrain that's still within the Republican Party and probably in these agencies that's much more hawkish on an issue including war in the Middle East which we've just done for 20 years yeah of course the pressure

“is there the debate is happening in the public which I think is a good thing it's a positive”

thing that we're hearing from different elements yes even within the Republican Party even if they're leaking I mean because we're hearing from them all the the leaks should not the the leaks have to end uh if the president can't have the confidence that he can sit in a room with his closest

advisors without it leaking to the public then that that is something that really undermines

his being best served with the best possible information with debate robust debate around the table which you look at the team of people he's assembled he likes that debate because he sees the value in hearing different perspectives so that he can make that best informed decision but when we look at this debate that's happening kind of in the in the the public town square whether be digital

“or TV or whatever the platform is there I think it's important for the American people to see”

the contrast and the difference between the neocons who are very ready to rush into war without allowing what president Kennedy spoke about in his historic speech at American University which was uh to choose peace to do the hard work of diplomacy to recognize the true cost and the serious cost of war and that it requires strong leadership to do the hard work of diplomacy in order to achieve peace however and wherever possible and that it's not something that you just

go okay good we got peace and then you walk away no it requires consistent engagement and that strong leadership that once again strikes that balance and recognizes that we cannot be prosperous unless we are at peace as a nation and ensuring our nation's security we have the the strongest and most capable military in the world right and I can say as someone who still serves in the army reserve and has now for 22 years you're too busy for that and my little bit but my you know those

who I've had the privilege of serving alongside at the chance to go and do some PT with Pete Hegg said the Marine the other day you still got it you're still there you know I'm given the kids around for their money and I'm I'm good with that but but it's recognizing again yes we have the capability to defend our safety security and freedom anywhere anytime but it takes a strong leader and a strong president to choose peace and diplomacy recognizing that war and the use of

our military because of the sacrifices of these young men and women from all across the country that is required when you go to war president Trump takes that very serious and I mean I appreciate as a mother of an 11 14 and 15 year old I appreciate that I do not want somebody with

“their foot on the gas pedal recklessly pushing us into yet another war and I think I speak for”

most people in the country on that the leaks we touched on it it must be very disconcerting to be in a private meeting with the president with only top top people and then a day later see it on the pages of the New York Times clearly I I assume you trust your fellow cabinet members and so and implicitly but everyone has to speak to a staff about what happened and what needs to happen and I wonder how rattling that is because you're in the same position in a way

that Pete Hexeth is in where people underneath you appear to be leaking even top secret information that you can go to jail for leaking but they clearly have such an agenda it's worth it to them yeah so how is that affected you and you're dealing with it with the firm hand but how is it affected you when this happens you know you mentioned that that example of that New York Times article there there were a number of things in the article that were completely inaccurate which speaks to again

and there there is an investigation that's underway to try to figure out the source of this leak or sources of this leak around that specific incident but but the effect is I mean it makes things much harder in in constantly questioning and looking over your shoulder okay who's in the room

I have to be careful about everything that I say because ultimately we're in a situation where

these things being leaked either by people who are just trying to show a reporter that they're

to ultimately undermine the president's policies and and this is not just like okay we don't

like Trump or someone who who's has a problem with president Trump and his policies really what is happening when they do that is they're undermining our democracy because what they're doing in whatever tactic they use is saying well I'm doing what's best for the country and I know what's better for the country than the majority the vast majority of the American people who chose this duly elected president Donald Trump and that that's where you can agree or disagree

with his policies but when people cross that line who are in these positions of power and influence they are actually undermining our democracy and our security in doing so you've referred three

people now to DOJ for criminal prosecution do you think they will be prosecuted that's the goal

“that's the goal and the only way we're talking about accountability is by doing the work of”

conducting these investigations the Department of Justice and the FBI obviously have different tools that they can use in order to to find the truth and to seek out that evidence so that we can actually prosecute these people know they are like are they in some cases in some cases they know in other cases they are likely not aware we have another 11 cases that we are still conducting our own internal investigations around some will be sent to the Department of Justice for further

investigation and prosecution for criminal charges because it is a crime federal crime and others depending on the situation will be dealt with internally where people will be fired and have their security clearance revoked one of the leaks was it's spoke to with Trump is trying to do with the

“deportations not the securing of this other board but the deportations yeah and he has declared”

under the Alien enemies act an invasion or incursion in part saying that the Venezuelan government has dispatched Trenda Iraqwah this gang to come into the United States and commit mayhem and one of the things that was leaked from someone in the intel community was that didn't happen there is no official link between the Venezuelan government and Trenda Iraqwah therefore it's not an incursion it's not an invasion it's a very clear why somebody would leak that

try to undermine the president's use of the Alien enemies act is that one of the leaks being investigated is being investigated there's a few things to add to that to kind of color out the picture one of the most often tactics that these leakers use is they will take let's say it's a six page

“top secret classified document and they will pull a line from page one and a line from page two”

and a line from page three that that one put together supports the narrative that they are trying to push but is not at all reflective of the of the kind of conclusive analysis in that report and that's exactly what happened in this case so they they very selectively and intentionally left

out it was really the most important thing which was that the FBI very clearly is the intelligence

element that is responsible for domestic security so it shouldn't be a surprise then that they are the element that said yes the Maduro Venezuelan government is supporting Trenda Iraqwah and their criminal activities here enabled by president Biden's four years of open borders where they very freely came in and out of our country and were able to to begin to control territory here in the United States the CIA doesn't collect intelligence here in the United States because

that that is not within their writ or their authorities so again this is when we look at the ways that intelligence leaks our politicized is by the selective picking and choosing and very clearly leaving out the thing that actually supports what the president is doing here I'm listening to you I I'm rolling my eyes at the thought of a judge trying to overrule effectively you and president Trump on whether it's been an incursion on whether the intel supports this link

without having any access to any of these materials I mean when you see the courts really trying to get involved in this and seeming to be on a road towards saying we we are allowed to declare whether there is an incursion or they're not how what you imagine I mean it's such a dangerous thing and again it's it's preposterous in my view that these judges the judicial branch obviously plays an important role in our three you know co-equal branches of government

that they're in the position of making policy by undermining the president's legal authorities

and orders bestowed upon him by the American people he did the hard work and put his name on the ballot and ran for office if these judges want to run for office then be president go ahead and do that go make your policies go state your views in your opinions but they are politicizing the bench and you know showing how through their activism they are undermining really frankly their own credibility in doing this and again another thing that undermines the American people's faith

and trust that these institutions that the the the judicial branch in some of these cases is actually doing their job you do a presidential daily brief every day yeah you don't do a judicial daily brief every you don't sit with Judge Boseburg or the US Supreme Court

“and tell them all the things that he hears no that's what so absurd it's crazy what one more”

thing I'll add on that because you mentioned of of leakers within the intelligence community unfortunately we have them and they have been there for far too long and we are trying to root them out but there's also another source of leaks in coming from congress where certain staffers and members of congress have access to this very same intelligence and as you can imagine some may find it in their interest to selectively leak intelligence once again to to support

the talking points that they are delivering that are undermining the president's actions to root out these cartels and these gangs to keep the American people safe and we just take a step back and look at the arguments that many of these democrats and congress are making and how hard they're fighting and these judges it makes zero sense in in really president trump's mission is very clear

“we are trying to make our country safe we're getting rid of the most dangerous of gangs and”

criminals and cartels how is this not the most bipartisan issue they say they need more due process right but but not when they illegally came across the border we didn't get any you you guys have been helping with that I want to ask you at this is that this is the National Counterterrorism Center's border security has actually helped President Trump quite a bit in in nabbing a bunch of these gang members from what I can see leads on approximately what 750 individuals in the U.S. who

have ties to some of these gangs like Trenda Arragua and M.S. 13 and also the Sinaloa cartel can we

spend some time let's first speak about that and then let's spend some time on the cartels which

I saw you recently listed as your number one security concern above Iran above China above Russia the cartels so let's do it in that order sure that the the winds at the border and how you guys

“are helping so so as we started the conversation we talked about why this organization exists”

the ODE and I exist to be that integrating element pulling together information in this case from the DEA who's been focused on these cartels for a very long time because of their counter narcotics trade the intelligence that the FBI has collected is they're looking at the criminal activities that these cartels are conducting right here in communities all across the country you look at the databases that we already have in place and have had in place for a very long time in being able

to keep track of known and suspected islamist terrorists from different parts of the world who may be trying to come into our country or did come in under Biden well that's exactly the point and so this is kind of the nucleus for all of the intelligence and information that's being collected about all these different individuals and it allows us our national counterterrorism center great people who work there they they deliver almost every day on keeping the American people safe

in some of the examples that you mentioned of of providing information on these over 750 individuals who we know are members of these three major cartels just yesterday identifying almost 600 people who are known or suspected terrorists who illegally came into our country who applied for asylum under Joe Biden's administration and who were then released out into our country and so being able to get their names and and work with the FBI work with the Department

of Homeland Security for the cartels working with the DEA so that we can find them and either prosecute them or immediately deport them and get them out of our country and to stop them from entering

into our country in the first place either by legal or illegal means and before we get to the

cartels what's your level of confidence and you can't speak for a DHS but within the intel

are gang members or cartel members because some in the public have been led to believe it's

“very willy nilly you're picking up random hairdressers and deporting them how high is the bar”

before you communicate to the Tom Homes of the world it's this one and that one and the other one when it's by the time it comes to us here at our National Counterterrorism Center extensive work has already been done by the DEA by the FBI in order for their names to even be entered into our system so my level of confidence is high because it's high it's high because of the work that I know that these DEA agents are doing that these FBI agents are doing my office as the

director of National Intelligence we have 12 regional representatives all across the country and I've been spending time getting out to them and having conversations not only with them and it's usually the FBI special agent in charge of that that FBI office but we have people from every element of the intelligence community every element of of you know department of Homeland Security DEA all of the domestic law enforcement agencies and and they're working together as a team sharing that information

working together on these cases to be able to identify who these people are and ultimately to

track them down and deport them or arrest and prosecute them on the subject of the cartels yes

“the fentanyl remains the number one killer of Americans I think it's 18 to 44 now I mean it's”

it's not just the super young it's like those are the main years of your life that's when you're totally thriving you're making a family number one killer and we just did a long special on this the other day because yesterday was National fentanyl awareness day and we were talking with these documentary makers about how they'll flood the border on one side so that the border agents will go over here and then they'll send the fentanyl over on screen right where nobody's

covering it because that's their main goal is to get the fentanyl into a country that's desperate for it where we have some were 4.5% of the of the world and we're 40% of the fentanyl consumers so it's crazy sounds good taking on the cartels evil very dangerous also sounds like a nightmare of a

never ending war that could turn into some sort of homegrown terrorism problem here in the United

States so how do you calculate the risks here well first of all it's I mean it's already happening these cartels are already finding their emplacements here having their own version of a headquarters in different cities and towns across the country the capabilities of these cartels we're not underestimating at all it is it is quite an eye-opening thing when we look at how their operations are running and their capabilities and I won't go into detail here but it really speaks to why President Trump

recognize this as this greatest domestic threat which goes back to the annual threat assessment and where I I detailed this and why and also how the Department of Defense is now working with Department of Homeland Security really to secure our border and we'll play an integral role in going after and defeating these cartels working very closely with Mexico and their government in their official it's it's not just coming from this other border right now now they're going

around they're using the northern border right they're sending there's shipping things in from the west coast the east I mean it's we like to think of ourselves isolated but we're really not that isolated from these cartels that's right and that's where taking this very expansive approach

“all at once is so essential no one at no one is naive at all and thinking that this is just”

going to be like oh we'll conduct a few operations and then just knock this all out but but also thinking through very carefully kind of the lessons learned from you know the last like war on drugs

that that ultimately ended up just being a prolonged war that that we never really saw much progress on

big news today as President Trump announces that he has struck this deal with the Ukrainians for a minerals deal where we're going to have access to some of their rare earth materials and it's not necessarily a repayment for all of the aid that we've given them but it gives us a reason to be involved in Ukraine to look out for Ukraine and President Trump thinks

the critics say these are former Biden people there's nothing to be gained in Ukraine they

“don't have the rare minerals that we need that's why we're all buying this stuff from China to”

begin with so we bought a pig in a poke what do you say I don't know why they can't find a single thing that they can agree with the president on not a single thing you know that this deal was very important to the president to get done and today it was a big deal a lot of work went into getting this deal signed today because he values the fact that as he talked about earlier in the cabinet meeting today about how the American taxpayer has provided overall when you look at all of the aid

that's been given to Ukraine since the Russia Ukraine war started $350 billion and when you look at

some of the deals that some of the other European countries made with the aid they provided with Ukraine either they used frozen Russian money so they weren't using their taxpayer dollars and they found a way to give them you know frozen money from Russian funds and in other areas they said okay we'll loan you this money and we'll figure out a payback plan for the future but not us not the Biden administration this money was just given and that's it so president Trump understood that was very

very very bothered by it that the American people are just out of pocket on this without any means of of of any kind of repayment whatsoever and so so this minerals deal is a way for the American

people to get some form of of not return but some kind of a repayment based on the taxpayer

dollars that have been expended and and used to pay for someone else's government to be run to pay for someone else's infrastructure even outside of all of the weapon system while we still have communities here who have failing infrastructure who have poisonous water yes who have people still in western North Carolina who are homeless and and don't have the basic needs that they that they have and and so this deal yes of course he wouldn't have made the deal

if they don't have these rare earth and minerals that still need to be mined but of course we check it yeah he's not gonna go and make a blind deal based on just a handshake and so this is a

win for the American people and it's a win for the Ukrainian people because this joint partnership

is something that is mutually beneficial for the people of both of our countries you think about the things we could have used some of that money for with all due respect to the Ukrainians and I mean we're talking about the southern border how porous it is more agents maybe at the northern border more agents maybe to inspect some of the cargo that's get shipped in maybe some treatment programs for people who get addicted to this poison and we'll be dead if you play the odds

within 18 months maybe more immigration judges so we can give all that due process the Democrats want us to give before you know like there's so many other ways we could have spent

“that money so I want to go back on on you you remember the the tragic wildfire that hit my home”

community of lahina was I didn't live there but it was within my district when I was in Congress and how many lives were lost and an entire town just raised to the ground and when I went there just a couple of days after that fire happened and went out and talked to the people there on West Maui and the fact that so many of them not connected to each other completely different conversations different households different locations said gosh if only we were you crane

maybe somebody would pay attention to us and that that just speaks to what we're talking about here and so this is this community of lahina now who is only now by the way just starting to rebuild homes in communities and in places where they have lived for generations we talk about western North Carolina and very very very slow rebuild process that's going on there that people who lost their homes are still paying property taxes and mortgages for the land and the home that they have

that they are not able to to live on in any way at all you look at I don't think I do it well well that's the thing is is those are two of many examples you have a level of poverty in West

“Virginia that I think many Americans would would not see if but going to a third world country”

on the other side of the planet the needs that we have here are very real and part of the dissatisfaction that the American people have had for so long in our government is that the government by and large FEMA is a great example you take all of this money so much of this money

Western North Carolina I went there and you hear the the angst in people's voices when they say no

“FEMA hasn't been here and they're hoarding supplies here or there they're saying hey here you go here's”

500 bucks like what a freaking insult that is and then they see what's going on with oh we sent another

50 billion to Ukraine today and then next we sent another hundred billion and how people are celebrating

that when they're not even looking at what's happening in our own backyard and this is this is what I saw an experience when I was helping President Trump during his election campaign was that there was a spark of hope in people's hearts when they saw that he was addressing the very things that they were most concerned about their health and well-being securing our borders not allowing boys to play in girls sports or allowing them into girls bathrooms things that are common sense and address the

everyday needs of the American people our security him being the President of peace and trying to prevent war this is a shift this is the beginning of a shift to what we are all seeking to bring about

“which is in this 250th anniversary of the founding of our country how about let's have a government”

that actually serves the people a government that is of by and for the people we were talking about Russia briefly you and I've talked before about how Hillary Clinton labeled you a puppet of Putin you a Russian ass at Debbie Wasserman Schultz shamefully said the same and I saw recently President Trump withdrew Hillary Clinton's security clearance which you had to do yes we have must have been a little fun right I just a little fun I smiled of course you're good you're only human yeah

so yeah that's over for her and a number of other people by the way when you look at the 51 Mark Zade I love her intelligence officials who signed that Hunter Biden disinformation letter

and never apologize for it never held themselves accountable for it yes Mark Zade you had

Latisha James and and well some of them didn't have clearances but they had access to classified information and so we took away that access for those Alvin Bragg didn't have clearances yes okay and and there there are more to come and this is part of what we're doing in our investigative work as we go back and look for example at Crossfire Hurricane and how there were assistant U.S. attorneys who were knowingly using manufactured testimony that they would interview a

witness for example and know that the witness was lying to them either because they set up the lie or they knew that the witness was lying took that lie and used it as evidence to get a warrant under FISA to go and surveil on Americans which is completely illegal and so these are the kinds of things those types of people those assistant U.S. attorneys or those FBI agents that were involved in this kind of stuff these are crimes that need to be prosecuted and these people

need to be held accountable will that happen that will happen I mean it's called the foreign

“intelligence surveillance act that's right that's what it was for good reminder yeah on the subject”

of saving money you're doing some of that right here yes and in part it relates to enacting President Trump's DEI directives and pulling back on some of the nonsense that I know you and all the other agencies were spending money on not you you but this this the intel community can you speak to a little bit of like what you think is you're doing your own doge you're doing dig yes so that's under you you didn't out so this is not one of the areas that you

landed doge came into you did it on your own and I understand why there's a lot of them they are

helping us they have incredible tools and a lot of lessons learned through the work that they've done

okay and so they are helping us and allowing us the opportunity to be able to apply those here so we're not trying to reinvent the machine at all and we're able to get after the things we're looking for so how far we're going out the door are more likely programs and hires and so on so there was a DEI office that was immediately shut down and that alone was the savings of around 20 million dollars but the thing that we just announced today in fact was the closure of this

office of human capital completely different part of the organization and one that sounds like okay well maybe this is like talent management you're trying to go out and see well where is the best talent and where the gaps we need to fill which is what I thought but it turns out that it was an office where the previous administration kind of hit a bunch of their DEI people knowing that this action was going to be taken by President Trump

and there was a slush fund there that they would use to fund people millions of dollars to go to DEI

today but the thing that I think a lot of people would be surprised by when people talk about DEI

“and you hear you know what they're CNN MSNBC they talk about DEI and they criticize the”

president for his action and the actions that we are all taking to get rid of this claiming that we're against diversity and all of this other crap when I came in here I was able to talk with some of the people who work here DEI was such a priority that it was baked into the incentive structure for people to advance professionally here and I would imagine it was very similar across the federal government where some employees told me that they were put in a position where they had

to spend half of their time working on DEI initiatives in order for them to be able to put it on their annual evaluation and therefore be noted as oh well you are more likely to get promoted if you are spending the significant amount of time on this diversity equity inclusion initiatives and for me I'm like how in the world would you spend half of your time on that right what were you creating like and I don't really know the answer to that but I do know the answer to our

national security on that question because what that means is in the the office of the director of national intelligence and we have people here who work from all across of these 18 intelligence

“elements being put in a position where they're told if you want to get promoted if you”

know if you want to advance in your career the priority is not are you delivering the best

quality intelligence assessments and analysis to best inform the president's most critical

decisions no you will advance professionally if you show that you're dedicating half of your day towards these DEI initiatives you're implicit bias exactly exactly and so when we look at why this was a priority for the president this is not some superficial thing their national security implications to what the Biden administration was doing in centering almost their entire administration around DEI initiatives you can take this towards any domestic agency look at the department of

education shouldn't they be focused on educating our kids well wasn't there a group which Intel agency was it that had the people talking about transgender surgeries and non-binary this and this there's the national security agency yeah there's sexy group polyamory yeah I mean on and on this is this is a great example so so there was a someone who snuck into that chat that was not a part of that was not an employee there and they screenshot it what they saw

and leaked it out on X and again this is a chat group that was created and administered by the NSA one of the premier intelligence collection entities that we have and it was obscene it was obscene yes it was about all of those things it was talking about sex toys and sex tricks for people who had gone through you know some kind of transgender surgery or during the work day this is this is during the work day on an intelligence hosted work chat group and the supervisors obviously as

soon as I found that about it I said anybody who's involved with this is getting fired and getting their security clearance revoked which there were some who was like oh gosh aren't you like that seems extreme like no imagine you're in any office and you're having these kinds of sexually explicit conversations in the workplace it is how I don't care what your sexual orientation or whatever your private choices are this cannot be happening in the workplace and it must not

be happening in our premier intelligence agency that has people who have the highest clearances that that anyone can hold the plot thickens as many of the leaders famed shock and surprise that this revelation well this chat group had existed for over two years that this kind of stuff was happening in and again this is where transparency and accountability matters so much as soon as I made that announcement that we will be investigating and holding these people accountable

I started hearing from people who were within the workforce saying I work at the NSA I filed a written report with evidence of what was going on in these chat groups a year ago two years ago when this

thing first kicked up and basically because of President Biden's DEI initiatives they were essentially

told shut up it's none of your business and then there was the cover up and then there was the leak so this is one example of many how we can see what the ramifications have been when we have

“in the last administration one that is seemingly focused on everything but the most important things”

was speaking of the last administration one question for you on signal gate as I heard you say

when you actually saw something that told you this was in fact being used by the Biden

“administration who are out there all over X and other social media ripping everyone who was on”

that signal gate thread to shreds that is correct so there's no question in your mind this was used during the Biden administration by a fish I know for certain that it was to include national security officials is there another way to communicate like do are we stuck with signal so so the main the main means of communication for all of us like this in this building this entire building is a secure facility that means that if you go outside of this lobby there's a bunch of

lock boxes over there where you got a lock your phone and you got a lock your apple watch or you're or a ring anything that your or a ring wow anything that transmits a signal gets locked up by everyone who works here and everyone who visits here before you leave this lobby I suppose to count your steps good luck take the stairs you'll pass away exactly but but so so the vast majority of the communication that happens is through secure telephones and secure computers and things that are built

in to our work environments however I do have to leave the building at times and things have to keep moving and rolling same goes for those who work in the White House and those who work across

“the administration so at times for practical purposes you have to be able to communicate on the”

go signal has been recognized by the federal government during the Biden administration by the way in December of 2024 as the preferred messaging app because it provides that end to end encryption that makes it you know nothing is completely secure but it is the most secure option if you need to use it you feel like it was unfair to beat in my guals I mean they would they took the brown of it yeah I mean you know it shouldn't have happened there are sensitive conversations that that occur

in these signal chats but ultimately it was not at all what those who are opposing the president's

policies and those in the media made it out to be and I can tell you that there are some of the most vocal critics of that whole situation who also use signal and communicate things that they would not want released publicly as well not surprised exactly as I've listened to you over this hour I've had one thought recurred to me over and over and over and it is first female president that is what I like I look at you and I see it and I know they put you through the meat grinder

the last time but that was the other side now you crossed over and I just want to thank you for not saying transition people use that words like okay that's one of those words that's like for a certain thing it's no but notwithstanding how rough that was when you when you ran for president the first time have you ruled out over doing it again could we potentially see it tells the

2028 try I will never rule out any opportunity to serve my country I would not have if if we had

talked a year ago the thought would not have crossed my mind that I would be here and that we would be having this conversation my decisions in my life have always been made around how can I best be a service to God how can I best be a service to our country and that that is what has led me here I'm grateful for this opportunity and I will continue to chase those opportunities where I can make the most positive impact and be of service and now you and I sit here having

done something the two of us back in 2016 never would have thought we would have done which was stood up on a stage in endorsed Donald Trump now you're working for him I endorsed him too

“yeah and it was so great that what I was there I remember it was it was such a powerful it was”

such a powerful moment and and speech that you delivered because of your history with them very generous

to even mention that what you did for president Trump was huge and seeing you up there and announcing like your partisan change you you know with Trump it was this that was like the team of rivals or the marvel universe how many together the Avengers yeah the Avengers you're one of them you're one of the most and the the grace Greek is part of it it just works but I wonder if you do decide to do something you know in the future running for president or individual executive leadership

what have you learned from him what what would you want to take away from the kind of leader Trump is he's a very bold leader and as we see he's making decisions without care for what the media

at it by the way you know he's he's been so effective at connecting with the American people

“in ways that I think a lot of the the politicians or the the so-called political pundits here in”

Washington DC never really understood and maybe a lot of them still don't but it really comes from a

place of care his care for the American people he doesn't need to do this he didn't need to put

“himself through all this he didn't need to put himself in a position where there were two assassination”

attempts on his life and the kind of bold change that we're seeing happening now across the government

it's never happened like this under any other president so I really respect his boldness and his

courage in doing things that sometimes people don't understand or see what how it's going to turn out those are things we see in you too boldness courage and you share something else with him which is

“fearlessly independent you know that's what's going to take you forward thank you so much it's”

just one good to see you thank you very much lock with everything thank you I mean all of you are going to get you in this environment yeah my money's on you I appreciate that thank you mega it's a love