Trump's Delusional Election Rant

Potsy of the world is brought to you by fast, growing trees. Did you know that fast growing trees is America's largest and most trusted online nursery, with thousands of trees and plants and over 2 million happy customers. They have all the plants you're yard or your home needs, including fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs, and house plants all grown with care and guaranteed to arrive healthy. Whatever you're looking for, fast growing trees helps you find options that actually work for your climate, your space, and your lifestyle. Fast growing trees makes it easy to get your dream yard. Just click, order, grow, and get healthy thriving plants delivered to your door. They're alive and thrive guarantee promises that your plants arrive happy and healthy. No green thumb required. Just quality plants you can count on. Plus, get ongoing support from trained plant experts who can help you plan your landscape. Choose the right plants and learn how to care for them every step of the way. Fast growing trees is great. We have a ton of plants from them here at the office. They make it super easy. They can help you plan the layout of your yard. They can talk to you about what will actually survive in the climate you live in. Most importantly, for me, they give you tips on how to keep those plants healthy and alive for the long term. I'm pretty good at killing plants. I know a lot of people are and you don't want that to happen because that's sad. We love our plants. Right now, they have great deals on summer planting essentials up to half off on select plants and listeners to our show get 20% off their first purchase when using the code world that check out. That's an additional 20% off better plants and better growing at fastgrowingtrees.com using the code world that check out fastgrowingtrees.com code world. Now's the perfect time to plant. Let's grow together. Use world to save today. Offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. Welcome to Pate the world. I'm Tommy Vsor. I'm Ben Rhodes. We are kind of token lefty crazy liberals at this year's Aspen Security Forum. Thank you for having us. We got the market time slot. Thanks to everyone at Aspen for inviting us to be here and for all of you for coming out this morning. I know it's early. We got a two-part session for you. Ben and I are going to talk a bit about President Trump's prime time address last night in claims of election interference. We're going to step back and do a little naval gazing about US foreign policy in particular. The role it may have played in the fact that Americans no longer trust their government or trust institutions. We'll talk about foreign policies role in that erosion of trusts and talk about the blob phrase coined by my co-host here. We're going to take a quick break, reset the stage, and then start the official programming for today. Then Ben and I are going to interview you in General Assembly President and Elena Byerbox. I'm excited for that as well. Let's talk about Trump speech, Ben. Last night he demanded time from the major networks for a prime time address to talk about the top issue on the minds of every voter and election that happened six years ago. Senator Bernie Moreno previewed the speech as possibly the most important oval office address since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Do you think it delivered on that? That easily, easily. It probably exceeded it. Remember when you didn't want to raise expectations in advance of a speech? Yeah. I remember that very well. What happened with that? Yeah. So the speech started with Trump bragging about some accomplishments about the economy. It's clear like the domestic advisors got to him and they were like, "Please sir, don't make this all about 2020. Talk about the economy." But the bulk of it was about election security with the goal of drumming up political support for the SAVE Act, which is stuck in the Senate. So the election security section ranged from like standard concerns you could hear from many president about voting machines and technology to what seemed like almost attacks on his old intelligence team from the first term to these vague demands for investigations and indictments. And then he declassified a bunch of intelligence about election systems, vulnerabilities and electronic voting, bunch of stuff about China, and an investigation into voter registration groups in Michigan and then claims about non-citizens. So Ben, let's just get your reaction to the speech then I'll talk about some of the stuff I noticed within the documents. Yeah. I mean, first of all, I think it is relevant to talk about this at the Aspen Security Forum because it's at the nexus of the security of American democracy and also his claims of fraud and interference often have a kind of far nexus to them. My overall take away is, first of all, not surprising. There wasn't really any there. There was, like I spent a lot of time last night just trying to figure out what he was talking about and reading documents that didn't in any way validate what he had said. I do think that the two main takeaways I would leave people with though are, first of all, it bears noting that he has systematically dismantled all of the tools of government that had been put in place to prevent against foreign interference. So all the capabilities of the intelligence community, the capabilities within the Justice Department that are designed to detect, disrupt, report on foreign interference have been removed. And so he was complaining about a lack of capacity that he himself brought about. I think the second and more important thing that we all have to bear in mind is all of this is just to create a pretext to preemptively so doubt not about the 2020 election but about the upcoming midterm election. And so, you know, we remember Tulsi Gabbard, DNI at the time, participating over the seizing of ballot boxes in Fulton County, the intelligence communities being brought into this effort by Trump to kind of create some pretext to so doubt in the minds of at least his supporters around those midterm elections. And so I think, unfortunately, what this speech tells us is that we should expect a lot of effort and misinformation around foreign interference, around domestic threats, around the need to securitize and federalize, which should be state run elections, potentially pretext to seize ballot boxes before votes have been counted. Like, I see this as a warning sign that we are going to be in it in terms of a potential democratic crisis around these midterms. Yeah. So I assume the speech itself would be rhetoric. I did, you know, kind of like, approach the documents with an open mind because, you know, they're declassified documents and maybe there's something interesting there. But as I went through, a lot of it looked old, I mean, a lot of experts I follow who studied this stuff closely say there's just not a lot of new emails or information there. Like, there's some declassified emails, there's some raw intelligence documents, but the overall assessments haven't changed and they've been publicly disclosed. So the key document regarding claims of election interference in 2020 is this National Intelligence Council report that was released in 2021. So it was prepared by Trump staff, released by the Biden administration. It found that like, there were a handful of countries kind of running influence operations in support of various candidates, but none tried to change voter registration, vote counting, the vote reporting, you know, nothing to materially impact the results or to manipulate the results. That assessment found Russia tried to hurt Biden to help Trump, Iran tried to hurt Trump, China like probed various systems, but decided the juice wasn't worth the squeeze if they got caught. And then there were some other like the Cubans, the Venezuelans were like kind of mucking around, but nothing of note. But again, Trump kind of released these raw documents like these emails. They're hard to vet for accuracy. There's a redacted PDB piece. There's a CIA wire report. But nothing that challenges that consensus opinion, but also the existence of those documents undercut his broader claim that this was suppressed somehow. Like it went up in the PDB, it went in the CIA wire report, which is widely disseminated. With respect to China, the documents show some debate in the intelligence community about what China did. Like the overall IC assessment is that China considered interfering, but didn't. But there's this one intelligence officer who dissented and said, quote, Beijing has taken at least some low level exploratory steps, but not the most aggressive options. But again, we knew that. That was in this 2021 report that was released. Kind of hilariously, Trump undercut his own claim that Russia never interfered in our elections. He released documents that confirm Russia tried to interfere in 2020 to hurt Biden. It says Russia tried to, quote, orchestrate a high profile corruption scandal and then push narratives about voter fraud resulting from mail-in, balloting. It's like Burisma, Hunter Biden, all that stuff. And then John Solomon, who's this right wing journalist who has brought in to kind of create all this material was interviewed afterward by Von Hillier at MSNOW. And he said, quote, the intelligence community has zero evidence that a foreign power flipped a vote in 2022 or 2024. And so it kind of undercut Trump's entire claim here. So I guess this is why they brought in Bill Pulti to be the director of the National Intelligence. I wouldn't say he's delivered yet. Yeah. Well, look, I two reflections. Like one is on this issue of election interference itself and another is on what the purpose of this was. On election interference, I think one thing, because the documents show that there's not been any successful or even really concerted effort to affect the outcome of an election, right? The vote tabulation, the functioning of the electoral system. So all of this era of election interference, including 2016, by the way, has been principally about interference in the form of misinformation, disinformation, or just outright overt messaging from foreign governments or their kind of cutouts. I do think 2016 was a little bit different in that you also had hack and release operations, right? So the reason that 2016 felt materially different to me is that you had efforts to hack into people's emails and release them. So you have a kind of criminal activity on behalf of an interference effort. But I could freely acknowledge as we did at the time, despite what Trump has said, we didn't determine that Russia materially affected the vote count in 2016. Now when you look at these reports, none of this is surprising, every government with an interest, they're just reflecting their positions. Russia doesn't like Biden, China doesn't really have a favorite and they just want to undermine trust institutions, Iran didn't like Trump. None of this is surprised, that's what those governments would say if they were speaking openly. And so we're living in an era where countries regularly interfere in the politics of other countries because social media makes it easy and low cost to do so. And that's just something we live with. What is a different question is whether you are literally trying to interfere in the vote count and we see no evidence of that, that's case. But that leads me to again, what is he doing here? It's tried into playbook where he doesn't need to actually have a there there. He doesn't actually need to have some smoking gun. He just needs to create enough of an appearance of discrediting the electoral system, of some semblance of a scandal that can then ricochet around his media ecosystem. It doesn't matter if people like us are persuaded or not. He just has to kind of create enough energy and doubt and distrust among his core supporters to provide a basis for, again, if we get to a place where they're ice or military at polling stations or efforts to seize voting machines. So nobody should take comfort in the fact that this didn't land well because the purpose of this is just to create a smoke screen. Yeah, it's a long term. A White House official told Politico it was as on the rails as possible. So that's the kind of, you know, verdict you want from your own staff about your prime. I was always pleased when I put you on the rails to dress and I got that feedback. Pots of the world is brought to you by Sundays. Have you ever actually looked at the ingredient list on your dog's food? After the first ingredient, well, good luck. You see kibbles made from using extreme high heat to keep it shelf stable and inexpensive. So brands have to add back synthetic vitamins and minerals in the form of strange chemicals whose names you don't understand and definitely cannot pronounce. Is that really what you want for your dog eating? Sundays starts with 80% plus all natural meats and then add superfoods like kale, ginger, and blueberries, no fillers, no nutritional blends, no chemicals, just simple, complete nutrition. And the best part, Sundays requires no fridge, no freezer, no prep, no mess. You get the quality of a home cooked meal with a scoop and serve ease of kibble. It's what dog food should have been all along. And Sundays just launched a new brand new fish recipe made with 80% whole and minced fish, including eco-friendly invasive carp, sourced from American rivers, bring naturally rich flavor. In fact, did you know that many dogs naturally prefer fish flavors? So Sunday's fish recipe is especially great for picky eaters. Plus, it's packed with the mega three fatty acids that help support healthy skin, shiny coats, joints, and brain function. It's complete and balanced nutrition for all of life's stages. Last week, both Leo, John Zog and Pundit, love its dog, were in the office. And John brought in Leo's Sundays and fed Leo here. And let me tell you, every single dog in this office, bum-rushed our office because they wanted a piece of that Sunday's food. They love it. They're obsessed with it. They were all trying to eat it before Leo could. And it's because it's made of real ingredients. And you'll see the results in your dog better mood, more common focus, softer coat, less itching, better poops, all of it. Plus, the dogs were doing better too. Make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to Sundays4dogs.com/world and get 50% off your first order. Or you can use the code world that check out that's 50% off your first order at sundays4dogs.com/world. Sundays4dogs.com/world or use the code world at checkout. This podcast is sponsored by Squarespace. Squarespace is the all-in-one website platform designed to elevate your online presence and drive your success. Squarespace gives you the tools to claim your domain, build a professional website, expand your brand, and facilitate payments all in one place. With Squarespace's collection of cutting-edge design tools, anyone can build a bespoke online presence that perfectly fits their business. Start with Blueprint AI, Squarespace's AI-enhanced website builder to get a fully custom website in just a few steps using basic information about your industry, goals, and personality to generate premium quality content and personalized design recommendations. Every dream needs a domain. Squarespace domains make it easy to find the best name for your business at one fair, all inclusive price, no hidden fees, or add-ons required. Squarespace provides everything you need to bring more of your dream to life, whether that means building a website or adding a professional email service. Don't wait to claim your name, invest in your dream domain today. Head to squarespace.com for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch, go to squarespace.com/world to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain that's squarespace.com/world. All right, let's talk about part two of the blob. Ben, you wanted to find the blob for everyone here. Well, we thought we had to kind of go right at this question. I think what I was getting at back in 2016 was a kind of group think mentality that I freely acknowledged, like as someone who is at the upper echelons of the National Security Apparatus of this country, but at times I was a participant in where you tend to have a bias towards intervention, be it military intervention or the imposition of sanctions. You tend to not question what you've done or own up to mistakes, and you therefore tend to kind of repeat patterns of behavior that are not working and that have been losing credibility with the public. I was doing this particularly in the context at that time of the debate over the raw nuclear agreement, which is because I was basically referring to the adversaries of that agreement. It was a pretty pitched battle at that time politically. I should say it was harder to do a nuclear agreement than it was to take this country to war, which is something I think we all need to reflect on. Why is it harder to get a JCPOA through Congress and it is to launch a war against Iran or Libya or another country? That was kind of what I was trying to identify. So, let's talk about the problems with the blob. The thesis here is that the blob is helping hasten this erosion of trust in faith institutions and it needs to be reformed and changed. We'll unpack some of the reasons why. I think one of the reasons I think people have frustrations with the permanent foreign policy classes. It feels like there's no accountability. There's no accountability for bad policies, bad decision-making, and people just kind of hang on forever. Take John Bolton, for example. He's been in Washington for decades. There's no country he does not want to invade. There's no threat he won't hype. Yet, he kind of Fox News hit himself into becoming the national security adviser again until he was indicted by the president. I think that gets at this lack of accountability. I think the primary policy example is still the Iraq War. It was, I think, self-evidently a catastrophic disaster. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed. Thousands of U.S. service members, we wasted trillions of dollars. Yet, it feels like the architects of that war have faced no professional consequences that are often treated as foreign policy luminaries. While there are these lonely voices who oppose the war or great journalists like the team at Nightrider that were reporting on the truth and undercutting the administration's claim. They are hardly celebrated. In fact, they're largely forgotten. There were a couple examples, frankly, not to pick on anyone, but here at Aspen this week. Connolly's rice offered some comments about Iran that I wanted to highlight. She said about the threat from Iran. When I hear it wasn't imminent, do you really want to wait until it's imminent? Of the nuclear deal, of cutting a nuclear deal, I wouldn't buy a nuclear agreement under any circumstances. I just let them Iran sit there and stew in their lousy economy. And then of Europe's refusal to join Trump's war with Iran, quote, with Americans fighting whatever you say about it, this is in our war is not really a very smart thing to say. And recounted a story about Jacques Shirok and George Schroeder opposing the Iraq War and how much it pissed off George Bush. And again, I don't want to pick on Dr. Rice, but I would just say, like, first of all, that comment about the threat from Iran sounds nearly identical to the infamous. We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud line about Iraq WMD, which was discredited with respect to the JCPOA, which I believe she opposed. Trump tore it up. That's the problem. Now we're in the war that everyone was trying to avoid. And Trump himself is billing it as a new forever war. And then again, when we talk about like Iran stewing in its bad economy, I think we should be clear that 90 million people get to then stew in that bad economy and suffer. And then finally, I'm sure Bush was frustrated with Schroeder and Shirok, but they were right. And he was wrong. So I'm like, I don't know the value of that anecdote all these years later. So, then again, not trying to be a jerk, but if we can't learn from a mistake as obvious as a rock, what can we learn from? Yeah, and I'll turn an internal here, because the Democratic Party has its own problems in this regard. I mean, you're not reshiding last night. We've kind of defaulted to a certain perspective at times. You take like a Bob Menendez, for instance, Hawkes Sky, you know, pro-rock war, anti-JCPUA, obviously corrupt, and yet was allowed to continue to be the lead Democrat of the Senate Farm Relations Committee after narrowly averting one corruption investigation. And so to me, the question is, because if you take a rock, I think sometimes they're often these conversations about why do Americans not appreciate enough the role we play in the world? Or do they not understand that the United States has a central role to play in underpinning an international order, which has now, frankly, unraveled? When the message from the electorate for successive presidential elections is been we want accountability over the Iraq war. Like Barack Obama, our first boss, would never have become President of the United States without his opposition to the Iraq war. There was the single policy difference with Hillary Clinton in 2008 primary that allowed him to win. Donald Trump in 2016 ran against Jeb Bush and the legacy of the Iraq war. That is when he caught fire. And so the message from the public is we want accountability for these foreign policy disasters and for these forever wars. I would say that one way to do that, there are a couple of ways to do that. One is I think the people that participate in American foreign policy have to be more willing to acknowledge error, you know. When I look back on the Libyan intervention in the Obama years, which I supported, I have to acknowledge that that turned out to be the wrong decision and it turned out to be a decision that perpetuated aspects of American foreign policy that have alienated people in this country and around the world. Because while I can defend it on the basis that it succeeded in a near-term objective of a verdict Gaddafi from mass scaring some civilians, it created through regime change effects that have destabilized North Africa in the Sahel ever since. And I think people like yes, they want to see different people in positions of power and authority when it comes to foreign policy. They want to see generational change just as we want to see generational change with politicians. They want to see generational change with the people who are responsible for American foreign policy. But they also want to see people and I think would show some grace to people if they were willing to reckon with error and didn't feel like they had to dig in and defend everything. And particularly, it's intervention that we fail to reckon with. Look, we've now had Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Iran, which was an attempt at regime change world. None of these have worked. And instead of questioning whether we can do it better, we need to be questioning why we continue to try to engage in regime change wars in the first place. - The problem wasn't just the intelligence about Iraq, WMD, the problem was engaging-- - Or we'd be sending troops or whatever. - Another challenge with the blob, this sort of gets away you're just talking about is this, some members of the kind of permanent foreign policy establishment class act like foreign policy is somehow above or separate from or immune from politics. And you and I would often go to meetings in the situation room and someone would sort of performatively say like politics has no place in these walls and like they had good intentions. They were trying to signal that we are making national security determinations not decisions of political expediency. But of course, politics was in that room. We were only allowed in that room because Barack Obama won a couple of elections. But the mentality here in DC is often that foreign policy and national security, these are matters that are discussed and decided by small groups of elites, intermatters, without real input from the rest of the country. And I think that can lead to the establishment in both parties making mistakes and ignoring the will of voters. That's how you end up with a democratic party, ripping itself apart over Gaza, which is happening today. Or how you end up with Trump running on not starting any new regime change wars and then launching one with a run. Nevermind, Venezuela. And so Ben, how do you think about how to better incorporate the will of the people, democratize these decisions, while also acknowledging that populism, nativism, isolationism, those are powerful political forces that can lead to really, really bad foreign policy outcomes? Yeah, this is such an important question. First of all, the things that I think a lot of us can agree on, that you would want to function in international order, that you would want to sustain alliances, that you would want to sustain certain overseas commitments for our assistance among them, that you need to have a credible intelligence community. Those things depend on maintaining trust. The way to defend those things is not to pull up the drawbridge from politics and public opinion and say, we know better. That's been a recipe for essentially the dismantling of those things, because you become so distant from the people that it opens up a space for populism to kind of come directly at you. And at a time of anti-establishment sentiment that we've been living through for not just a decade, but I would argue since 2006, Obama ran as a populist. We've been living through that. I think the second thing is, you do need to incorporate some respect for public opinion into your decision making, because this is a democracy. And if you cannot sustain your policies, because you lack public support for those policies, nothing that you do is going to succeed. And to take-- sometimes, by the way, the public has it right. And if you look at Gaza, as we were experiencing that through late 2023 into 2024, there was just no way to explain to democratic voters why this policy made sense. The machine had been built to provide a certain amount of military assistance and kind of an open spigot to the Israeli government. The Israeli government was clearly ignoring the counsel of the Biden administration. The Biden administration was even putting out, hey, we really aren't happy with what Nenya was doing. You know, Biden had a really tough phone call with him. And yet, all the public sees is their tax dollars funding all of these weapons going to an Israeli government that is using them to destroy civilians inside Gaza, right? And that, it's not just-- like when people talk about the election, it's not just whether or not there was support for that policy. It's whether you could believe anything else that the administration was saying, because they had lost such credibility in this space. So the second point is, you know, sometimes the public opinion is telling you something that you need to listen to. Or, frankly, is giving you space to change. It made it seem hard to break from an Israeli government in that context. But when you have your voters telling you to do it, there's your basis for doing it. The last thing I want to say is a policy solution is actually, I think it means that Congress should be more involved in foreign policy. If Congress had to vote to authorize these wars, they wouldn't happen. Like, Congress never would have voted to authorize the war in Iran, right? And so if we get back to a place as intended by the founders of this country, where Congress is actually the decision-maker on matters of going to war or not, you would end these wars right quick, because after the Iraq war, which ended a lot of congressional careers, ever since then, nobody has wanted to take a vote to authorize the war. - Yeah. So we're running low on time. We'll do one more complaints, and then we have some, you know, thoughts on how to fix things. The last kind of grievance with the blob is, I think, there's a tendency in Washington to treat pro-war people as realistic and serious and anti-war pro-peace voices and as fringe and non-serious. You see this a lot in establishing media. Lindsey Graham, who recently passed away, was appeared on Meet the Press 63 times. This would have been a 64th appearance. The record for the most appearances is held by John McCain. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of those media appearances focused on advocacy for war or U.S. intervention somewhere. And on the flip side, I'm sure some folks might remember, a congressman named Dennis Kassinich. He was a congressman from Ohio, something of a gad fly, kind of perennial presidential candidate, ultimately ended up working for RFK juniors somehow. I don't know what happened with him. But his signature idea was a bit of journey. Been a journey. His signature idea was the creation of a department of peace. And it was treated like a joke. And I remember thinking that he was a joke and that idea was a joke and what a silly notion. But I went through the bill text yesterday. The mission of the department was to make peace and organizing principle of U.S. foreign policy to promote justice, democratic principles, and expand human rights and promote conflict prevention through diplomacy. I don't really get why that's a joke and why the Department of War, which exists and is run by Pete Hegseth, is a real thing that exists in this world. You mentioned the example of the JCPOA event. It was nitpicked to death by Congress. They passed a law to make it harder to cut a deal with Iran while these wars just could kind of race through. So thoughts on this sort of like frustration around anti-war voices being treated as unserious poor gets in solutions. Yeah, I think there's two quick points on this. I mean, one is just the idea that I started in a think tank in DC. And part of the issue here is that intervention is often presented as a solution to the problem. But then that can create a situation where every problem is an ale and so you reach for the hammer. And so the way you show you're trying to solve a problem of a government doing something we don't like is to bomb it, invade it, or sanction it. And so therefore, these are the people with the solutions and so their platform where if it's someone saying, wait a second, we shouldn't do this. I mean, if you look at the people that voted against the Iraq war in Congress, they tend to be the people that are not taken seriously in certain elite media debates about these things. But so part of this is you've got to change the paradigm where there needs to be more skepticism that intervention is always a solution. And the person coming and arguing for bombing a country is therefore offering a solution is more credible than someone who's saying, hey, we shouldn't do that. I would argue on our progressive side, we need to get more involved in foreign policy, though. Like part of the issue is that progressives often in the past, and this is changing now, have focused on domestic policy. And they've kind of seeded the terrain in the Democratic Party on national security to more hawkish people that end up running committees, right? We goodbye. as an L.A. Dangle, running the Foreign Affairs Committees, you know, these are the hawkish parts of the party. And so part of, and this is happening now, but I want like an AOC to have more of a foreign policy profile, right? Bernie Sanders, when he moved after the 2016 election to have more of a foreign policy voice, was very healthy for the party. And so a part of the way you do this is you have progressives and you have to kind of create permission structures for that to happen and give them committees, summons, and things like that. But you need to democratize the discourse so that it reflects the American people, right? Yeah, I wrote criticism of Bernie in 2016 and was that he didn't really have a foreign policy agenda that he was running on and that changed quickly after he lost. So look, we complained about the blob. Let's talk about how to fix it. I'm going to throw out a few thought starters and then you offer your own. I just think you need generational change within the kind of staffer class and more diversity of voices. One way to get at that is we need more transparency and oversight when it comes to foreign policy think tanks in Washington. There is a revolving door between a lot of these think tanks and institutions and the government. A lot of them have funding from right-wing billionaires or whatever. We need fewer of those voices constantly coming out of government and more new people. I think we need stronger lobbying bans, disclosure rules, enforcement of fairer and just campaign finance reform too but that's a panel for a different day. We need a bigger state department. We need to build back a modernized version of USAID. We need to rethink and shrink the US military footprints and spending so that we aren't just constantly adding and adding and adding without subtracting anything. Currently Trump wants a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget that is crazy. You mentioned this, the AUMF. We need to repeal the post-907 authorizations for the use of military force and then Congress needs to put some real teeth into the War Powers Act and clarify it so that it doesn't just get ignored over and over again including by Barack Obama. And then arms sales. I just would love to see Congress vote up or down on arms sales. Why is there not more scrutiny of massive major arms packages to countries around the world? But Ben, your thoughts? I think that's a really good list and we're sure on time because and I don't want to just echo it. I will say just a couple of things on this. The first is democratizing who does farm policy. It's generational change but it is very much like different recruitment pipelines. It is both older but it's also a very white establishment and if you were able to diversify the voices and the perspectives that are informing American farm policy you would get different outcomes as well. And then I think critically important is I just say that a lot of the common threads to what you said. Because I throw into that the permanent sanctions regimes. We sanction countries and the sanctions never go away. So we're just building sanctions upon the top sanctions. Until by the way we're going to lose the dollars reserve currency and things are going to get real here very fast because we cannot sustain our standards of living without that. But in order to do things like repeal the AMF, get Congress involved in the declaration or authorization of the use of military force, restrict arms sales, countries engaged in human rights violations. You need to end this mindset where it is more of a political risk to take those positions than it is to advocate for sanctions and for military intervention. And the reason that should not be hard is that is where public opinion is. Yet political leaders are often far too afraid of being called weak on national security. Then they are taking principal positions against those things. Public opinion keeps telling us you will be rewarded for doing this. Don't be afraid to have fights on these issues. Because if you do and start to win those fights, that's how the title is. In fact, have fights because it draws attention to these issues. As we saw with Barack Obama and we saw with Donald Trump. OK, that's it for this section of the show. Thank you for being here. We're going to take a quick break, reset the stage, and then we come back. You'll hear our conversation with Onalena Byerbox. So please come for that too. [MUSIC PLAYING] Pod Save the World is brought to you by HIMS. ED is more common than guys talk about. The good news, getting real treatment is simple. And through HIMS, it's 100% online. HIMS connects you with licensed healthcare providers online, giving you simple access to legitimate ED treatment options from home. No awkward appointments, no pharmacy lines. Just complete a simple online intake. And a provider will review your information to determine if treatment is right for you. If prescribed, your treatment ships directly to your door. That includes Sildenafil, also known as a generic for Vagra. Available through HIMS at up to 95% less than the brand name version. And if that option isn't right for you, there are additional treatment options available so you can find what works best for your body. It's straightforward, transparent, and designed to make getting care feel easy. To get simple online access to personalized affordable care for ED, hair loss and more, visit hymns.com/world at himns.com/world. hymns.com/world. Not available in all 50 states, prescription required, to see website for details, restrictions, and important safety information. Sildenafil is a generic version of Vagra. Vagra is a registered trademark of fiatrists, special C-L-L-C. HIMS is not affiliated with or endorsed by fiatrists. PodSafe of the World is brought to you by Built. Here's a question. Are you getting rewarded for paying your rent or mortgage right now? If the answer is no, you need to check out Built. Becoming a built member means earning points on every housing payment no matter where you live. Built points can be redeemed for lots of stuff. Flight totals, lift rides, Amazon.com purchases, future housing payments, and much more. They really do have a ton of ways you can redeem the built points. There's fitness classes, like sole cycle or berries. They have Amazon.com purchases, lift rides, gift cards, it tons and tons of brands. There's student loan balances, you can write down. There's a million different ways to use your built points. And built to new AI neighborhood concierge doesn't just answer questions. It executes tasks. From paying your rent and handling a lift to book and dinner reservations across 50,000 partners, it handles your to-do list while automatically applying your member benefits. Here's what you do. First, download the built app. Second, link any credit or debit card to the app. So purchases at your local spots become even more rewarding. And third, ask the neighborhood concierge in the app pretty much anything. And it'll alert you about exclusive member benefits near your home. And for the homeowners out there, built works for mortgages too. Your housing payment is one of your biggest monthly expenses. So why wouldn't you want to earn points on it? Download the built app and join the membership for where you live at joinbuilt.com/world. That's j-o-i-n-b-i-l-t.com/world. Use our links so they know we sent you. Thank you so much, Madam President, for joining us for this conversation. I admired your work as leader of the German Greens. And as farm minister, I want to start by just talking a little bit about the role of the United Nations. And then later we'll get to some specific things you're working on. I speak as a huge supporter of the UN system. And I wanted to kind of frame this around the fact that we, I've been watching like everybody else, the negotiations around the Iran War play out. And a kind of fairly improvisational is a word you might use, a manner, you know, in Islamabad and Qatar and other places. And I've noticed the kind of absence of a UN participation in those talks. Whereas during the JCPOA, the UN kind of had a formal role because it was UN Security Council, Perman 5, that were in the negotiations along with Germany. What does that say? How do we get to a place where the UN is kind of reinserted into international diplomacy on the leading peace and security issues? You've looked at this as the perspective of farm minister and now as a perspective of a UN officer. How can we revitalize the role of the UN in international diplomacy? Good morning. And thank you for having me in this wonderful and beautiful landscape. Well, obviously the world is not in a good shape to put it very diplomatic. And obviously it's a huge challenge for the United Nations. And third point, obviously, the UN needs a deep reform and we come back to that later. So don't get me wrong that I want to sugarcoat anything with regard to the United Nations. However, I think we always have to get the context right because context matters a lot if we all know. So in a situation where key drivers of the Security Council are not only challenging the charter but attacking the charter, it is impossible for an institution like the UN of 193 member states and five permanent members of the Security Council who do have a feature power to solve a war where some feature powers are involved. So in the end, the UN is always the sum of its 193. But this does not mean at all that the UN cannot do anything and we might come back to that later as well. I mean, there's now a total revitalization of the general assembly. And the narrative of saying we live in a polarized world one against the other, in my point of view, is totally under complex. We are in a multipolarized world and we have a two-thirds majority for kind of everything that holds this world together from the SDG to fighting climate crisis to a governance structure for AI and also on peace and security because most of the countries in the world know the UN charter is their life insurance. insurance. If we would exact that Mite is right again, this would be the death sentence for almost everybody, my country, including, and I would even say for those strongest armies, as we can see right now, with this rate of vermous, you cannot end this alone with military force. And obviously this has a deep effect for your own economy. So in a nutshell, yes, the charter is under pressure, the UN is working in very challenging times, we have to do better, and this would only work, so put pressure in the Security Council if this two-thirds majority dares. And this comes to a deeper point now, you mentioned the war of Iran. We know the effects we saw yesterday night again, not all the neighboring countries, very strong Gulf countries. But when we had the discussions about resolution, be it on Gaza, be it on the Board of Peace, be it on the Strait of Hamuz, who dares to stand up and speak up. I leave it there because on the President of the General Assembly was 193 member states, but individual leadership matters, I would say, more than ever. And if individual leaders joined forces, if two-thirds majority individual leaders joined forces, I would say then can move hardly anything. But obviously for some of the big crisis at the moment, it's not possible, and this is why we have to keep on not only reforming the UN, but also asking every individual country, do you step up in your own interest for the principles of the charter every day? Yeah, let me ask you one follow-up on reform then, because – and it's an interesting point about the democratic body, the General Assembly kind of taking more of a role, given the divisions in the Security Council. I have often defended the UN by suggesting to people that if the member states, particularly on the Security Council, particularly the veto-wielding members of the Security Council, disagree, the system can't really function the way that we would want it to, that said we are kind of living in a reality in which that doesn't feel like it's changing anytime soon. And so when you talk about reform, essentially the way in which the UN has a voice, the way in which component parts of the United Nations are functioning, how can the UN reform absent any kind of consensus among particularly the United States, Russia, and China? What can be done by the UN itself as an organization in a context when it's kind of leading board members to take a phrase, are at odds with each other? So there are different parts of reform, let me start with the political one first. We saw what member states can do a year ago at the beginning of the high level week, where I took over the presidency, where one day before the official opening happened, this was on Tuesday morning, we had the Monday morning, first celebrating 30 years of Beijing, women rights and security, also very important topic, maybe you could touch it later as well. But then we had the two state solution conference organized and set up by Saudi Arabia and France. Interesting again, coalition in these times. And the US was totally against it, they didn't even participate yet. And here comes my two-thirds majority example, 142 member states adopted a resolution, which was a detailed plan for how to end the war in Gaza, actually something I've worked before for a couple of years since the 7th of October, with the core group, again a core group. This is why I'm such a fan in these times of front runners and coalitions, not of the willing. This is a bit similar from another time, but a coalition of those who believe that they can really do something. So it has concrete steps, disarmament of Hamas, withdrawal from the Israeli army, from Gaza, excess of humanitarian steps towards the governing from the Palestinian themselves. So it's all in there. And this was adopted. And if you would look at the video from that day again, it was a celebration of the UN itself. I've never felt an atmosphere like this in this room, because it really showed to member state, well, this is our house. This is our house of humanity, and we can do something if we do something together. And this mood, and again, politics in these times is different than in 1970, guys, all over social media. I think some who weren't there have watched that very carefully, also how to, one president was there, and the other was the foreign minister. Two persons were celebrated at this event, because then the next day we had the official speeches by heads of states, and then we had a meeting in the security council. No, first we had an invitation to DC, and then we had a meeting in the security council, and then we had to step towards the board of peace. But this last step would not have happened if we wouldn't have that that Monday and the two-state solution, and there you see all the power, and there you see also that, and this is my theory, no single country in the world in these time can move in total isolation. So if there is this strength, so this is not an institutional reform, we don't have to change anything in the security council for that, we just need leadership, and we just need collisions for protecting the charter. Having said this, obviously many things would be way easier if we would have an institutional reform of the security council, if I were a professor, and sometimes journalists pretend they are professors, and then they say, but madam president, yeah, don't you see that we need a reform of the security council, that the veto is totally blocking peace, well obviously I see it, but then I ask back to them, since you're also having eyes, don't you see in the world that it's almost impossible at this moment to take away the veto right, and all of those who said maybe the UN has failed, we have to build something new, yeah, there was an effort to build something new, it was called board of peace, did you see that the veto power was taken away, well the veto power was even increased, because there's now a single veto power, not only one country, but one person has an individual veto power. So all these theoretical discussions about maybe we just built something new, I mean this would be the end of multilateralism, bringing me to the third point of the reform, reform is boring. Being a national politics before, nobody implores you of saying, you know what, I have a wonderful idea, we just changed the rules of procedures, and please vote for me at the next election for that one. But as you also know, those in administrations, these reforms and rules of procedures met heavily. So this is what we are working on, nobody reports about it, maybe this is also good because then nobody is like making fake news on social media about it, but the deep reform obviously of the security council, the first steps are right now, how do we get more justice of Africa having a seat, for example, at the security council, yeah, this would open slightly the door, it would not change the veto power, but at least it would give more credibility to this institution. Other reforms, even more boring, but heavily crucial, how do we take away this overload? I mean, this is where especially the US is definitely right, there's an inefficiency which I could not believe as a German because we love bureaucracy in Germany, yeah? But now I found a place where I don't love it anymore. So we really have to do something about it, and this is again a deep structural challenge which is not so easy to solve. You don't have any checks and balances within the UN, yeah, so there is no finance committee challenging the government saying, well, this is a bit inefficient. It's all the member states, and again, in theory, it's very easy, just get rid of many, many of the USGs and ASGs for those who are experts in the United Nations, yeah? The highest positions in the security in the UN, yet they are all political. You gave one to that country, you gave another one to that country. So every individual post is already a geopolitical challenge, yet this is what we have to do until the next Secretary General, and we can go into that deeper. But if we are not reforming this house from inside, it will collapse, given the challenges from outside. The world is brought to you by Helix. I got a Helix mattress. I forgot the exact mattress model, because who the hell remembers those things? I remember mine. It's a Don Lux, and it's great. That's a beautiful model. Here's what I tell you about my bed. Don. It is so comfortable. New day. Every single person who ever comes to my house, well, rest in, sleeps on that bed, so that's the best goddamn mattress I've ever slept on. Sunshine-ing. I feel amazing. Take the Helix sleep quiz. They're going to match you with the perfect mattress based on your personal preferences and your sleep needs. They have over 20 mattress models, so you can find the perfect model for you. Helix delivers your mattress right to your door with free shipping in the US. The happy with Helix guarantee offers a risk-free customer first experience designed to ensure you're completely satisfied with a new mattress, so you can rest easy and with seamless returns and exchanges. Plus, Helix offers a 120-night sleep trial and a limited lifetime warranty. Look, if you're getting bad sleep, if you're tired every day, you are going to feel miserable. Your body's going to hurt. You're not going to be as mentally focused as you need to be. One of the best ways to get a better night's sleep is to upgrade your mattress and make sure you are actually comfortable at night. Helix is the answer here. We can't recommend it enough. Go to helixsleep.com/world for 27% off-site wide. This offer is exclusive to our listeners that's helixsleep.com/world for 27% off-site wide. ElykSleep.com/world. I want to follow up on Gaza and threats to the UN Charter because it seems like the announcement of the Board of Peace, it was ostensibly to deal with long-term reconstruction in Gaza, but it does seem like it's trying to supplant or replace some of the core functions of the UN. So far, the Board of Peace has been a failure. Almost none of the pledge money is materialized. I read recently that the International Security Force that they're pulling together currently as four members, I believe they're supposed to provide security within Gaza. So I was wondering what you make of the Board of Peace's brief tenure and whether it's making your job harder at the UN. Well, after a couple of months, no. Because it proved what I just said that obviously it's not so easy to build another institution and for sure it can never, ever replace the United Nations. Yet, in the moment when we had the discussions, and again, my role is now president of the General Assembly and I represent 193, obviously there's hardly any consensus. So I always say, I swam I also on the charter and I speak on the charter because this is the base for 193. And in the frame of the charter, I said at the beginning when there were discussions about the Board of Peace, there's a reason why we do have a body for peace and security, where every country, no matter how big or small, how powerful or rich, has an seat at the table and an equal voice and vote at the table. So you can understand this and obviously something else hasn't. But I was one of the few who said anything about it, also from the UN family. And this is, I think, I mean, some things, as I said, we cannot change. We cannot change the veto power at the moment. But we can change every day if we dare to speak up. And if in a situation where the UN is so heavily under pressure, because obviously it was a momentum where some thought, we show now how easy peace and security can be built. And those from different countries here, yeah, I mean, there was an invitation. And I was not the foreign minister anymore, but I just said, by the way, and this is a good thing when you have media access, I just wanted to remind that in the German constitution, I don't even see how Germany could participate in this because of our history. We are bound to act for peace and security only within international organization, regional ones, European Union, Council of Europe and international ones, obviously the United Nations. But I felt it was a need for saying this, that we do have a constitution. But people were like really searching for arguments because they, at my point of view, could not just say the simple thing of saying, well, there's a security council. There's a general assembly, just take these forums. And I think this is also when we speak about Iran. Again, it's not as easy as we see in the headlines, yeah. The UN failed because it didn't deal with it. The topic of Iran was not even brought to the security council. When we remember Iraq, there was a heavy debate in the security council. Again, you can have different political opinions about who was right and who was wrong in this. One of the Foreign Ministers from my country back then said, with all due respect, I'm not convinced. But he could only say that because the topic wasn't the security council this time, it wasn't even in the security council. And I think this is really the point. If we just start off bypassing an institution, obviously, cannot act. It can still fail in their action. But the biggest threat is that we pretend we have an easy way out. And as you said, now we're a couple months afterwards. And the funding is not there because all the complexity and sometimes also bureaucracy of the UN with all the different agencies has a region because we have specialized agencies who can go into Gaza. We have specialized agencies for health, for education. And obviously a new setup where you just say we just collect money and somehow we throw it into an area that does not work at all because you need to structures in the ground. And it's even there. You don't even have the money. I mean, we need billions, and I think we have 23 million so far collected. Not enough. You guys were right about Iraq, by the way, we were wrong. I want to ask you a question about putting on your hat as a former German lawmaker. I mean, there's the far right AFD party, someone say, you know, extremist or Nazi party, seems ascended in Germany. It's polling at record levels in a number of different opinion polls now. Several German states have elections in 2026. There's concern that the AFD could win outright in some of those regions. Historically speaking, as you know, other German parties have kept the AFD out of power by refusing to work with them to keep the so-called firewall up. But there's also concern that the firewall may be breaking down. How worried are you and should we be about the AFD's rise and potential of, you know, attaining real power in Germany? Um, because I'm not a fan of claiming that politicians are presidents of the General Assembly have answers for everything, I don't have an answer and this is my biggest fear. I really don't understand in many parts of the world, especially in democracies, especially in countries like mine where you have everything, even health access for everybody in your country. So this narrative about everything is falling apart and I'm such a deep fan about multilaterism, about an interconnected world because it broadens your horizons so much. Obviously, you learn when you travel and when you're an international context and this is again at the UN, you're seeing and understanding the cultural background from every country, but no more in an easy way, yeah. When you travel abroad and I think the best answer to fight extremism and fascism is you enable every school kid at the age of 16 to spend half a year in a different country. Not only that you understand the culture there, you feel what it means to be a foreigner. I was with 16 in the US and now I'm back, obviously, yeah. And I totally remember the first time I had to go to a doctor, how shy I was, yeah. Because I didn't know the system, I didn't know what to say. Then I was making friends with a German who I would have hardly spoken to in Germany because I didn't like her at all. But at least she understood my problems, yeah. So when you have sometimes here in your own country people saying, "So why don't they speak German?" Yeah. Why they come from Turkey and they don't speak German in our subway. I mean, I don't speak English with my children because they say it's very embarrassing with your German accent if you people hear that. So all these kind of experience, what it means, I mean, totally changes your mindset. But now coming to Germany in the extreme right. Also how you see your own country. I mean, when I'm abroad taking the doctor's example again, yeah, even though I would be paid back at my situation right now, I'm thinking if I go, it's my kid to the doctor to put cash on the table. I value our health system a lot, even though I would complain in Germany again. So I think this attitude of really trying to educate global citizens is crucial. And we should never give up on this. And if it's now the narrative of my country first, also in the European continent, this is a toxic first step, but it takes time. And now coming to your concrete questions right now, this is obviously a challenge because we cannot do the education right now in sports. And this is why at the moment, we have to hold this firewalls as we call it currently in Germany. And we had a discussion with a couple of colleagues yesterday night. There's a difference with the extreme right party in Germany. I mean, this is based on the fascism we had 80 years ago. Yeah, this is a tradition because we have also other extreme right parties and other countries I discussed also a lot of other European colleagues about it. In some, for example, in Finland with the true Finns, they formed a coalition with a theory of if they are in government, maybe they show that they are not so anti-EU because, and most of them actually did it in government. But this is really different with at least part of the AFD, but they had the core. They are anti-constitutional. We have set up because of our horrible crimes in the past. We have a body called Verfassungshut, so protection of our constitution. I mean, they are reports about this party that this is against our constitution. We have in our constitution, if this happens, you have to defend your constitution that never ever something happens again like the Holocaust and all the crimes like the Second World War before. So yes, we had a crucial moment and again, it needs backbone, leadership, or just moral human sense to say whatever the outcome is. The good thing is again in a democracy, you need a majority, even if they are running first in some of the federal states you are saying now, in Germany you still need at least 50%. So then you would need a coalition from all of the other parties. This is not a nice at all. I was in the coalition with three parties, obviously it ended a bit early. Yeah, but then we have to do it. Yeah, I always say the UN was not built for the easy times. It was built for the hard times, exactly for right now. And it's the same for democracy. Democracy is easy and easy times. Yeah, but it's tested in challenging times. And this is when you really see if you are a true democratic leader. So one last question, because I know we were chatting. And you want to mention the Secretary General Selection process. But one way to kind of frame the question coming off this is, I could argue, one of the reasons why there's been a loss of faith in democracy and in the international order that has kind of created an opening for the AFD and other parties is because there's a sense that decisions are now made in an opaque way that corruption has really entered decision making inside of governments, whether we're here in the United States or inside the international community itself in terms of how decisions are made. That people don't feel like these institutions that are supposed to be responsive to them have their interests in mind. That, rather, there's some back room somewhere where somebody is making a judgment. And so in that context, one of the main ways in which the UN presents itself to the world is in the selection of a Secretary General. What can you tell us about the process that is underway of selecting the next Secretary General? What can be done to the maximum extent possible within the kind of rules of the UN to democratize that, to make it feel like a selection process. It's not either corrupt or just some very powerful countries getting together and forcing their candidate through. First of all, I would disagree that the rise of the rights related to corruption. I mean, I'm speaking for my own country. Yeah, you can do it. I'm thinking for my own country. So obviously, good leadership is the best promotion for democratic parties. So if you're not a good leader, and if you're even corrupt, it's even worse people don't trust you. But if you would look maybe also a bit here or in another reason, the opposite, not always the same true. Yeah, you could also spread fake news if not to say lie, which is obviously also not a good leadership, but still people following. But I mean, we cannot change people's minds. And again, I would also give responsibility to citizens. I mean, democracy depends on active citizenship. And if you don't want to live in a dictatorship, you have to support democracy. And I heard always in Germany, but I don't like this party because the Greens, they are way too much on climate change. Yeah, and I don't like the conservatives because they don't take the battle with the old companies and they don't like the ones in the middle. And I always say, well, this is democracy. It's a compromise. If you want to wash your clothes, don't have dirty clothes. You go to the supermarket, yeah? I also could say I don't like this washing powder because it's too expensive. I don't like the others because it's not biological as a green politician. But then if I take the other one, my children say, it doesn't smell right. In the end, I have to find a compromise because I need washing powder for my clothes. And it's the same for democracy, yeah? If you want democracy, you have to decide in the same what is the compromise you take for yourself in this moment and the good thing is at the next election, yeah? You could take the other party because you said, well, obviously, this doesn't wash as I wished for. Four years or five years long. So now coming to the UN, obviously, there, we have also now different candidates and a promotion here. We have a town hall, which is kind of like a presidential debate next week. In the general assembly, it is being broadcasted also by a big broadcasted television show so you can see it. And again, the question is, who, or which the Secretary-General do the people, eight billion people want? And the broader membership made very clear two years ago that after 80 years, it should be time for women. Because in 80 years, we didn't have a female Secretary-General. [APPLAUSE] And not only because I am a woman, which I obviously am, but because I defend the credibility and here comes your point, the credibility of the UN. I think it's really hard to explain if, by consensus, two years ago, the broader membership called for a female Secretary-General. And then suddenly, two years later, when we have four women, all in national leadership presidents for ministers, so on, and two men for the moment. And then you explain afterwards, like many main politicians did in the past. Unfortunately, we could not find a qualified woman. Yeah, I mean, it was wrong already 10 years ago. But these times, I think it's really, really difficult. And this comes to the point of trust. I think even the strongest supporter of the UN, which are most of the time younger people, people who are really engaged in human rights, also many in women rights, because the UN has done so many things also for women. I mean, if then, member states would have to explain how they could not find a qualified woman, if in theory, a 4 billion potential candidates out there in the world. I think this will be a challenge of credibility, which many, especially governments and PRs, ambassadors, at the moment, don't really see. And this is why I'm addressing it here. I'm addressing it every time in the General Assembly. Obviously, it's in the hand of member states. Obviously, as a president, I'm neutral. But obviously, I'm only describing facts that 4 billion people are women. And it's very hard to explain why after 80 years still, they are not at the top of this helmet. And this comes also to other points. Now, as a moment, where member states could say, well, for us, it's crystal clear, because the General Assembly has the last say. Again, in theory, you would say it's a security council. The P5, they have to make the proposal. But if you say very clearly, we, as a broader membership, we as Africans, Europeans, Latin Americans, are just we who believe in the UN. Cannot vote for a person who is not supporting the charter that you're not allowed to invade another country, if it's not based on international law. We cannot support a person who is denying climate change. If we see that half of the force is dying right in our-- in front of our eyes-- we cannot support a person who's questioning the sustainable development goals, because then we won't have any peace and security. So there's a deep power within the General Assembly. And it has shown that before. When Kofi Anan was being appointed as Secretary-General, the African group made very clear if this is not an African, because it was their turn, then we won't vote for that person. So you see the so-called soft power, if you really join forces again, is a very, very strong power. And this is what we need at this moment that we are not sitting here next year again. And then you would ask me-- I'm not in office then anymore-- but if you would ask me while you said that the UN is not perfect, but it's the only institution which can stand up for peace and security for everybody in the world. And I would say, unfortunately, they didn't select a Secretary-General who believes in it. So I trust on the broader wisdom of the General Assembly and the broader membership to understand that, obviously, we need a candidate, which is a compromise for many people. This is also very clear. We won't have the perfect person. But we need a person who is standing with both of her feet on the charter of the United Nations. [APPLAUSE] Thank you, Madam President, for being here today. Thank you to the Aspen Institute for having us. We're out of time. So see you the next panel. Pots of the world is a cooking media production. Our show is produced by Alonam and Kofsky, Michael Goldsmith, and Inisha Bonnergy. Our team includes Matt DeGrope, Ben Hethco, Jordan Cantor, Kenny Moffett, David Tolls, and Ryan Young. Her staff is proudly unionized with the writer's Guild of America East.