Trump Targets Minneapolis, the Fed, and Greenland

Today's presenting sponsor is Simply Safe Home Security. Imagine if just once something in your life actually prevented a crisis instead of reacting after the fact. Simply Safe Home Security, which, unlike our politics, is built to see trouble coming and shut it down before it unfolds. Simply Safe is proactive home security. Their active guard outdoor monitoring uses smart cameras and real agents watching outside your home. So when something looks off, they can step in, talk through the camera, sound alarms, call for help before anyone gets inside. Simply Safe stops crimes before they start. And it's not just the front porch, you get protection inside and out, outdoor monitoring plus 24-7 indoor sensors and monitoring for your whole home. Love it has Simply Safe? Sure does. That's why he's not here right now. Set it up himself. Yeah, he's just locked in his house. Full of peace of mind. Simply Safe has protected over 5 million Americans for more than 20 years and US News and World Report has named them the best home security system five years running. No long-term contracts, no hidden fees, just really good protection. Get 50% off any new system at simplysafe.com slash crooked. That's simplysafe.com slash crooked. There's no safe like Simply Safe. Welcome to Plot Save America. I'm John Fabra. I'm John Lovett. I'm Tom Vitor. On today's show, the government is responding to the killing of Renee Good by sending more agents to commit more violence against the people of Minnesota as protests break out all across the country. Donald Trump says he's pondering military strikes against the Iranian regime as the anti-government demonstrations there heat up. Meanwhile, Trump has declared himself the acting president of Venezuela and said that he's going to take Greenland whether they like it or not. Then former Federal Reserve Vice Chair Layle Brainerd stops by to talk to Tommy about Trump's DOJ launching a phony criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell because the president doesn't care for his monetary policy. So let's start there. The news broke Sunday night that former Fox personality Jeanine Pirro approved the investigation into Powell, which is supposedly related to his congressional testimony last summer about the ongoing renovations at the Federal Reserve headquarters, which are over budget. We know how seriously this administration takes spending too much on renovations to federal buildings, so maybe we shouldn't be too surprised. Trump has been publicly attacking and threatening Powell for a year now, including with termination and legal action for not bringing down interest rates fast enough. Powell had mostly turned the other cheek, but almost immediately after the news broke on Sunday, the Federal Reserve posted a two-minute video statement from Powell where no punches were pulled. No one, certainly not the chair of the Federal Reserve, is above the law. But this unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration's threats and ongoing pressure. The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether, instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation. Public service sometimes requires standing firm in the face of threats. Asked about the investigation later on Sunday night, Trump told NBC News, quote, I don't know anything about it, but he's certainly not very good at the Fed, and he's not very good at building buildings. He's not good at Fed. He's not good at Fed. He's not good at Fed. On Monday morning, every living former Fed chair and a bunch of former treasury and White House leaders put out a joint statement saying that the investigation, quote, has no place in the United States whose greatest strength is the rule of law, which is the foundation of our economic success. All right, thoughts on the substance of the investigation and Powell's reaction to it? Well, first of all, in terms of the substance, this is not as if the administration did a press conference and said, here's what we're investigating. We're learning about this in a pretty strange way. Apparently, this began in November. Powell apparently was already aware of some sort of grand jury investigation when there are now, there's now reports of Besant being peeved about this and telling that to Trump. So the whole thing is like sort of convoluted and strange. We're learning about it through news reports. But as far as we can tell, they're saying that Powell lied to Congress when he was asked about the renovations. And I apparently did so, said like, you know, look, am I the chair of the Fed? Do I have great responsibilities? Yes. But I'm going to commit a crime in front of Congress to disemble about a VIP dining room at a specific federal building and put my entire career at risk to protect my designs for a nicer marble countertop in my office. That's sort of, I think, the claim, basically. Well, yeah, initially they accused him of violating the National Capital Planning Act because they didn't get approval for some of these changes. Because again, we know Trump cares deeply about federal permitting when he changes buildings. But then in June, Powell did this testimony in front of the Senate Banking Committee and he denied that there was a VIP dining room or new marble or whatever. And the Trump administration had clearly laid down this narrative in the New York Post because they had a big story about it. And so now they're investigating him for lying to Congress. And so what I liked about Powell's response is he just didn't talk about any of that. He was just like, no, this is about Trump is mad that I won't cut interest rates more quickly because he thinks it'll juice the economy in the short term and that's all he cares about. Or more likely he wants to do something that'll juice the stock market and he wants to make his rich friends richer and he wants to make his real estate buddies richer. So I'm glad he's pushing back and glad he's being honest. I tried this with Lail. My free advice for Jerome Powell was tell Trump that if he doesn't back off, he's going to triple interest rates like fire with fire. She didn't like that idea. I had the same reaction, Tommy, that I was like, you know what? By giving the statement that he did, Powell instantly made the story about Trump's political prosecutions and the motivation behind them as opposed to what a lot of bureaucrats would do and probably have done when faced with a threat and intimidation from Trump, which is like calmly refuting each detail of the allegation, which would have made it about that. Did he do this or do that? It seems pretty simple when he was talking to Congress about this. The original plans had some of the stuff, the more exorbitant renovations that they had submitted and then Powell said, yeah, but since then, those plans either fell out or I stopped them or whatever else. Every contractor gives you a plan with too much shit in it. You got to go through and get the budget down. This one's like, it's so ridiculous on its face. It's not that different. I think this is more ridiculous than the Comey one, right? But really what they're doing is when one of their enemies has at some point testified before Congress, they're like, oh, let's go through that, find something we can claim is untrue and then claim it was someone lying to Congress as a pretense for an investigation. Lying to Congress and second home mortgages. That's the bread and butter of the criminal investigations that DOJ is conducting right now, basically. Good for Powell though. More people should stand up to Trump like that. He's the Federal Reserve Chairman. You don't get into politics. Most Federal Reserve Chairman do not get into politics at all. Try very hard to be apolitical. Even Powell, we all remember when he was standing with Trump toward the building and renovations. Well, that's when he brought it up the first time. Trump has been on this for a while. Yeah. This has been his little pressure play. And admittedly, is a $2.5 billion renovation absurd? Yes. But I mean, I don't know. That's clearly not what this is about. Powell's term ends in May at which point Trump will get to name a new Fed chair, who will still have to be confirmed by the Senate. Powell also has the option of staying on the board as a Fed governor through 2028, which you have to imagine this might make him more likely to do. Why do you guys think Trump would do this right now? It seems similar to the Lisa Cook thing. He's just trying to fire. He wants to fire him for causing just get the slot. He assumes Powell would stay and he wants to have more play, more openings to a point. Is it more complicated than that? Probably not. I mean, I do think that there's a piece of this that Trump's real passion is just punishing his enemies and he doesn't care if it's strategic or not. Because in the methods of the madness could be, okay, make life hell for this guy. Make him quit before his term is up in January of 2028 when he will no longer be a governor. But you'd still have to replace him with someone. They'd have to get confirmed by the Senate. So I don't know. It's hard to tell. It does remind me. He's been attacking the president of Columbia, the country in other college. And it's a similar situation. I'm referencing the country in other college. But it makes no sense because Petro's term is up in early August. The first round of their elections is in May. So it's like, why? Why are you messing with this guy? He's going to be gone soon. It's like, well, I like to. This guy messed with me. So I'm going to bludgeon him. And I don't care if I'm making his political standing stronger in the near term or making his political party more likely to win the elections. I like to punch people that make me mad. And the ancillary benefit is if there is a debate about rates between now and the end of his term, maybe he feels a little bit more nervous about not doing what Donald Trump wants. Maybe he leaves early because 28 is after the midterm. It's a while away. There's a lot of angles for him. I think Donald Trump has miscalculated. I think this is going to blow up in his face and already is. There's also, we should talk about, there's some back and forth about how this happened and whether Trump was involved. So Axios has an administration official saying Janine Pirro, quote, went rogue. Come on. Another said, come on. Another said, Trump heard about the investigation after the fact, but that Pirro wouldn't have gone forward without a signal that he'd be supportive. That sounds more like, more like Trump. Politico, they have a different story. They have a bunch of administration sources blaming Bill Pulte, the mortgage fraud czar, who reportedly recently pitched Trump on firing Powell and actually brought wanted posters of the Fed chair to his meeting with Trump. And apparently, it was just at Mar-a-Lago recently that he met with Trump. And then Pulte was asked about this today and he was like, I have no idea. I have nothing to do with this. It's DOJ. And so they're all basically going back and forth blaming each other and trying to keep Trump out of it, which here's the thing. They're all liars all the time, but I think it goes to show that they are, it doesn't seem like many people in the administration are all that happy about this. So whether it was Jeanine Pirro just taking the hint from Trump, and by the way, from Trump allies in Congress who have referred Powell to DOJ for an investigation over this, or they had a conversation, who fucking knows. There's a simple way to prove that Donald Trump doesn't think it's a good idea. Fire Jeanine Pirro for doing what is obviously a misuse of her job. This is ridiculous. Can't politicize the Fed. She's fired. We'll put in somebody better. Of course, that's not what's going to happen. So whatever the actual path to this, like Donald Trump wants this, they're doing Donald Trump's bidding. Yeah. The only reason it's worthwhile is because they don't see this as a political, I don't think they see this as a political winner right now. And this is partly why Republicans, Tom Tillis and Lisa Murkowski have already said they will not vote for any of Trump's Fed nominees until this gets resolved. Tillis also said it's now the credibility and independence of the Justice Department, not the Fed, that's in question. Murkowski even said that the Justice Department should be investigated by Congress. It really doesn't take both of them to kill a nomination at this point because Tillis is on the banking committee and the split is 1311. And so if he's a no, 1212 does not get the nominee out of committee. So Tillis can singlehandedly block a Trump nominee for New Fed chair. So already Trump has, this is blowing up in his face. Other Republicans in the House and Senate have also spoken out against the investigation and Axios reported that a source familiar with Scott Besson's call to Donald Trump about the issue said that the Treasury Secretary let the president know he isn't happy and that the investigation, quote, made a mess that could be bad for financial markets. You know, Scott Besson is taking a lot of calls from the CEOs of various banks today and he is trying to distance himself from this. And added bonus maybe. It's an opportunity to shiv Bill Pulte if you remember. His enemy from the podcast birthday party. I think you shiv them once before with this elbow. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. So I'm gonna fight her that guy. I don't know. You guys think the mini-mini rebellion here will have staying power or what? I mean, Thumb Fillis, a lot of H's in that name. His term ends January 3rd, 2027. So we can make trouble for a while. But Murkowski won re-election in 2022. So she's not and presumably will run again in 28. So if she really sticks to this and like they decide to use their power, it could create real problems for Trump in terms of filling a vacancy here. Just quickly on this, did Trump know about this thing? I don't believe for a second he didn't know. Think of the number of times you've heard him get asked a question about something major and controversial and he's like, I don't know anything about that, right? Like the pardoning of Juan Orlando Hernandez, he's been asked about it three or four times now, the fucking narco criminal former president of Honduras that he pardoned. He still acts like he didn't know. There's never a follow-up from the reporter that's like, shouldn't you know who you're pardoning? But whatever. So I think he likes to float things and then he'll blame, you know, Jeannie Piero, whoever else if it goes poorly. Also, if he met with Bill Pulte recently at Mar-a-Lago and Bill Pulte brought with him a fucking wanted poster of Jerome Powell. Hopefully there's a photo. The two of them could have had a nice conversation at Mar-a-Lago where that was the conversation and maybe he didn't run it through the chain of the administration officials. But I don't know. It does seem like this is going to have staying power. Also, again, if Powell decides to stay on now, then Trump's going to have to name a new fed chair from the current board of governors because there's not going to be, or I guess they'll have to be one vacancy. He won't get two vacancies. Right now he could get two vacancies next year, but if Powell stays, that's one less vacancy that he can fill. The fed chair nomination is now going to be, you know, that bad person's going to have to really prove their independence from Donald Trump because Tom Tillis and Lisa Murkowski and now a bunch of other Senate Republicans are pretty worried about this. Yeah. He's talked about appointing one of his various sort of local goons into that role. Does he still want to do that? We're going to go through the song and dance of some Trump advisor pretending that they're going to be independent. We talked about this earlier today that the cycle of Donald Trump threatening something that if carried out could lead to an economic crisis, double digit inflation, massive unemployment, just huge degradation to the economy. It's incredibly dangerous, just sort of striking at the foundations of how our system works, but the markets don't react. Why? Well, because they think cooler heads are going to prevail. They think that the Murkowskis and the Bassants are going to win at the end of the day, but who he picks to be fed chair and if that person gets through the Senate, they take fake assurances. Well, we'll be there. Yeah. How big of a deal do you guys think Democrats should make out of this? It does fit with the affordability message. Yeah. I mean, it's objectively a huge deal. I don't know that voters necessarily know much about the Fed or its independence. I think to the extent we talk about it, it's like this is about Trump trying to help out special interests. This is Trump wanting a rate cut for Wall Street and his real estate buddies who want rates to come down so they get richer even if you have to deal with more inflation forever. That is the mission that's had. I wouldn't get bogged down with the renovation stuff, obviously, except to be like, well, this guy's ripping down the East Wing or whatever, taking bribes from billionaire buddies to build a ballroom. But I do think the reason this has some staying power is Republicans are getting calls from rich donors on Wall Street. And I do think the market's not reacting because of the same taco phenomenon, right? They probably think he's going to cave just like he did with China, or maybe they quietly don't hate the idea of going back to zero interest rates because that makes the market rip and helps them. Especially on other tech goons. Yeah. I mean, you're starting to see these interesting... They love a low interest rate. It's the best thing for them. You're starting to see some articles from Wall Street analysts about how the jobless boom, jobless, because companies are doing well, they're kind of pocketing efficiency from layoffs after COVID and also after from AI. And so they're making more money, but there aren't any jobs. So it's bad politically, but it's helping Wall Street. I think an easy way too is... And Jason Furman mentioned this and one of his tweets about this, which is like, there's a list of countries where the independence of the Fed was demolished by leader of the country who just wanted to use it for their own political purposes and didn't go well for any of their economies. Well, I talk about this specifically. Yeah. Donald Trump is threatening something that could cause double digit inflation. Some of the worst inflation countries have experienced around the world have happened after they've politicized their central banks. And I feel like the kind of people are going to make that argument, even if they're the kind of people that would like lower interest rates, but threatening the independence of the central bank is incredibly dangerous. Are the kind of validators that reach out beyond normal political validators? Are the kind of people that are on CNBC that are in economics and financial advice podcasts that will talk about how dangerous and stupid this is. And I do think that will matter. I do think that reaches people, that Donald Trump is a chaos agent and this is dangerous. And this is what Nixon did in the 70s. And it was a disaster. So there's an example here too. Volcker is rolling over in his giant coffin. He is dead, right? He's got to be. It's weird that there's no personal endorsement or testimonial section. Yeah, weird. You guys don't want to know. Actually, they sent a bunch of samples to the office. I happened to pop one this morning. So I'm not leaving this room for a while. He's getting his results right now. Think of Hymns as your digital front door that gets you back to your old self. They're just tempting us here with simple 100% online access to trusted treatments for ED and more all in one place. To get simple online access to personalized affordable care for ED, weight loss and more, visit hymns.com slash cricket. That's hymns.com slash cricket for your free online visit hymns.com slash cricket featured products include compounded drug products, which the FDA does not approve or verify for safety effectiveness or quality prescription required. See website for details, restrictions and important safety information. Actual price will depend on product and subscription plan. Pottage America is brought to you by strawberry.me. You know that feeling when a new year starts and you tell yourself, okay, this is the year work is going to be great. And then two weeks later, you're already burned out again. Yeah, we've all been there. Here you if work left you drained last year, today's sponsor, strawberry.me can help you change that strawberry is career coaching that gets to the real source of your burnout, whether it's too much on your plate, no boundaries, a tough manager, or just feeling totally disconnected from the work that you do. Not us. A coach helps you figure out what's draining you, build habits that protect your energy, redesign your day to day so it feels sustainable and create a plan. So burnout doesn't come back by March. It's not therapy, but honestly, it's like therapy for your career. And here's the good part, you can get matched with a coach who fits your personality and goals in just a few minutes. Sessions are flexible, private and made for real people with real jobs, not the fantasy version of you that always has it together. If you're listening to this thinking, yep, I'm burned out. Let this be your new year reset. Go to strawberry.me slash crooked and try your first coaching session for 50% off. That's strawberry.me slash crooked. All right, let's turn to the follow-up from an ice agent killing Renee Good, an unarmed mother of three in Minneapolis, which the Trump administration has not only defended but praised as a necessary action to fight what they're calling domestic terrorism. That determination is based not on the results of any kind of law enforcement investigation, but on their own subjective analysis of various social media videos, which has now been contradicted by media outlets, former and current law enforcement officials and people who have eyes and ears. Over the weekend, protests broke out in Minnesota and all across the country, and on Sunday, the administration continued to defend the killing with a mix of obvious lies and non-answers, like Christine Ohm did in this viral exchange with Jake Tapper when he asked why the administration treated the January 6th rioter attacks on law enforcement so differently. Let's watch. Those are law enforcement officers being physically attacked. By this standard, would any of those officers being justified in shooting and killing the people causing them physical harm? Every single situation is going to rely on the situation those officers are on. President Trump pardoned every single one of those people. And every single one of these investigations comes in the full context of the situation on the ground. And that's one thing that President Trump has been so focused on, is making sure that when we're out there, we don't pick and choose which situations are in which laws are enforced. I just showed you video. Of people attacking law enforcement officers. Undisputed proof, undisputed evidence. And I just said, President Trump pardoned all of them. And you said that President Trump is enforcing all the laws equally. It's just not true. There's a different standard for law enforcement officials being attacked if they're being attacked by Trump supporters. We just saw that. This individual and these instances and these investigations all have to be taken and done correctly in context of every situation that is happening on the ground. Fucking robot. Just repeating the word situation 10 times. That makes no sense in the way she used it in any of those sentences. We spent a lot of time on the ways Noam is kind of defending the indefensible. She's also just in over her head, not up to this. She's a moron. Yeah. She's just not. She's a moron. Clearly just not prepared for how to address any of this. There is no way to defend what they're doing or how to make that. There's no way out of that question, but you just see she's just a deer in headlights. Every situation is depending on the situation that the officers are in. It's hard to disagree with that. No? So it's so fucking dark. The three of us haven't had a chance to talk about all this since good was killed. What's your reaction been to the Trump administration's response, especially over the last few days and over the weekend? I mean, I just keep feeling like this is literally the kind of thing you'd expect from Vladimir Putin or Bashar al-Assad or the Iranian regime, which is like an officer of the state kills a protester by shooting her in the face three times at point blank range. And officials at the highest level of government call her a terrorist or a deranged lunatic, and they view it entirely through the prism of like, are you on our side or are you not on our side? And so I just like, it's so chilling. It should be chilling to every US citizen, especially all the people, the MAGA types who put like, don't tread on me flags in their social media avatars and said that Joe Biden making you wear a mask was made him Stalin. Good for Jake in that clip for calling Kristi Noemout. Like the hypocrisy is so glaring. January 6th by the way, was just like clear cut example of terrorism. It was people using violence to advance a political end. But like, you know, it didn't happen upon it after dropping off their kids at school. Exactly. And, you know, the White House website now includes a section that about January 6th that says Ashley Babbit was quote, murdered in cold blood, that she posed no threat despite the fact that she broke into the Capitol and then tried to climb through a window to get into the Speaker's Lobby. So like, I'm not an expert on law enforcement procedure, but we've all now read like a million, you know, former ICE officers or cops talking about what this individual did in in the case of Renee Good and like this guy, this ICE officer clearly screwed up. He never should have stepped in front of her car. He never should have shot her in the face three times when clearly he could get out of the way and avoid getting hit by her car because she was not trying to hit him as we all saw from the video. And I think mostly I've been just disgusted by the total lack of humanity or empathy from elected officials who could have all just said a woman died. She's an American. It's a tragedy. Let's investigate before commenting further, but they did the opposite. And you can see how it's emboldening other ICE officers because there's videos all over social media of them beating up people, beating up Americans, detaining Americans, threatening people who film them or otherwise observe them and then saying things like, didn't you learn your lesson? Didn't you learn your lesson last week, like talking about the Renee Good shooting? So I've seen two videos where they say that now. Yes, it's very chilling stuff. Yeah, I was thinking about this over the weekend, which is sort of why is this important? Why is this one incident important? If the officer had been justified in the moment in shooting Renee Good, it wouldn't make their crackdown any less extreme and egregious and beyond what is required. It wouldn't make their immigration policies any less heinous. And had they just said, we don't believe anyone should be killed simply driving their kids home from school and whatever the specifics of this case, we're going to investigate, but we want everybody to feel safe and you have a right to protest and to write to know that our agents are going to enforce the law faithfully. Right? It would actually have been a less important incident, right? But that's not what they did. They decided to defend it. And in defending it, by the way, they've been forced to def, because they can't admit error and that's part of their sort of effort to dominate, they have to continue to defend using words like domestic terrorists that they used from before they had any information. If you go back to Christine Ohm's first statement, when she had the cowboy head on, what she said is just has absolutely no bearing, no relevance, no connection to what actually took place in the moment, but they have to keep it up and keep defending it and keep saying it, right? And so they've just like, they are radicalizing each other. They are radicalizing these people on the streets. And by the way, they are radicalizing people in Minnesota who are feeling threatened and unsafe in their own communities. The administration leaked a video and then they amplified a video where after the ICE agent shot Renee Gooden the head three times, you hear an ICE agent say, fucking bitch. Yeah. And Jake asks Christine Ohm about that. And there's just nothing to say. She basically like smirked. She said, I don't know, sir. And they seem to think that was helpful for them, helpful to their case. Yeah. Which is stunning. Okay, JD Vance. Well, it's telling. I mean, the Trump administration has responded to the unrest by doubling down. They're sending quote, hundreds more federal officers to Minneapolis. Those sources told CNN that around a thousand Border Patrol agents are expected to be deployed to the region. They also instituted a new policy limiting congressional access to ICE facilities a day after the shooting. There's a law that allows Congress to do this, but they are changing the policy anyway. Meanwhile, local and state officials are asking the public to submit videos, eyewitness accounts and photos of the incident in order to gather evidence after federal authorities, including the FBI, shut them out of the investigation, despite initially agreeing to cooperate. Do you guys think the administration just doesn't see this as a political problem for them, doesn't care, or actually sees doubling down as politically beneficial in some way? I think the lying, like the amount of lying and assembling they're doing about this, it does suggest like they are, they know that the facts are bad for them. They're trying to tell a story about it that's less politically damaging, but behind all their bluster, like these are not images that like, it's still America. And we have a suspicion of police states, of too aggressive law enforcement, of infringements on our basic liberties and what it should feel like to live in an American city. And that continues to be true. And they know that, they know that. So I do think the lying is a sign that they view this as a risk. Yeah, I can see a few different ways. I think they're primary, if we really think they're thinking about this politically, like their primary political frame of reference is often strength versus weakness. So not backing down would fit into that. And also they think like nativism, anti-immigrant, anti-Somali rhetoric is beneficial for them, or making that the focus of the debate is beneficial for them. And we also know that racism and xenophobia are Stephen Miller's passion and the reason he is here. And he's surrounded by like white nationalists throughout the government who are advancing that project too. So Miller seems like the most powerful person in the White House besides Donald Trump. He's never going to back down. I don't think any amount of data will convince him that he's taking the wrong course either on the merits or politically because he went from random racist hill staffer to someone called him the prime minister of the White House. Or at least the intellectual force behind the Trump project. Yeah. I think the darkest version that might be the most accurate is that Trump doesn't care about the politics and he likes violence. Like he likes violence against political opponents. It's more than just tolerating it. Like he told people at rallies that if he'd pay their legal bills, if they beat up protesters, he's sick to the January 6 mob on the Capitol. He's hosting an ultimate fighting event at the White House. He just loves this stuff. And so I just, everything you see from him, he just doesn't seem like he cares at all that someone was killed. Yeah. I mean, if you think about their goals, right, one goal is to increase deportations by a lot. And they're clearly having trouble doing that because it's hard. They think, first of all, they think that there's like tens of millions of more undocumented immigrants in this country than there are. And also they see as targets people who aren't just undocumented, but like legal residents with visas or temporary protective status or here on parole or anything else. And so finding all those people is difficult. And so there is a hope for self deportations. And so what do you need to do? What do you need to do to get people to self deport? You need to instill fear that you're going to, you know, you also need an excuse to send even more federal agents to places like Minneapolis to just start stopping everyone and checking everyone, setting up checkpoints, which they are also doing. And then the other thing you don't want is you don't want people to film what you're doing. You don't want eyewitnesses. You don't want protesters because then the country is going to be alerted to what you're doing. And so you want to delegitimize protest and stop the protest from happening. And by dragging protesters up by killing protesters, not that I'm saying that the killing was intentional, but part of some plan, but if there's violence against protesters, then maybe it sends a message, which is what those ICE agents were saying to some of those people. Like, didn't you learn a lesson? And I do think they want to kind of focus on one incident and do all the freeze frames and all that kind of stuff. I really would encourage everyone to watch a lot of the videos from over the weekend in Minneapolis. And love it. And I did a YouTube reaction on Monday to some of these videos, but the clips are all over social media. And you see they're going up to people in random parking lots who are charging their electric vehicles and just asking them they're demanding papers. They rammed into a car. They literally hit a car, demanded papers from the driver. And then when a bunch of people showed up, they sped away. They're dragging protesters out of cars and beating them. Each individual incident is enraging and deep injustice is being committed. But when you see them all together, it's nuts. It's also, it is the first. So this week, Homeland Security has been celebrating that they were able to double the number of agents in ICE in a year. Now, it was only a few months ago that ICE officials were saying it takes 18 months to recruit, train, and deploy somebody. Yet in a year, they've doubled it. So there's a lot of people on the streets that just weren't in ICE before that have been recruited as part of this program. And by the way, a lot of the people that are part of these deployments, even if they've been in ICE for a long time, it didn't look like this before. Right. And by the way, we're also losing the distinction between Border Patrol, which has a different mission, but is now being kind of co-opted and used as part of one kind of amorphous single mission in these things led by Greg Bovino. I was just saying, and in many cases, are much worse than ICE. Yes. But I do think the doubling of ICE, we're in Los Angeles. They've done surges into Los Angeles. They've tried to instill fear in Los Angeles. It's a giant place. This is the first time they've gone to a city with the numbers. They're what, two times, three times now, as many ICE agents and Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis as there are police officers in this city. This is the first time they've done it at a scale where it is like, it is something that is being felt across the city in a big way. And that, I do think, is like fundamentally different than what they've done before. And I think Chicago is pretty, Chicago is a big city too, but I think the force there was massive. Yes. But this is a huge number of people that are, you hear it from people that you know in Minneapolis, you hear it from people that are just saying they're from, like this is the, how it feels on the ground is that this is everywhere. And you have a bunch of people that are radicalized, that are angry, that feel under threat, that feel, have been trained by their superior or sort of instilled in by their superiors to be afraid of the community, to be worried about what they're seeing, to feel isolated like pilgrims in an unholy land. And it's just a powder keg. It is incredibly dangerous. ICE is not recruiting the best and the brightest from the United States. I mean, these people are barely trained. Like they're lowering standards. These are people that are not looking to de-escalate, who are not acting professionally, who are chanting like MAGA slogans at people who are threatening random protesters or people simply observing them, who don't seem to know the rules or the rights of the individuals that they're yelling at or maybe don't care, who don't like they're going to win, don't look like they're going to win the road race against the fleeing suspect if we're being honest. Like these people are just like, these new ICE recruits look like idiots and they're not effective and they've seemed pretty dangerous. And like to your point, I think there is a counterpoint, which I think Stephen Miller and Trump want protests because they want clashes. Like I think personally that's my view. Well, and also, I mean, the Renee Good video is, you know, he got in front of the vehicle and she was driving away, but like you get enough protests and you get enough ICE agents. Some protester is going to do something stupid, right? And they are going to be at fault for starting the violence. That's just the law of averages, right? Of course. And they're betting, they're very excited for when that happens, the Trump administration, because then they can point to someone and see, see, that's a bad person, that person was doing this. I just like the, you know, Trump's thing is like, look, you don't have to like me, but look how tough I am, right? Immigration enforcement is ugly. And look at these crazy people trying to stop me, but this is what you elected me to do. Like that, whatever, that is the kind of lens to see that through. And no, like, even if these things are in the, in and of themselves, sink like unpopular on their own, you say, you have this as one set of images, plus all these sort of the claims of all the things they're trying to do on the economy, the kind of populist things they're trying to do on the economy. And then you put those things together and that, like, I'm really tough, even on shit that looks ugly. Here's this thing I'm doing over here. I think that's like the story they're trying to tell. The Times interviewed the current Minneapolis police chief today on the, on the daily. It's really good. People should listen to that. Great episode, really worth your time listening to. And it's just, you know, he talks about how much time they have spent trying to dig out of the whole left by 2020 and the George Floyd protests and the lack of trust between local law enforcement and the population. And he just, he feels like what ICE is doing in this subsequent protests and tensions are going to completely unravel like five or six years of work. And so there's just a real question of like Donald Trump is selling this is making us safer, but the police chief of the city where this enforcement act operation is happening is saying it's making the entire population less safe. And he's scared that it could light the place on fire and no one's listening to it. It was also striking how when asked about the actual situation with Renee Good and what the ICE officers did, he was like, it was so matter of fact and obvious from him. He was like, you never stand in front of a vehicle. You never put yourself in the position like that ICE agent did. You know, it's just, it's like an obvious thing. Democrats are now in the situation where there's a funding bill, we got another government funding deadline and a number of senators have said, you know, they don't want to fund DHS budget with ICE like this, especially an increase for ICE after ICE got more funding already without some new restrictions on ICE. Chris Murphy has already is preparing to propose a bunch of reforms for the agency. Obviously, we've been down this road before like it's very hard to get something done, even if there were enough votes to shut the government down. We've seen how much the Trump administration cares about this. Shutting the government down would not necessarily stop any of these enforcement operations. They still have plenty of money that they got from the big beautiful bill. So I don't see that some is happening. But you know, it's worth pointing out that you go poll conducted the same day that Renee Good was killed, found that Americans overall are turning against ICE, plurality support the protests. We'll wait to see a bunch of other polling is still early. But how do you think Democrats should handle dealing with this issue? So Fox News asked Benny Thompson, whether Congress should use appropriations to rein in ICE. And he said that it's above my pay grade. He's the chair of the he's the ranking member on Homeland Security. So it felt like it seems like it's sort of right smack in the middle of his pay grade. He's just getting paid the right amount to answer that question. So I think the Murphy answers have been better. And it is also, by the way, complicated. Part of this is there's still the Obamacare funding fight that's ongoing. There's a bunch of other bills and funding built. They're trying to do actual normal appropriations. One of them is for the Justice Department. I think we're kind of watching the full politicization of the Justice Department. It seems as though that would be a place you might want to think about some fucking reforms about how this like kind of rogue Department of Justice is operating. But put that aside, we're heading towards January 30th. There's either going to be a standalone home, blood security funding bill. I do not understand how anybody could get behind funding this agency right now, given that Nome is kind of out of control. ICE is out of control. Bovino is out of control. Like you're going to just put more money in this that you're going to vote to fund. But what is acting like kind of like Trump's pride, like state police, that seems insane to me. And then you end up talking about what happens on January 30th. If you funded most or some of the government, but haven't done Department of Homeland Security, and I agree, like it's complicated, right? Like, well, they'll still be able to do certain things and they'll actually be able to move money around. But before you even get to the kind of political and kind of strategic machinations, what are the reforms that you think are necessary right now that you would want to have on a funding bill for ICE, for Border Patrol, even knowing that Donald Trump is president, Republicans control Congress is only so much you get? What do those look like? And how far are you willing to go to fight for those? Because before we get to kind of answering our own threat with how it might not work and the challenges of a shutdown, I do think it's worth saying like, what would we actually think is the right thing to do in this moment? And before, and if that requires talking through a shutdown, I think that that's worth doing because this is, we are kind of, we keep going up the escalatory ladder every single time. The next deployment will be worse. The one after that will be worse. And I don't know how, look, if I were in Congress, I do not know how I could vote to fund this Department of Homeland Security regardless of the political implications. I just don't. You probably wouldn't have to, and I wouldn't vote for it either. And then someone, some Democrats are going to have to walk the plank and actually vote for it. Yeah. Like I bet most of them won't vote for it, but it's just going to be just like, look, I was way out there on this and saying like, don't fund the government last time, make it over ICE, make it over immigration. And then watching what happened and watching how the administration just doesn't fucking care and is not going to accept any restrictions whatsoever. I'm like, yeah, they should talk about it all the time. They should push the issue. They should not be politically fearful of this issue. But I do think we should just be, our expectations of what they might be able to do should be in check. I agree with that. I'd like to know what the reforms are, but there was this sort of sentiment in the wake of the Renee Good shooting that the video had become a political Rorsak test and that everyone who saw it only viewed it through a partisan lens. I just don't think that's true. Like I think that's just like a broken, like that's how Twitter is broken, all of us, because there's a bunch of people that respond in ghoulish ways and make everything partisan and the algorithm rewards it. And that's all that we see. I bet you that 95% of the country sees that video and thinks, oh my God, that is horrifying. That is a tragedy. Like I can't believe that happened to this woman who doesn't look like a domestic terrorist, Kristine Ohm. And so if you could use this funding debate to talk about reasonable reforms, I think you can make the argument. I think you might be able to convince the voting population. I don't think you can convince Maga or Donald Trump, but you could have a conversation or make a political fight in a way that I think would be beneficial. I definitely agree with that. But the lesson of the last year or so is to make these fights salient. You have to actually, you have to be willing to push for the shutdown. You have to raise the stakes on it, because that's why we ended up, we're going to have an Obamacare vote, because they shut down the government. By the way, we've talked about this a million times. Like making that fight about healthcare, I think was more successful than a lot of people, myself included, thought it would be. We're watching a paramilitary group, poorly trained, itchy and twitchy on the streets of a city, like terrorizing people. There's no consequences. There's no government response to half of these incidents. We're now back. Because of the decimation of local news, the media more broadly, we are now just parsing through videos one at a time, hoping they're reliable because there's so little reliable information about what the government is doing and we can't trust what they're saying. We are so far down this path. And the idea that the Democrats and the Senate are going to, that there's going to be whatever, 10 of them, nine of them, that are going to really to go along with this, just like, come on, at least lay down a marker for what you want to see in it. Make a threat that you think you can stand by and see if we can have at least a debate about what restrictions or some guardrails could look like, even if it's not enough. I don't know. Do you have ideas on guardrails? Yeah, I don't know. I would like to see what Chris Murphy is cooking up. I would like to see, one thing is, we have border patrol. It's supposed to operate within 100 miles of the border. That already includes most of the US population. Minneapolis is not within 100 miles of the border. There's legal reasons they're allowed to operate in that way, but actually disentangling what border control's job is, what ice control's job, that's great. What happens in the event of an incident? What happens when you arrest American a citizen? What's documented? What's not? Why are these guys holding up phones but not wearing bodycams? There are a lot of simple things you could start to mask. Get the fucking masks off. There was a great actually... The CBP stuff is like, they're counting the Great Lakes as the border. That's how they're willing to, that's how they were operated in Chicago. It's a fucking bullshit. There was a, look, I know it's Tony DeCopels in the barrel, but from inside the barrel, he did an interview both with border patrol, but with or someone, a spokesperson for DHS. I'm not sure who, talking about why they're wearing ice and then some protesters about why they thought it was ridiculous. And watching these sort of protesters saying, our faces are out here, we're at risk of getting doxed. You're a public official. You're serving the country. Of course, you should be put your face in front of the public. It's so obvious that that's something that we should sort of put in a reform. I also think that just more people, more prominent people who have been quiet up until now for the last year and maybe were less quiet in the first Trump term, it's time to fucking speak up. And they could tell themselves that, well, it doesn't matter. And there's more people who are seen as elites that speak up, the worse it is. But I do think we're in a situation where being quiet about this stuff, speaking up is not going to necessarily fix it. It's not any kind of magic bullet on this stuff, but not saying anything is letting everyone else know that maybe it looks bad, but maybe it's not as bad as it seems. I do think more people saying something about this and not being afraid to actually fucking speak up is worth doing right now. Pied Save America is brought to you by Rocket Money. What's the most ridiculous subscription or hidden fee you've discovered you were paying for? Well, I recently signed up for a random AI service to make one Donald Trump clip, and I'm going to 100% forget I did it and pay for that forever now. So Rocket Money, you're up. The first one that you signed up for way back when I had signed up for it also. Still paying for that too. And that, yeah. And it won't let me make Joe Biden voices anymore. Need to rock up money that one too. Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings. Rocket Money allows you to track subscriptions and cancel them within the app with just a few tap saving you time and helping you avoid charges. You can even categorize automatic transactions across your accounts and customize categories with tags to help shed light on your spending patterns, set budgets and goals, get personalized insights and regular reports on your spending habits. You can even receive real-time alerts for large transactions, upcoming bills, refunds, and low balances. The Rocket Money app can even consolidate your checking savings loans and investment accounts into a single dashboard to give you a clear picture of your finances. Let Rocket Money help you reach your financial goals faster. Join at rocketmoney.com slash cricket. That's rocketmoney.com slash cricket. Rocketmoney.com slash cricket. Using your exposure to marketers, scammers, and anyone else who might use it without your consent. Your privacy should be yours to control. Take back your information with Incogni today. Think of Incogni as your personal digital cleanup crew, sweeping your data off the internet while you sit back and scroll through memes. All you need to do is sign up, give them permission to act on your behalf, and they go out and demand that data brokers delete your personal info. Incogni has also launched a new feature called custom data removals, available in their unlimited plan. It allows you to send in any link from any site that exposes your data. Then Incogni's privacy professionals will go after it. No bots, no forms, just real people making your data disappear. Right now, you can get 60% off their annual plans by heading to incogni.com slash PSA and use the code PSA at checkout. It's also completely risk-free. Incogni offers a 30-day money back guarantee if you're not satisfied with them removing your personal information off the internet. Live free from dangerous spam by using Incogni. That's incogni.com slash PSA. Code PSA for 60% off their annual plans. Lots going on in the rest of the world right now, most notably in Iran, where the regime has responded to massive anti-government protests with a brutal crackdown that has reportedly killed at least 500 people and led to the arrest of more than 10,000. Trump is weighing military strikes. He told reporters on Air Force One that, quote, the military is looking at it, and we're looking at some very strong options. He also claimed that the Iranian leadership called up his team and wants to negotiate over their nuclear program. And it seems like Iran's foreign minister has been in touch with Steve Whitcoff, who else over the weekend. On the plane, Trump said a summit of some kind would happen, but that, quote, we may have to act before a meeting if the regime keeps targeting protesters. Trump cares about protesters now. Publicly Iran is vowing to retaliate against American military bases or Israel if we do something. Tommy, where do you come down on all this? And what do you think is actually going on? So, I mean, the protests themselves, they started in late December. It was a bunch of merchants who were pissed because the currency suddenly devalued and they were mad at other economic grievances. And then they quickly just grew in size and geographically, and the demands became pretty radical, including calls for the regime change. And what is so interesting about these is they're not, it's not just cities, it's not just women. It's like poor people in rural areas. It's like all across the country and they're massive. And so initially, the regime tried to seem reasonable and suggest they would sit down and talk and now they're cracking down. They cut off the internet a few days ago and there's just been massacres, it seems. So, about two weeks ago, Trump clearly laid down what one might describe as a red line where he said, quote, if the regime kills protesters, quote, the United States will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go. So, now he has a meeting on Tuesday when this podcast comes out where he'll reportedly make a decision. And the range of options are like military strike, cyber attack, more sanctions, maybe some like communication support for the protesters. I'm sure there's some like covert action stuff, the CIA's pitching them on that we don't know about. The journal says that JD Vance is pushing for diplomacy. Steve Wyckoff, as you said, is in touch with the foreign minister. I don't, I have no idea what he's going to do here. I mean, he clearly said, if there's a massacre, I will respond militarily. So, it seems like he's on the hook to respond, but just like there's not an obvious solution here to the problem. Where does the nuclear program fit into all of this? And like, do you think that these protests were in any way like fueled by the strikes on their nuclear facilities that Trump ordered last summer? I mean, I think the Israeli and US strikes on Iran show the weakness of the regime militarily and they couldn't defend their own people. I mean, I think the difference here is like the Iran nuclear program strikes were discreet. It was like a clear objective. They hit three sites that were all nuclear related. In some cases, like the planning on those targets had been ready in practice for decades. Like I remember being briefed on one of the strike packages for the Fordo strike. And so, the risk in those was pretty low. It was like, Israelis had already taken out the air defense systems. We have overwhelming military superiority. And it was easy to explain to the American people why bombing Iran's nuclear program keeps us safe. Even if we disagree on the efficacy of the strikes. In this case, how do you do an airstrike that deters a crackdown on protesters? That doesn't make sense to me. There's not universal opinion on whether it would be helpful or welcomed or not. There's some people who think the Iranians might rally around the flag if we bomb them again or the Israelis bomb them again. And then, you just don't know who comes next if the regime is toppled. Like is it the IRGC? Is it hardliners? Is it chaos? Is it civil war? We don't know. And this threat to retaliate, like, you know, I could see Trump maybe thinks it's, they're a paper tiger, given that the retaliation last time didn't do much to US targets. But what if the regime thinks this is existential and they're about to be toppled? Like maybe they go a lot harder. And so, Trump has gotten really lucky. Like only by the grace of God were service members not killed when he executed Cosmos Olamani in 2020. Remember, they fired a bunch of ballistic missiles at the US base. 100 service members got traumatic brain injuries, but no one died. We have since learned that in the Venezuela raid, one of the helicopter pilots got shot in the leg three times. And if that person had been killed, and that helicopter had downed, like this would be a very different mission. So one of these days, something really bad is going to happen. This won't be cost free. But I, you know, it's just, it's not, it's not clear to me what he's going to do or what a good option even looks like. You see Lindsey Graham said he hasn't slept in three or four days because he's so excited about the possibility of regime change. Jesus Christ, man, that guy, therapy for that guy, just such a like. I think this is his therapy. Yeah. Yeah. So it's funny to think that Trump used to make fun of him all the time. Remember, you'd say like, there's no war he didn't want. He's a neocon war monger who wants to invade everywhere. And now he's just executing his horn policy. I will say some of the videos that I've seen from Iran of just like, you know, when the, when the internet has been on, or people have been able to get videos out of just what they're doing to protesters and like the bodies is just like a horrific. This weren't, this weren't Trump and all that goes along with this being Trump, a US president threatening a dictatorship with retaliation on behalf of a protest, like a protest of the people against the sort of the evils of the regime. Like, you know, if one outcome of it is the regime is afraid to kill more people in the streets, that isn't a bad thing. Absolutely. And look, the people are probably looking at screaming at their phones right now, being like, this is Obama and the Syria red line and he failed to implement it. And it's been like, look, I have a lot of, I hear you, like it, I think it would the benefit of hindsight, he probably should have hit some targets and, you know, set the message about chemical weapons and why it mattered. I just think if for the Iranian regime, if this is an existential fight against being toppled, no number of American airstrikes is going to slow them down in my opinion. Like if they think that they are no longer to be in charge, like they're dead anyway, so I think they're going to battle. And so the question is, like, if you look again at Syria, Syria ultimately had a change in government that came from within. It took, you know, a decade plus 15 extra years. But that's how it happened. And the question is, like, even Netanyahu is kind of being restrained in this moment, like kind of not talking about Iran, not talking about intervention, talking about how this needs to be an Iranian led regime change, because there is concern that if internally it starts to be viewed as kind of jiving with the regime propaganda, which this is the US and the Zionists, you know, trying to topple the Iranian government that could weaken what is actually a completely organic set of protests. One thing to know is the turmoil in the Middle East isn't distracting our America's first president, you know, America's first, from his plans for hemispheric domination over the weekend. Trump said he'd love to make a deal with Denmark, but that one way or another, we're going to have Greenland. Wait, is it America's first? Is that a real thing? I just, I just made a comment. Oh, I thought he was saying that was real. That's what it seems like now. He also added whether they like it or not. So that's nice. Trump officials are apparently going to meet with Danish officials on Wednesday. I think there's a congressional delegation, bipartisan delegation that's also going to meet with them. So everyone's meeting with the Danes. Meanwhile, Bloomberg is reporting that the UK and Germany are talking about putting together a NATO troop presence there to discourage an invasion by us, another NATO member. If they think Minneapolis is cold, wait till this administration gets to fucking Greenland. Wait, wait, wait, wait till the videos of guys slipping on ice in fucking Greenland. Send ice to Greenland. I have to admit, I don't quite get the explanation that if we don't take Greenland, Russia or China will take it, since Greenland is currently part of the NATO alliance. Am I missing something? Here's the thing, John, you are missing something. This is what Trump's been saying. Russia or China is going to take it if we don't take it, as if it's up for grabs. In the game of risk, Greenland is a key point to access Europe. If you can hold Greenland, you can put a lot of your troops into Greenland so that even under withering assaults from the European continent, they'd have to roll six after six after six to be able to reduce the number of troops you have in Greenland. Did you notice on that map too, in the game of risk, because I went back and looked at it when all this happened? Did you really? Oh yeah, well people have been posting about it. Venezuela is much bigger and takes up many more countries in South America than it actually does. It goes from Central America to Mexico, right to Venezuela taking up basically a quarter of South America. It does make you wonder, has Trump really been just looking at risk this whole time? Because if you can hold Brazil and Venezuela, those two spots, you can keep the whole continent of South America. The other theory along these lines that I've heard that I actually buy is the Mercator map. The Mercator projection, yes. So it's a way of drawing maps for those who don't know that makes Greenland look really big. Anything around the poles looks really big, and there are some people who think maybe Trump thinks that Greenland's the size of the continent of Africa. Yes, because he definitely either does or if he knows that it's not that size, he still thinks that owning all of it would be cool because on most Mercator maps, it will look like we have more territory. I am sure the map in his mind, the map in his mind is the same map that was in our elementary schools when we were kids with that big blob of USSR. He's an 80s guy. And the plasticity in his brain dried up in 1988, and so that's what he's got. He's got a big fucking Greenland there and he wants it. It's why he also thinks like Canada is the 51st date, because Canada looks pretty big up north on the Mercator map as well. But to your question, not only is Greenland part of Denmark, which is part of NATO, under an agreement that dates back to the 1950s, the US has troops in Greenland and it has the ability to put in more. All we have to do is talk to them first, but we can construct, install, maintain, operate military bases across Greenland if we want. We could put personnel there. We can do anchorages, moorings. There's already a base there that monitors missile launches. And so, yeah, we just have to consult them. And so if the Russians or the Chinese tried to take Greenland by force, they would be starting a war with NATO, which is why it's probably not going to happen. But if Trump wants to unravel NATO by taking Greenland, he might make that actually an option. So do you see that the Times, the interview Trump did with the Times, I think gave up the game on Greenland. He said owning Greenland is what he feels is psychologically needed for success. It's the day I was talking about on Friday. So like, this is, he just wants to be the dude, the president who added a lot of territory. This is a legacy project. This is not about security in any way. It's real estate, right? It's like, well, you don't want a Lisa building. You want to own a building. That's basically what this is all about. Yeah. And he's got in his mind the expansion of the country, like who got the Louisiana territory, who went west, who made America bigger. I also think it's worth pointing out, you're all listening to this probably on Tuesday, which is Trump's kicking off the next stop on his affordability tour. And what a tour it is, because he wants to pay each Greenlander up to $100,000 that's been floated to buy Greenland. So to make things more affordable for Americans, we are trying to arrest the Fed share so that we can keep inflation high. He just said that we're ruined if the Supreme Court rules against him on tariffs. He also just added more tariffs, 25% tariffs he just announced on any country that does any kind of business with Iran, which is quite a few countries. So we're trying to do more tariffs. We're trying to spend $100,000 apiece on Greenlanders while Americans can't afford most things. And also he did threaten to board Air Force One to veto a potential ACA extension on the subsidies if it happens. So he is just crushing it on affordability day here. Who's nightmare do you think we're in? Are we in Kamala's nightmare where she wakes up and realizes he has to give a different answer on the view? Are we in Merrick Garland's answer where he wakes up after becoming Attorney General and realizing us to move quickly to make sure Donald Trump can never seek higher office? Again, who's nightmare is this? Hillary Clinton. Could be Hillary Clinton. That's a long, she's been asleep for a long time. Who's sleep demon? Who's sleep demon is this? Who's perilous demon is troubling us today? As for Venezuela, because we're not done with that yet, on Sunday Trump posted an image of his Wikipedia page mocked up to give him the title Acting President of Venezuela. And he also said that he's, quote, inclined to keep Exxon out of oil development in the country because he didn't like their CEO's statement at the White House the other day that it's too dangerous to make investments in Venezuela unless there are big changes in governance. The sin of telling the truth. Trump seems to have his eye on Cuba as well, posting that they won't be getting any more Venezuelan oil or money and that they should, quote, make a deal before it's too late, all caps. Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel wrote back that Cubans are, quote, ready to defend the homeland to the last drop of blood. These all seem like healthy developments now. And what's crazy about Trump being mad about the Exxon CEO's comments is he's talking about their assets getting seized when the Venezuelans nationalize the industry in the 70s, then again under Hugo Chavez. And he was criticizing the laws and the political climate under Maduro. And Trump just told us that he toppled the Maduro government and installed Delcey Rodriguez to change the exact political climate that the CEO is complaining about. But Trump is like angry that it sounded negative. Yes, it's because it's like, hey, hey, you're making me feel, you're making it sound like what I did isn't going to work. I don't need that right now. I want positive people at my table. I want people that can see. I want to hear yes. Yeah, let's yes and my invasion of, my not invasion of Venezuela. This is toxic, guys. Yeah, that's right. It's toxic. It's toxic. Yeah, I just again, I can't get, I can't believe it's been like just over a week since we invaded Venezuela. We bombed Nigeria on Christmas. He bombed Syria again over the weekend. They're talking about toppling Cuba. We're talking about taking Greenland by force. We're talking about bombing Iran. Again, actually there's two different pitches in the hopper for bombing Iran. There's the, the bombing to support the protesters, the Netanyahu has been saying, hey, let's bomb the ballistic missile stuff. So maybe we'll get a two for one. I don't know. Also, like Marco Rubio, who's out there just getting, you know, blowjob profile after blowjob profile. From my friend in the barrel. And everyone else is, he's out, he's, you know, taking great pains to be like, we're, while we're doing is using our oil embargo on Venezuela to sort of, you know, to nudge them towards the right direction and the right policy and we're, and then Trump's like, acting president of Venezuela. It says so on my Wikipedia page. Ha, ha, ha. It's, we're so far from the things I think we should be doing to make America succeed. And I just was like thinking like, okay, well, I don't think this is good for the long term, health of the country or the short term. And it's like, well, what would be some things? Like, I don't know. Maybe, not invading Venezuela. STEM education. Better schools. Maybe some, some better transmission lines for clean energy. I'm Dunkleman Pilled, as you all know. And just, we're just, abundance bro over here. But it, but it's just like, what the, there's such a, it's, I know it sounds stupid, but, and we're so far from it, but they have such a lack of understanding of like what made America a powerhouse in the first place. And it, like, it, like, power and force. And there, listen, there's plenty of hegemonic America, America kind of asserting ourselves on the world stage. But, but in the country, like, why are we, why do we have such a big economy? We had really smart people inventing really amazing things that transformed the world. And there's something about our culture and our people and all the people who came here and all the people who were forced to come here that have something magical about them that makes, make amazing things happen. And there's just absolutely no, there's no thought to like, that, that the success of America is about like growing America. It's about how we slice the pie of what like fucking oil, Derrick's in the South America. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Growing America isn't taking Greenland in Venezuela. That's, yeah. I guess you're right. I guess you're right. Sort of geographically. There would be more. I do think, I think we do, do, do great with, we're kicking out a bunch of people. We're building a fortress around a much bigger country. I think that's, that's, Let's, let's take some of the failing schools here in the US and build them on Greenland. You know, and then you can be like James K. Polk. Yeah, that just, just to be a baby for a minute. The Rubio profiles are making me so crazy. It's like, I've never seen a group of people spike the football on first down before. Like, don't you guys remember Mission Accomplished in Iraq and everything? Like the, the Venezuela operation, the Delta Force raid, day one will almost, will very likely be the best day. The first profiles do not matter. The first profiles, they become a joke in history. Donald Rumsfeld was the, remember how much they loved him? The press would get, they would love his little questions, his little snowflake briefs that he was dropping all about the building. That's the same vase you're seeing it twice. Like people thought he was a cat, a fun, a fun guy. What an old, old fun geezer up there. My favorite is, there's a, there's a Politico profile and there's a quote in there from someone that says, like, you know what though? Rubio was building up a lot of capital right now inside the GOP and you know, really, he really could make a run at 2020. I'm like, oh yeah, oh yeah, because we all know how valuable the capital inside the GOP is. It's talking about inflation. And has been in the Trump area. Right. Yeah. No, usually it's the, the insiders in Washington who didn't really want to see Trump to come to power in the first place. They're the ones who are going to decide 2028, right? Marco Rubio, Marco Rubio building, building a beautiful kind of a cathedral of his ambitions and Donald Trump just tweets Rubio, Fardimuji, over. Just why, truly, is one post away from being eviscerated by this guy out of ridiculous. Oh gosh. All right. When we get back from the break, you'll hear Tommy's conversation with Lail Brainerd about why it's so crucial to have an independent federal reserve bank. Can't wait to learn. But two announcements before we get to that. I'll be so different, Joey. Thank you for your question. What a great question. How different from Joe Biden? Let me count the ways. You won't believe it. It's what would you have done differently? So many things. So many things, Joey. Honestly, I don't think we have time. I don't think we have time to talk about how many different things I would have done than that old fuck. Fuck him. I'm different. Two announcements before we get to that. The interview. Strict Strutney's coming to the West Coast in the spring. The show in San Francisco is sold out, but you can join Kate Melissa and Leah in Los Angeles on March 7th at the Palace Theater. You think we can get tickets to that? Yeah, we can get, I mean, or worst case, we can just sit back and say. Oh, look, it says in brackets, mention if you plan to attend. Thank you. Yeah, we'll be there. Okay. Grab your tickets at cricket.com slash events. Also, Lover Leave It Is Back with a whole new slate of shows at Dynasty Typewriter for 2026. Love it. Here's what I asked, who do you guys have coming up and hopefully you know? We've got Ted McGinley, legend, Michael Urie, they're both in shrinking. Robin Thede is coming. We have Frankie Kignones. We have Lisa Rinna coming up. We have a bunch of amazing shows coming up at Dynasty. Go to cricket.com slash events. Come to the show Thursday nights. It's very fun. We cut a lot of the stuff that we can't include in the pod. You mean future Fed chair, Lisa Rinna? That's good. Turns out she doesn't trade us. Go to cricket.com slash events to check out the lineup. We're always adding guests. Pate of America is brought to you by Helix. We love Helix mattresses here. They're very comfortable. I got a couple in my house and one for the guest bed. Charlie has one. Everyone loves it. The Helix offers a variety of mattresses designed to fit your sleep needs. How will you know which Helix mattress works best for you and your body? Take the Helix sleep quiz. It matches you with the perfect mattress based on your personal preferences, making it easy to find a mattress that suits your sleep needs. Helix will deliver 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 your new mattress. You can rest with seamless returns and exchanges. They even offer a hundred and twenty-night sleep trial and limited lifetime warranty. Go to helix sleep.com slash cricket for 20% off-site wide. That's helix sleep.com slash cricket for 20% off-site wide. Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you helix sleep.com slash cricket. Today I'm lucky to be joined by an economist who's held several of the most senior economic posts in the US government, including director of the National Economic Council from 2023 to 2025, vice chair of the Federal Reserve from 22 to 23, and you had a bunch of other roles at the Treasury Department, deputy national economic advisor during the Clinton administration. The list goes on. Welcome to Pod Save America, Leo Brainard. Great to see you. Well, it's great to be here. Thank you so much for doing this because I don't know much about the economy. Let's just start with a quick Fed 101 for listeners who might be like me and aren't that familiar with what the Fed actually does. Can you just give us the quick description of what the Fed's mission is and why it's so important that it be independent and what it needs to be independent from exactly? Yeah. Look, the Fed is really important to keeping inflation under control and also having a strong job market in the US. Back in the 1970s when the Fed was being pressured by the White House, they lost control of inflation. Inflation went up to double digits. It took a decade, Paul Volcker, and double digit unemployment to get inflation back down. So the Fed is just central to affordability in the American economy, to people's ability to plan their budgets over the next few years and have a sense of what they'll be able to afford. And it's also really important for the long-term economic stability of our economy. You asked about independence, independence from what? So politicians generally operate on electoral cycles. And in every country, and certainly in US history, heads of state, elected presidents, they are very focused on their next election. And so they often just want interest rates to be low. And that leads to longer-term high inflation. And that's the reason that central banks all around the world, but particularly in the US, are asked by Congress to operate in a way that is independent of the president, independent in order to make sure that inflation stays low over many years rather than juicing the economy for the next election and then living with high inflation for many years after that. Yeah, so President Trump, he wants Chairman Powell to take steps to cut interest rates. Could you just talk about why Chairman Powell's hesitant to do that and what the impact could be, you think, of a premature rate cut? And then are there international examples from other countries where maybe the Fed got politicized or the central bank got politicized and it created some sort of economic challenge or disaster? Yeah, so the reason that the US Congress established really important protections for the independence of the Fed, including that the members of the Fed should not be able to be fired by the president except in very limited cases, is because we can see historically and around the world what happens when short-term political considerations drive interest rates, what happens in those cases. And we've seen this very recently in Turkey, where not only does inflation go up to double digits, but it can soar. And it's really hard to get very high inflation under control again. So once you lose that credibility of the central bank, then inflation starts to go higher and people lose confidence that the central bank can bring inflation back down. And it ends up costing the economy just a decade of lost growth. And we've seen that in Argentina, we've seen it in Turkey, but we also saw it back in the 1970s after Richard Nixon famously pressured Arthur Burns to juice the economy for Nixon's reelection. And then the American people paid the price in terms of unaffordable houses, unaffordable groceries for more than a decade. So Chairman Powell released this video Sunday night talking about this investigation into essentially a plan to remodel the Fed and whether or not he misled Congress about it. But we'll set that aside. But he released this video basically saying, look, this is not really about whether or not I misled Congress. This is about Trump wanting me to do his bidding, and I won't. Were you surprised that Chairman Powell pushed back so forcefully? He seemed like someone who was pretty reticent to get into the political fray like that. Absolutely. So the chair has been, I think, very much characterized by restraint, by trying to stay out of the political fray, which is, of course, the hallmarks of a good independent Federal Reserve chair who was supposed to really not be swayed by short-term political consideration. So to see that kind of a forceful statement coming out, I think, took everybody, certainly took Fed watchers, people who are in the financial markets by surprise. But of course, it comes after a series of actions that are all very unprecedented that this White House has taken to pressure the Federal Reserve. And so in the context of a series of unprecedented steps, it does really raise the alarm that the Fed could lose its independence, and that would be bad for inflation in America. Yeah. So I mean, Powell's term as chair ends in May, but he could remain a Fed governor through 2028. Do you think this fight makes him more or less likely to want to stick it out through, I think, January 31st, 2028? It's a good question. I mean, I think the thing that you kind of have to ask, given that he only has a handful of meetings at which interest rate cuts will be debated before the new chair comes into the Federal Reserve, it's really a puzzle why the Trump White House would be taking these actions at this juncture. The Federal Reserve just cut rates three times in a row in order to help strengthen the job market and cushion the US economy. And the most recent GDP data is strong. So it's a real puzzle why they're so close to getting what they want, which is a new chair, why this extraordinary move now. And I think it goes to what you're asking about, which is the chair can stay on as a regular member of the board, just a voting member, which he was before he became chair for another two years, which is until 2028. And so the real question mark, given that he's going to step down as chair in May anyway, is are they trying to persuade him to leave the board altogether in May with this kind of extraordinary threat? And many people might actually counsel that in these extraordinary circumstances, it's important not to bow to that kind of pressure. So I don't think we know what's going on behind the scenes, but it certainly raises that question of what are they trying to accomplish here? Yeah, I asked that about this administration often. Here's my idea. I think it may be just between you and us that you could relate to Chairman Powell. I think he should threaten to raise interest rates a thousand basis points if Trump doesn't back off. What do you think? Good idea. Great idea. So let's just say that the Federal Reserve is best when they are doing their job, looking at the data, boring, non-political, and certainly not in a kind of political back and forth with the most powerful person in America, maybe the world. So much better for the American people to have the Fed just continue doing their boring job, which is to keep inflation low and to keep jobs plentiful. That's what they're really good at. And if Americans are focused on affordability, and I think this is their number one concern on the economy right now, Americans want a more affordable set of prices. The Fed is central to that, keeping affordability front and center over multiple years, not just with a view to the next political election. All right, I'll take that as a maybe. So ever since the financial crisis, I feel like, I'm a casual stock market observer, but I felt like ever since the financial crisis, the Fed's decisions have been the primary mover of the stock market. It's been Fed decisions around rates or bond purchases. They had a greater impact on the stock market than earnings or the economy or unemployment, like the things you would think are really the scaffolding of the economy. And so it seems strange to me that today, Monday, January 12th, the markets and other kind of market indicators seem to be kind of shrugging off this attack on Chairman Powell and the Fed's independence. Do you have a theory for why that is? You know, I think you're exactly right that the kind of threats to the Federal Reserve's independence that the White House keeps engaging in should really have a lot of people who are in financial markets who are trading stocks and treasuries. It should have been very worried because it's not a today story only. It really goes to the fundamental stability of U.S. financial markets and the ability of the Federal Reserve to keep inflation predictable and low. It goes to the strength of the dollar. You know, people who are investing in dollar assets really depend on low inflation in the United States. And so you saw a little bit of a move right after that video came out in the kind of direction you would think you would expect, stocks down, treasuries down, and the dollar down. But you're right, the markets rebounded. I think the markets are just getting to the point where they're overwhelmed by just very unprecedented actions on the part of this White House. If investors do start doubting the Fed and the health of the U.S. economy, are there places where you think it might begin to show up like the dollar? Is it people buying gold? Like what should we be watching for? Yeah, absolutely. So we have seen some of that concern about the dollar in the value of gold and the fact that central banks in other countries are holding relatively more gold compared to their treasury holdings than they were just a year ago. You also will see it in long-term interest rates on treasury securities because people get more nervous that their treasury securities are not going to hold value if inflation goes up a lot because the Fed loses its ability to be independent. And that's bad not just because we're already paying a trillion dollars of interest on our national debt and we need some relief there, but also because that then translates into higher mortgage costs, higher car loan costs. So it's bad for American households. This whole thing seems bad. Every day there's something to do that's bad. About a week ago, we were bombed at Venezuela and all of a sudden we're doing this. I mean, it's just it's hard to keep up with this stuff. It's madness. Well, it is really hard to keep up with and it is so unprecedented, but it's really important for Americans to stay focused on it because if they care about affordability, they really do care about the Fed's ability to control inflation. And if the White House can go after this chair, they can go after the next chair. And that makes it much harder for any chair and any Federal Reserve to actually do their job, which is to really promote long-term affordability for Americans. Yeah. Well, good for Chairman Powell for pushing back. I was glad to see it. Lail Brainerd, thank you so much for helping me understand this stuff. I really appreciate it and it's great to see you again. It's great to see you. Thank you. That's our show for today. Thanks to Lail Brainerd for coming on. Dan and I will be back with a new show on Friday. Can I read you my favorite rum sold snowflake memo? Yeah. To Doug Feith, subject issues with various countries. Body the memo. We need more course of diplomacy with respect to Syria and Libya and we need it fast. If they mess up Iraq, it will delay bringing our troops home. We also need to solve the Pakistan problem. And Korea doesn't seem to be going well. Are you coming up with proposals for me to send around? Thanks. I remember that memo. It is so funny. It's like, hey, hey, listen, if I don't see it before the end of the day, solve Pakistan. Solve Pakistan. It's a great boss, Defense Secretary. If you want to listen to Podsave America ad free and get access to exclusive podcasts, go to cricket.com slash friends to subscribe on Supercast, Substack, YouTube or Apple podcasts. Also, please consider leaving us a review that helps boost this episode and everything we do here at Cricket. Podsave America is a cricket media production. Our producers are David Toledo, Emma Illek Frank and Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farrah Safari. Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Reed Cherlin is our executive editor. Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Matt DeGroote is our head of production. Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cone, Hailey Jones, Ben Hefkoate, Mia Kellman, Carol Pelleve, David Tolles and Ryan Young. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.