Trump’s Controversial Cabinet Picks

Support for this show comes from Nike.

What was your biggest win?

Was it in front of a sold-out stadium or the first time you beat your teammate in practice?

Nike knows winning isn't always done in front of cheering crowds.

Sometimes winning happens in your driveway, on a quiet street at the end of your longest run, or on the blacktop of a pickup game.

Nike is here for all of the wins, big or small.

They provide the gear, you bring the mindset.

Visit Nike.com for more information and be sure to follow Nike on Instagram, TikTok, and other social platforms for more great basketball moments.

This podcast is supported by Progressive, a leader in RV insurance.

RVs are for sharing adventures with family, friends, and even your pets.

So if you bring your cats and dogs along for the ride, you'll want Progressive RV Insurance.

They protect your cats and dogs like family by offering up to $1,000 in optional coverage for vet bills in case of an RV accident, making it a great companion for the responsible pet owner who loves to travel.

See Progressive's other benefits and more when you quote RVinsurance at progressive.com today.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates pet injuries and additional coverage and subject to policy terms.

Hey, I'm Teffi, and I'm hosting a new podcast from the cut called Teffi Talks.

Think of me as your work vestie who's here to give you all the juiciest pop culture deep dives, read celebrity tea leaves, and yap about modern life.

New episodes drop every Wednesday on YouTube or in your favorite podcast app.

It's going to be so fun avoiding actual work together.

Welcome to Raging Moderates.

I'm Scott Galloway.

And I'm Jessica Charlov.

Where are you, Jess?

I'm in New York.

I'm home tending to my children.

Well, not right this second, but I don't live as free as you.

You're south of the border.

Don't stand too close to my flame.

You might get burned.

I'm a rolling stone, Jess.

This is the midlife crisis.

It will go on several decades.

Is everyone in your family okay with that?

Or are they like happy to see you go?

And the like, we'll miss you for real way, but like, you should go.

Oh, that's interesting.

That perfectly described.

It's like, so when are you leaving again?

I mean, we'll miss you, but when are you leaving?

Yeah, we can't live without you, though.

We live so well without you.

Without you, yeah.

I often joke about my partners constantly talking about when I'm gone.

We call it loss, life after Scott.

Oh.

And the money, and

who they're going to have relationships with, and what they're going to do.

I mean, and unfortunately, it speaks about it with a little too much optimism.

But, anyways, back to me.

I'm at this thing called Baja Summit.

Have you heard of this thing?

No.

Or something.

It sounds like something I'd like to be invited to.

Maybe next year if you're interested.

I was going to bring all of the team.

So this is, let's back up.

So Summit is a group of guys created these, this community.

It wasn't initially they bought some land on a mountain somewhere.

I don't know.

They must be rich kids anyways.

And then they call it Learning Man.

During the day, it's TED Talks.

And at night, everyone does drugs and listens to world-class DJs.

And it's got kind of a very hip granola but successful.

A lot of people starting vertical farming startups are really focused on their sleep.

or, you know, talking about why it's important to be poly as they explore THC-infused muffins.

It's very kind of, I don't know how to describe it, but I spoke at it two years ago.

They did Summit at Sea, which is they take over this Virgin cruise ship.

And the thing I first noticed is that no one's drinking.

Everyone's doing psilocybin or MDMA.

No one's actually drinking.

So not really my people.

But it's, it's a really interesting concept.

They do a really nice job.

And I really had a good time.

So they said, we want you to come back.

And I said, well, I don't know if you've heard, I'm kind of a big deal.

I charge a lot of money.

And they said, well, we'll let you bring some people with you.

So I was going to bring the team, but then I'm like, the team doesn't need to see me get this fucked up.

So I brought a bunch of my college buddies from

Los Angeles.

All right, Jess, enough of that.

Today, we're talking about Trump's controversial cabinet picks, Republicans gain control of the house, and our predictions for the week.

But before we get to that, we want to remind you to follow our show, Raging Moderates, on its own podcast feed.

The Raging Moderates feed is where you get to take advantage of our exclusive coverage and interviews, including the one this week with Jon Favreau from Pod Save America.

Love John.

So right now, please search Raging Moderates wherever you listen to your podcast and hit that follow or subscribe button so you never miss an episode.

We're getting huge listenership, but quite frankly, we don't have a lot of subscribers on our feed yet.

And without that,

quite frankly, we can't make money.

And Jess has two new kids.

And I'm in the midst of a raging midlife crisis.

And they both take cabbage.

So please do us a favor right now, right now, and go to the raging moderates feed and subscribe.

We will be eternally grateful.

And if I meet you, you can come up to me, and as a reward, I will provide you with five seconds of uninterrupted eye contact.

Again, get a selfie?

There you go.

Why not?

Okay, moving on.

Let's go to Trump's cabinet picks.

For a minute, it seemed like we'd see kind of the usual suspects, people including Senator Marco Rubio and Elise Stefanic, but then came kind of

the free gift or the free toaster as a parting gift if toaster was fucking crazy and unqualified.

Fox News host Pete Hegseth.

There's no business being Secretary of Defense.

Okay, let's move on.

Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Defense.

Well, she did serve.

Matt Gates for Attorney General.

That's my favorite.

That's my favorite.

If you're really going to go dancing with the stars, batshit crazy, go all in.

And then RFK Jr.

at leading health and human services, which

I actually find find that, strangely enough, the one that's most disturbing.

So to the extent you can, talk about either Pete or Tulsi for defense and national intelligence.

Yeah, so I want to be clear that just because I get along with Pete and he's always been lovely to me doesn't necessarily mean that I think he should be head of the Department of Defense, which oversees 3 million people.

And having, you know, managing a unit.

And I've been bothered by how people have been talking about him and not even discussing his service, which was outstanding.

So, two decades as an infantry officer in the Army National Guard, he has two bronze stars.

He did three tours, one in Guantanamo Bay, one in Iraq, one in Afghanistan.

He also has the National Defense Service Medal and the Expert Infantryman and Combat Infantryman badges.

So, like, he's a real dude.

And I've seen a lot of feedback from people who have served not like four-star generals, but like actual boots on the ground people who are really excited at the prospect of having someone with that kind of perspective do this job.

And that's where I think the most interesting argument for Pete comes in, that like he could be supported by people who have the Lloyd Austin experience, let's say,

but bring more of that on the ground perspective.

Now, it's a little bit more complicated than that.

So

over over the years, and he's had a good relationship with President Trump, who considered him for something in 2016.

And I honestly thought that he was going to get veterans affairs this time around.

And that made a lot of sense to me.

He's led to veterans advocacy organizations in the past.

He cares deeply about veterans.

And so that's where I thought he was going to land.

And coming out at defense was kind of crazy.

But there are these things that stick out.

Like he lobbied Trump to pardon several service members accused of war crimes.

And I think two of them were pardoned and they did bad things, it looks like.

There is a sexual assault issue that's going to come out and the Democrats are considering whether they want to try to make this part of the confirmation process.

I imagine that they will.

And I don't know.

It's a weird thing because we all sign morality clauses, right?

When we go and work somewhere.

And that seems like something that would be a violation of it, especially when you're talking about leading 3 million people and being in charge of the Pentagon.

So I am conflicted because I think that there's interesting perspective.

I'm not sure if he's right that women shouldn't serve in combat roles.

That's like one of the main things that he argues, and that the wokeification of the army is making us flat-footed.

But I do think having a different kind of experience is an interesting facet of the nomination.

What do you think?

I agree with you.

You know, he's got outstanding shops in terms of his commitment to the country and his service.

The question is, does he have

kind of the gravitas or experience outside to management,

I don't know, this kind of more executive experience, I would say, in terms of managing, again, what is 3 million people?

You know, the people who don't like him are really flying that flag.

It was an allegation.

He was never charged, and he did pay somebody to sign a confidential I got to think that these payoffs are going to go away because they're never confidential they always end up coming out right and there's just an correctly or incorrectly there's just a stain or an air of guilt right when you paid someone off

and you can also imagine a scenario where someone makes an allegation and you decide you know this would be easier for my career and your lawyer advises you to pay it this is a touchy one at least you could make the argument that they're trying to bring in youths.

This person served.

This one seems actually kind of less batched crazy.

I think the thing that has the left all up in arms is quite frankly that he worked at Fox.

Well, that's what they're leading with.

And I think it reflects so poorly on them to say, like, well, this guy's a morning host.

It's like, A, don't be shitty about morning hosts, but B,

Like look at his bio before you do that.

And if you dig in, there is plenty for you to be critical of.

I should also mention that he was taken off duty for Biden's inauguration because he was deemed a quote-unquote possible insider threat because of a tattoo that he has on his bicep that's associated with white supremacist groups.

Now,

he maintains, obviously, that that is not why he has that tattoo, but it is something that was taken seriously enough that he was pulled off of protective detail.

That's just fucking strange.

He has a tattoo that is a, see, I didn't, I didn't know.

That's a new wrinkle on the Pete ball.

I think there are two tattoos that people are focused on.

Pete has a lot of tattoos.

I don't know.

This one's really tough.

There's a tough one.

I just, I just, it just dawned on me that my tramp stamp is going to keep me from being Secretary of the Interior.

Okay.

Let's move on from this one.

This is a tough one or a weird one.

Well, also, can we just say, though, that in light of what we are about to discuss, odds are that Pete is going to get confirmed because they can only torpedo so many nominations.

And I think that Matt Gates is the top priority in terms of not going through.

Well, let's talk about that.

Is this a strategy to do a blood offering, let Matt, give Matt an opportunity to step down before the ethics investigation comes out, put forward this batshit crazy guy so everybody else seems less crazy?

Is this a strategy where you think the Trump administration knew that Gates probably wasn't going to get through, but would be a great weapon of mass distraction from how qualified or unqualified the other ones are, but they aren't someone who is,

as I would argue, more credible claims as under current investigation.

Is that fair, current investigation, the House Ethics Report that they wrote about it?

This one feels,

it would think if there's one position where you have to be pretty squeaky clean,

it would be this one.

What are your thoughts on former Representative Gates who stepped down, right?

Yeah.

So Johnson's majority dwindles by the day.

So I would say, yes, that I thought that it was

5D chess or whatever your whatever the best chess is the most thoughtful chess except called checkers

the best chess anyways

um except that it was reported that trump made this decision and didn't consult susie wiles and basically was talking to gates and like one part of the airplane and susie wiles was in the other part like

playing dominoes with her grandkids or something like that and

was like

wtf i'm sorry what matt gates for attorney general.

So obviously Gates made this pitch in an urgent way and

auditioning it as like, I can help you the most of anyone, right?

Like I am unencumbered.

Whereas other people might have some sort of moral compass, but like, I got nothing here, right?

And you know what I'm going to do to boot?

I'm going to resign right away.

I'm going to scuttle this ethics investigation, which I think probably to some degree appeals to Trump, this idea of being falsely accused of things, whether, whether, I mean, it doesn't really seem like Gates was falsely accused because there are people, I guess, that they're plotting to get on the record who were at these sex parties with him.

And the big problem is around this 17-year-old that he had sex with in front of a bunch of people against a pool table at a party.

And I passed no judgment

except the minor part of it.

It's a multiple device people have sex against.

No, I mean, the minor thing is not good.

And then there were,

no, and there were all those exchanges like that they were Venmoing him and his,

I don't want to say colleague.

That's like too nice of it.

His

what do you call people who go around doing that together?

His pal who is like

his wingman, Venmoing people.

So I feel like Gates is the ultimate wrecking ball that Trump wants and the one who will identify deep staters like right away to him.

And I think that's really what Trump is paranoid about.

So

I think he does want Matt Gates.

I think he probably accepts that he's not going to get Matt Gates.

I mean, it's rumored that up to 30 Republicans would vote against him.

Now, that's what happens every time.

They say, like, oh, this is definitely not going to happen.

And like, maybe it's just Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and a couple of others.

But like, there are enough people in the Republican caucus who are on record saying, I really hate this guy.

He's complete scum.

So I think that Gates is like number one, not getting through.

But not because he was intended that way, just because

he shouldn't get through.

And what do you think of Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence?

I know Likey at all.

No, I think it's really bad.

She's part of this cohort of like former Democrats that Republicans always throw in our faces.

My colleagues will be like, well, we have RFK Jr.

and we have Tulsi Gabbard.

And I'm like, guys, this isn't the own that you think that it is, right?

Like people who can be persuaded over with the promise of, and these are big jobs, right, that are coming their way.

But the kinds of arguments that they've been making against Democrats don't really feel like they were that solid, at least for the last few years.

But Tulsi Gabbard, you know, she was a Bernie Sanders acolyte.

She ran in 2020.

She had some very embarrassing moments during the debate, especially with Pete Buttigieg, who absolutely decimated her.

And I'm not one to lightly call someone a Russian asset, but she is very partial for arguments that the Kremlin makes and has been doing that since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, basically saying that Ukraine wasn't respectful of them, that they were running bio labs, American-backed bio-labs.

And that was the argument that Putin was using, that they had to go in because they were going to attack them with what they were making in these labs.

And the truth is, it's just public information that these labs exist and it happens all over the world.

And we work together to make sure that people can be protected.

And if there is something like a COVID that shows up.

She also went to visit Assad in Syria and didn't tell the U.S.

government and came back and said that the people there really like him, which is obviously parroting talking points that are

completely unacceptable.

And Russian state TV, and they are very savvy over there.

They love her.

They call her their girlfriend.

What do you think about her?

Well, I don't think it's fair to call her a Russian asset, and I don't think it does us any good.

Representative Wasserman Schultz said she's essentially a Russian asset.

And there's no evidence, as far as I can tell, that they actually control her.

Having said that, I think the more legitimate argument is that she shows, you know, she provides comfort to the enemy.

Russia is our enemy.

I would describe China as our adversary, our competitor, but I wouldn't qualify them as our enemy.

We have mutual assured destruction because we're essentially both capitalist nations and they produce the shit we buy.

We need each other.

Russia is our enemy.

They are spending a lot of time and energy trying to destabilize our society.

And somebody who finds empathy for Assad, who's one of the most murderous leaders in the world, and for Putin, in my opinion, just doesn't share our values.

I'm not accusing her of being a spy or an asset.

I don't see any evidence of that.

But this is not somebody.

To have someone come in that I think would be just such a puncturing blow to the culture and the morale there.

Quite frankly, it just seems to be really bad management on the part of the Trump administration.

Aaron Powell, I think that that's right.

And this isn't just about the DNI pick, but in general, to the culture point, I think the argument that they're trying to make is that the culture at a lot of these places is not good, right?

That there are people within them that are not being fair and just in the way that they do their jobs, that there are practices that are being put into place or rules that are coming to fruition that don't make us safer, don't make us more agile, don't make us the fighting force of the 21st century that we need to be.

And I think that airing those grievances and having those conversations is something that Democrats have probably been too resistant to doing.

And it has forced the pendulum to swing in the absolute opposite direction where people just say, burn it all down.

And that's a terrible place to be.

Because there are millions of civil servants that are doing a really fucking good job, right?

At what they do.

And they are subject matter experts.

And they understand a hell of a lot more than people who have, like Tulsi, no

experience in intelligence.

And

to add to that, our allies are not going to share information with us.

And that's the cornerstone of being able to be efficient.

And

to be able to do anything good in the world, we have to be able to work with those who we are on the same side as.

I don't know what the future of NATO looks under an administration with these people filled out there.

It will be tenuous in a best case scenario.

And this isn't just like when Trump came in the first time and said, like, everyone should pay their fair share.

You should pay like 1% more or whatever it was.

I mean, this is something much more substantial and frightening.

And it scares me to think about an America isolated.

I mean, when they say America first, I hear America isolated.

And there's a hell of a lot that's going to be going on behind our backs.

If you have people like Tulsi Gabbard in the DNI position where people say, well, we can't go to her and talk about this.

And that's when bad actors fill a power vacuum.

And for non-bad actors, for the people that we just typically work with, they're just going to go about their business and not count on us in the same way.

And that's extremely damaging as well.

Okay, let's take a quick break.

Stay with us.

I'm Noelle King, and today on Today Explained from Vox, I'm talking to conservative activist, writer, and provocateur Christopher Ruffo.

Why?

Because Chris Ruffo gets what he wants from universities, from corporations, from President Trump.

He wanted an end to DEI.

He got it.

We've ended the tyranny of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion policies all across the entire federal government.

He wanted the government to yank federal funding from universities unless they submitted to his demands.

He got that too.

He wanted an obscure academic legal theory to become a national boogeyman.

Done.

We have removed the poison of critical race theory from our public schools.

He wanted Cracker Barrel to change its logo back.

We could, in fact, break the barrel with just a small amount of effort.

Since he's getting what he wants, we thought it was worth asking, what does he want now?

Chris Ruffo's Cultural Revolution.

Today Explained is in your feeds every weekday.

Hello, Daisy speaking.

Hello, Daisy.

this is Phoebe Judge from the IRS.

Oh bless, that does sound serious.

I wouldn't want to end up in any sort of trouble.

This September on Criminal, we've been thinking a lot about scams.

Over the next couple of weeks, we're releasing episodes about a surprising way to stop scammers.

The people you didn't know were on the other end of the line.

And we have a special bonus episode on Criminal Plus with tips to protect yourself.

Listen to Criminal wherever you get your podcasts and sign up up for Criminal Plus at thisiscriminal.com/slash plus.

I'm Peter Kafka, the host of Channels, and on my podcast, we've been talking about the future of AI and media for what seems like forever.

But what if I told you that future is already here?

So, at what point, if any, does a human get involved before it gets sent to my inbox?

Not at all.

That's Warren St.

John, the CEO of Patch, the local news network, telling me how he's producing thousands of newsletters every day just using AI.

You can hear our entire conversation on channels wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts.

Let's talk a little bit about the Department of Government Efficiency, or Doge.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy were appointed to the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, which they're calling Doge, of course.

What are your initial thoughts on this?

I feel like this is the toy you give to people or kids,

kind of like kids.

I don't know.

But like, he needed to give them something.

Elon Musk is principally responsible for him winning this election.

Like, besides Trump, I'd say the number two in that effort is Elon Musk.

And Vivek was, I think, the first one who dropped out to really endorse him and has been, you know, totally Trumpy.

I don't really know what this is going to be.

I mean, Elon Musk has like 50 different things that he's doing and he's launching more rockets this week, though he seems to to be obsessed with being part of the Trump orbit.

There are all these articles about how annoyed Trump is at him that he just like won't go away.

And he's at Mar-a-Lago all the time.

But what I'm concerned about, if they actually do get some degree of power, is that they are going to go around

getting rid of things that, A, you shouldn't be getting rid of, but also just like firing tens of thousands of people.

You're going to have a spike in the unemployment rate.

I don't know what happens to like Maryland and Virginia and DC, right?

If you get rid of such a huge swath of quote-unquote bureaucracy, but that they aren't actually thinking these things through.

They're just, I mean, Vivek was giving an interview where he said something like, you know what we're going to do?

We're going to take social security numbers.

And like, if it starts with this digit, this happens to you.

And if it ends with this kind of digit, that happens to you.

And like, there is an actual reason why our social security numbers are the way they are, like based on where we were born.

But when you hear someone talk like that, it's very hard to take it seriously.

And I am concerned about these mass reductions.

And Vivek was on with Maria Bartaromo over the weekend, and she was even, I mean, she's very partial to Donald Trump and this idea of creating more efficiency.

And she was giving him the eyebrow raise.

She was like, dude, what are you talking about?

So

first off, it sounds sort of like an oxymoron to have a new department.

If it was a task force, first first off,

this thing has no power, is my understanding.

That these, any sort of spending cuts or reductions in labor force in the government would have to be approved by Congress or specific departments.

This thing effectively has no teeth.

It can make recommendations.

Well, that's part of the like giving

your kids like a toy.

Yeah, like it's like almost like an ambassador ship to the Bahamas or something.

And it just strikes me as you're starting off on the wrong foot when you have a Department of Government Efficiency that has two co-heads.

Anyways, and if you look at where the spending is, their ability to actually like where they would make cuts, it gets pretty narrow pretty fast in terms of what they could actually look at for cuts.

One thing I really do like about this, though, is they are, they've kind of put out a call to say, we're looking for hardworking people.

I actually think the benefit here won't be cutting, it'll be adding employees or a certain type of employee.

And that is, they have put out sort of this call that says, if you're integrating for the government and you want to work really hard and bring new ideas and innovation, please send us your CV.

And I actually met a guy here who sold his company,

is wealthy now, and is trying to figure out his new thing and his purpose other than improving his sleep and wearing an aura ring all the time.

And he sent a resume into a friend of mine, knows Elon,

and, or as I like to call him, First Lady Alania, he knows him, and he asked if he could get my resume in front of him because I'm really interested in a doji role or whatever it is.

And I really do like the idea and think if this group accomplishes the following, it'll be worthwhile.

And that is if it brings some aspirational kind of innovation, coolness back to what are largely seen as unfairly kind of stale, lame jobs.

In other words, government, other than going wearing a uniform for the military, I would argue that going to work for the government outside of our security apparatus or our defense apparatus does not have a lot of aspirational value.

And if they can restore some of that, I think that would be a really good thing.

Your thoughts?

Yeah.

I listen, I think that the best

inventions or the most progress that we make is when the public and the private sector get together and they bring the best ideas from both of those backgrounds.

So there is potential for that.

And I don't want to underestimate Elon Musk ever.

I think Vivek is a smart guy.

I don't think he's an Elon Musk level thinker.

I think very few people in the history of the world have been.

So I think that there's potential in that way, but at least from early quotes about it or the way that it has been discussed, it feels much more just like taking a hammer to everything.

And I think that when you do that, and in a lot of ways, that's what Trump is, right?

He's just, he's a disruptor.

He's going to blow it all up.

And I hope that they will be more thoughtful about it and also consider that there are millions of people who have given their lives.

And that is why they serve, right?

I mean, people in mid-level bureaucratic jobs, I understand it's not sexy, right?

It's not the thing that gets your name and lights in any way, but they do feel a duty to serve.

And I know that you obviously think that that's something really important.

We've been talking about national service and things like that.

And I hope that this doesn't.

end up in discouraging people from wanting to serve in whatever capacity they can or in a a whole bunch of people losing their jobs.

Like, we have a very good unemployment rate.

If they decimate these departments, you will see a spike in that.

And these are good paying jobs as well.

There is something to be said about the notion of bringing more competitive,

I don't know, merit-based as opposed to tenure-based culture to government work.

What's interesting is I believe state and local employment is either flat or down.

The federal, the kind of the administrative state state has gotten bigger, both under Republican and Democratic administrations, but a certain level of, I don't know, full-body contact capitalism, the majority or 90% or 80% of the workforce has to face every day.

I think a little of that in the public sector would probably be a good thing.

The first piece of data I think, though, that is going to really check back the Trump administration's current policies is if, one, there's all of a sudden a pretty significant uptick in unemployment, although I don't think they'll be able to affect this.

What they might be able to do, though, is substantially spike inflation, if any of this shit around tariffs or these immigration policies.

And the moment that inflation starts to spike again, back from, I mean, it was a real yeoman's work on behalf of Chairman Powell to get inflation from whatever it was, 5%, 6%, 7% down to 2.2% again, which is where economists say it's sort of the sweet spot.

If in one quarter or one month it announces or they announce that the CPI has spiked 50, 100, 150 basis points, you're going to see a serious rethink of some of these policies.

And I think that's coming down the pike if he just gets a fraction of what he's asking for in terms of tariffs.

But I actually, I'm less triggered by this Department of Government Efficiency because I think it's going to be hilarious when these two think they can run up against Congress and tell them to start cutting jobs in certain areas.

I think it's going to be really funny to see

what actually happens or doesn't.

And finally, let's save the best or the worst for last.

RFK Jr., question mark, your turn, Jess.

Everyone who's listening, I'm sure has heard before that, you know, about RFK Jr.

and his vaccine skepticism.

But, you know, there are 83 dead kids in Samoa, and they blame RFK Jr., who showed up four months before a huge measles outbreak and talked about how dangerous those kinds of vaccines are.

He's now trying to sugarcoat everything and make it like, I, you know,

it's just about you doing what you want, but not giving any of the information about how unbelievably good and effective vaccines are.

Like, this isn't about do I want the COVID booster or not, right?

These are kids that are not getting measles vaccines.

There's a very funny meme with Marco Rubio, and it says Marco, and then RFK Jr.

It says polio.

Yeah.

So I did enjoy that.

Ultra-processed foods are bad.

Pesticides in our food supply are bad.

All of that can be true without having to get RFK Jr.

And I don't know.

I mean, you've been on Silo Sibbins in Mexico.

So perhaps you didn't see Mar from the weekend or from Friday, I should say, but he had on Dr.

Casey Means.

Do you know her?

I don't.

So she's a Stanford educated doctor.

She wrote.

a book that's a huge hit, Good Energy, The Surprising Connection Between Metabolism and Limitless Health.

And she was talking just about how we have no prevention system for chronic disease and that she wasn't taught anything in medical school that actually helped her treat human beings and what a racket it is and how we can do so much better.

And she was giving crazy stats like our life expectancy for American men is 73 in Japan.

It's 83.

Same in Switzerland.

We're the sickest of the top 11 high income countries in the world.

And she said in the interview, you know, I'm not a Trumper, but it excites me that RFK Jr.

is talking about some of these issues.

And so I say, can we have Dr.

Casey Means

as our HHS secretary?

Because she doesn't have a brainworm.

She didn't take a dead bear cub and put it in Central Park.

And going back to the morality clause.

RFK Jr.

is a prolific philanderer.

I think it's the most generous way to describe this.

And his wife ended up killing herself over this.

He was detailing all of his affairs in a diary in lurid detail.

Like, why do we need morally bankrupt people in these huge positions of power?

Well,

it'd be worse if this happened for the presidency.

Anyways,

I mean, we're not,

we shouldn't even go there because I don't know.

I know.

It just upsets me.

I get it.

I get it.

The thing about RFK Jr.,

there are some aspects of what he says that I think are so powerful.

And this notion that there's this, and I believe this, there's this unholy alliance between the industrial food complex that wants to get you addicted to sugary, shitty food, and then hand you over to the diabetes industrial complex and then tell people who are obese that you're finding your truth, not a ventilator.

And

this is the epidemic that kills more people than COVID every year.

And Americans share one thing, and that is not more than 50% of Americans are anything, except maybe on Netflix and Amazon Prime.

But the one thing we do share is that 70% of Americans are obese or overweight.

And he has gone right after the food industrial complex and said that we have all the wrong incentives.

Kids should be able to have a healthy lunch.

He's really good on this stuff.

And then, but the problem is when a guy named Kennedy, who's handsome and gets an official title, and I don't care, he's trying to basically whitewash all of the incredibly insane things he said about vaccines.

You're going to have, you know, when kids get rubella and measles,

you know, they end up losing limbs and they end up up dying.

I don't care if it's the semiconductor, the printing press, the iPhone, whatever you think is the premier innovation of the last 100 or 200 years.

I guess the printing press was more than that.

But I would argue that the premier innovation, the premier technology, the

most impressive thing that shows how when we come together, we can do just tons of good for the species is vaccines.

Vaccines have saved tens of millions of lives.

And for this guy to be coming up, and this is a true story, or telling people the best thing you can do when you see a new mother and her baby is to come up and whisper, don't get her vaccinated.

Yeah, wasn't he doing that like on a hiking trail around LA?

I mean, this shit is just,

it's just unacceptable to fly in the face of science like that and spread this kind of misinformation that at the end of the day results in a level of death, disease, and disability that is just unneeded.

It's just such a shame because on so many things, I think he could really be a change agent.

But the notion that we're going to have an anti-vax person in this role is just fucking insane.

And then, so just as Trump took stocks up because the general assumption is he would cut corporate taxes, which would increase earnings and thereby increase the value of the shares, we have seen a similar meltdown across the pharmaceutical sector, specifically those who get a lot of money from vaccines on word that Kennedy was going to get HHS.

And check out this: Eli Lilly down 13.5%, Nova Nordiskov 6.5%, Pfizer 4.6%, and Moderna down 9.3%.

I mean,

this is literally hundreds of billions in market cap drawdown because of an individual who is seen as anti-vax.

So the market,

so far, the market has been remarkably prescient.

And if the market is correct here, what they're saying is this guy will decrease substantially the adoption and usage of vaccines, which is, in my view, just again, see above death, disease, and disability.

It begs the question.

And I wanted to note as well that the World Health Organization has reported that global measles cases have surged more than 20%

and over 100,000 kids have died now.

It's in the last year, I think, over not getting their measles vaccine.

So that's obviously a huge problem.

But this is where the like

we don't need experts for anything, like the Joe Rogan philosophy of like, I'll just look it up myself.

Dr.

Google.

Yeah.

And you can get a lot out of that.

But I, I don't know, I still want my doctor to tell me what she recommends and certainly what she recommends for my children.

What happened during COVID has just monumentally fucked up society and just opened the door to all sorts of lunacy.

And there were people who were saying vaccines cause autism before all of this, RFK Jr.

being one of them.

But now that I don't want to say it's mainstreamed, but that certainly people aren't getting, you know, the raised eyebrow like they used to when they say things like that is deeply concerning.

Yeah, it's anything, this falls under the rubric of anything that the far left and the far right agree on is just a really bad fucking idea.

Actually, the anti-vax movement started on the far left, you know, sort of this granola, don't

put big corporations in your body.

But I find that the far left and the far right come together to agree on things like reckless spending, anti-Semitism, and anti-vax.

So be very careful when you hear AOC or, I don't know, Ted Cruz agree on something.

All right, Jess, let's take a quick break.

Stay with us.

Welcome back.

Republicans have officially clinched the House, re-electing Mike Johnson as Speaker.

Democrats are hoping to shrink the majority to one or two seats.

But things start to get tricky because three new Trump appointees are currently serving in Congress.

Governor DeSantis has started scheduling special elections, but that could take a while.

Jess, how might these open seats impact the House's ability to get things done initially?

Well, hugely.

I mean, Mike Johnson has made jokes about it, and there are some who are thinking that Trump is playing checkers in this.

But again, I'm loath to give him that kind of credit, but that basically he just wants everything to be about him.

And he doesn't want to give anyone the capacity to do, to be powerful except for him as the, you know, the tip of the spear, not the sphere, which is a cool place to go to a concert.

So having a slim majority like this is a big problem for Johnson.

And he has a bold agenda.

I mean, he's been talking about it for months, things that he wants to get done, obviously, extending the Trump tax cuts.

He wants to do stuff on China.

He wants to address the border, boosting oil and gas production, though we're producing more oil than we ever have in life,

expanding school choice and going after size and scope of the federal government, which I guess Doge is going to be eating into.

But Johnson, you know, will really have his hands tied on all of this.

And I think they're going to do another continuing resolution in March to keep the government open.

But I don't know how fast these appointments are going to be to fill these open seats.

You know, Ron DeSantis has a lot because he's Marco Rubio.

He has Gates.

He has Mike Waltz, who's going to be national security advisor.

And

who knows?

I mean, Trump isn't done necessarily in what he's doing.

So it's going to be slim.

And in the Senate, at least as far as these confirmations go, Jon Thune, who's the Senate majority leader, now has said he's open to recess appointments.

Apparently, Mitch McConnell has said he isn't, and he's the one who is in charge at this particular moment.

But when you have a bunch of lunatic appointments or potential appointments, and you're going to lose Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski probably on every single one of them, you have a very, very slim majority to be be playing with, even with J.D.

Vance as the tying vote.

So it feels kind of lame ducky, even for

the trifecta that they were able to pull off.

What do you think about him?

I just want to come out.

I actually like Mike Johnson.

There's something about him.

Speaker of the House is supposed to be administrative oral, and I don't like his politics, but.

I think he's done actually a pretty good job keeping all the fucking crazies in line so which we can do basics like have funding for the government and pass a budget.

I think he's, I actually think he's done his job.

And I like Jon Thune because I just think he's very handsome.

I think it's important to have.

Oh, I was going to say that, but I didn't know if I was supposed to objectify people.

But yeah, Jon Thune, like if your husband looks like that at 63, you're like,

I nailed this.

Yeah, no, that's, that's, that's, that's winning.

One more big story: Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey's race is heading to a recount.

How's that race looking, Jos?

Well, bad.

This is

so

I understand why Bob Casey wants, I mean, the issue is with ballots that weren't dated properly.

And there's been court battles back and forth on this.

And the right is trying to spin this as election denialism, which it absolutely isn't.

And this has been done in the past, but basically everyone accepts that Dave McCormick has won that seat.

And, you know,

we defended really well.

Democrats did on a comparative basis.

I mean, we held four of five.

Sherrod Brown potentially, I guess, could have held on, but looking at the trends, that was unlikely.

And we knew that we were going to lose John Tuster.

So it's turning into more of a swirl, I think, than we could actually win this seat.

But he wants every ballot to be counted.

And I think that is how democracy works in all this.

But Dave McCormick has gone to DC.

He has an office with his name on it.

We no longer have Bob Casey's seat.

There you go.

So, Joss, any, any, before we wrap here, any predictions for the week ahead?

It'll be interesting to see if there's progress on the treasury pick, which I wanted to talk to you about.

Like it was supposed to be down to just two, Howard Luttnick and Scott Besson.

And now apparently there are a couple others that are in the mix.

Rowan, who started Mark Rowan,

Apollo, and Kevin Warsh, who was in contention in 2017 as well.

And of course, everyone's battling over like whether tariffs are a good thing or a bad thing.

But I think that that will matter a ton in all of this.

And one thing that Trump has been able to do, like he did with Mnuchin, is kind of attract some normal people, right, to come that want to do monetary policy.

So I'm curious if you think, like, if he cares the most about how the economy is, right?

Because that's how people will remember him.

And the stock market is already down to pre-election levels.

We should note.

Do you think,

well, A, do you have any insight on who he is going to pick for this job?

And they're doing like a survivor type thing where they're all going down to Mar-a-Lago.

And where do you think he's actually going to net out on the tariff idea?

So I can't,

I mean, as is the narcissist, kiss my ring, bend anything.

I can't stand these public

blowjobs of come down and Mitt Romney and after

shitposting me, you know, beg for forgiveness and then I'm going to publicly release these photos.

I don't like these public tryouts, as you called it.

I don't know, the voice or America's Got Talent or whatever it is.

I find it, I just don't think you should treat people this way of the stature.

I don't know John Paulson.

John Paulson is famous for one enormous trade, and that is the

subprime credit trade, where he went short a bunch of subprime

bonds and made like 50x his investors' money.

Other than that, Paulson, the fund itself, not that that indicates whether you're qualified for the position, has not performed that well.

The guy I find incredibly impressive is Mark Rowan.

I've been at Apollo conferences where he'll give an overview of the economy, and this guy just has like, got some serious fucking brain power.

I also like the way he handled the controversy around Penn.

In contrast with

Bill Ackman, he was very upset.

Mark Rowan, who's, I guess, very involved with Penn, was very upset about the comments or the lack thereof of the president.

Basically

got her fired, but then didn't get drunk on power and start deciding who should be fired where and how we should redo the educational institution.

I actually think he handled that very well.

He was forceful yet dignified.

And I know personally,

having seen him in action, when it comes to the economy, you don't want to bring in a candidate.

I mean, you just, you don't want to bring in someone charismatic but stupid or whose views are outside of the mainstream.

The adults in the room have to be the people to get the jobs, the jobs around the economy.

Now, having said that, HHS is arguable even more importantly, more important.

But America, I see America as a platform for two things, the defense of our shores and our citizens and to create atmospherics for prosperity such that people can develop economic security for them and their families.

And if you're worried about rights, it's pretty easy.

Shed more money into a community and they're going to get more rights.

So I hope that it's Rowan, but I don't, and that's not even to say I think the other ones wouldn't be good picks, but I know firsthand this guy is very impressive.

I mean, I don't, the other stuff has more checks and balances on it.

These guys, in my opinion, have the most consequential impact on America.

I mean, if you

Taylor Swift was person of the year, she shouldn't have been.

It should have been, it should have been Chairman Powell.

He has a lot more impact on everyday lives than almost almost anyone in the administration.

So anyways, I hope it's Mark Rowan, but I have no insight into who it might be.

Well, I'm glad we listened to you then.

No, that was insight, actually, having heard him.

And I had forgotten about his role in the anti-Semitism on campuses issue.

I think the only one in that group of four who's a little nutty is Lutnik.

The rest of them are pretty normie picks.

So we'll see where Trump wants to go with that.

And this is like a place where I feel like Susie Wiles, we may see the impact

of her.

But I'm excited for somebody to bring a bit of a balanced or more nuanced perspective, at least on the tariffs pitch in all of this.

And, you know, maybe he's just using it as a negotiating tool.

I don't know.

Or maybe he's going to destroy the economy.

So that's, I guess, what I'm watching for this week.

And I'm interested in,

and we're going to talk about this with Jon Favreau from Pod Save America on the Raging Moderates feed, which you have to go to and subscribe.

But this autopsy, which continues to go on now a couple of weeks in, that Democrats are performing on ourselves has been enveloping me.

I'm reading more content, listening to more podcasts about what went wrong and where we go from here.

And

I continue to be hugely conflicted.

And I know that you're just in the like, we got our asses kicked camp.

But now that the popular vote is below 50%

and it's the third smallest win since 1888, I'm feeling less self-flagellatory.

Is that a word?

You know, and just thinking like,

let's pick ourselves up and let's dust ourselves off.

Let's figure out how to expand the base again, right?

Bigger tent, but that we don't need to sit around.

and embarrass ourselves constantly about what happened.

So I don't know if you've changed your view on this, but I haven't.

I think that where it mattered, he got enough votes to go seven for seven in the swing states.

And I worry that Democrats are going to find some sort of cold comfort or keep making hollow excuses.

You know, we only lost by more people unsubscribed to the Washington Post than he won Wisconsin by.

I keep hearing all this stuff that, oh, actually,

it was closer than we think and we shouldn't change a thing.

I worry that the Democrats won't take this.

You know, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

And I think this is an opportunity for Democrats similar to after the 80s go.

We have to

stop institutions, whether it's the ARP

or unions, dictate our policy and start thinking about what actual people need from us.

And instead of deciding that we're sort of some, you know, self-appointed cops

for social justice or some sort of political orthodoxy, let's get back to the Clinton years where we're going to have budget surpluses.

Let's be the adults in the room around the economy and start talking about the deficit.

And instead of playing identity politics and being more obsessed with race and, quite frankly, Republicans and seeing everything through the lens of your identity, start seeing stuff through the lens of, do you have money?

Let's double down on the middle class.

Let's double down on youth.

And for God's sakes, let's fucking figure out a way to have less insane people representing our party.

Let's pivot towards the middle.

And the thing that really scares me is this whole narrative of, well, we weren't batshit crazy enough on the left that we should have doubled down on these values.

I think that would be a disaster.

So I'm hoping that similar to what happened after Reagan, Democrats rethink things and form a coalition in the middle, because that's where the majority of Americans are, and that's the opportunity.

It's pivoting towards the center and being more focused.

on what actually impacts people's lives as this constant virtue signaling, this constant inability to have a sense of humor,

this massively overreactive viewpoint where we're offended at everything, representing every special interest group to the extent that all we're doing is not representing the 24% of people

specifically, and I know everything is a nail and I'm a hammer, but I generally believe this was the election of young people failing and their parents.

And if your kid isn't doing well, and I've said this before, you don't give a fine fuck about territorial sovereignty in Ukraine or trans rights.

That's just a luxury you don't have have when your kids aren't doing as well as you.

That would bring shame and rage throughout the household.

And I think American or Democrats would be smart just to get back to the basics.

And as James Carville said, it's the economy stupid.

And I worry that they're going to make a bunch of excuses for why, no, we should double down on our current, our current virtue signaling meets identity politics.

Thank you for my TED Talk.

Thank you for my TED Talk.

So without disagreeing with you, because I don't, I just want to note that Kamala Harris did not talk about identity politics issues.

And the problem with that was, is that it let Trump define her and our refusal to push back on certain things like the trans anti-trans ad, you know, she's for they, them, I'm for you.

cost us their blueprint did polling on where the late breakers what what turned them and bigger than inflation was social issues and so it's always a delicate dance um it is the economy stupid.

It's not as simple as like,

she did that.

She did try to pivot to the middle, but she wouldn't say the shit I said in 2019 is crazy, right?

And I should have never said that.

And there's a great piece in the New York Times about Democrats kind of pushing back against special interest groups.

It's called like, when will Democrats just say no?

And it's by this guy, Adam Jettelson, I think is how you pronounce it, who worked for Harry Reid and then for one of our faves, John Fetterman.

So that I found that really interesting.

But that's it.

Good stuff.

Anything fun personally, Jess, doing anything interesting?

Anything good?

No, I was in LA last week, though.

I had a, I had lunch at the Beverly Hills Hotel.

I thought of you.

What did you get?

Did you get the $54 Cobb salad?

It's crazy.

I mean, I wasn't paying, so I felt better, but I...

My favorite thing to do there, though, is to try to figure out who everyone else is.

Like

who there was a kid, I swear to God, I thought he he was 15 14 15 right and he was waiting for his room right i figured his parents are like somewhere else or he dropped him off early whatever and then it turns out that the room is for justin bieber

no well maybe he looked like a tech justin bieber um then there were a lot of women with babies so my ovaries swelled um but i thought yeah the people watching at that place is incredible but yes the cop salad amazing i'll be there wednesday and thursday night yeah i love it there my second home.

It's great.

It's a good second home.

Yeah.

Especially when you live in London.

There you go.

London has so many great hotels for you to become like a hanger there.

Yeah, it's that's wonderful.

So

back to me.

So

I go from Los Cabos tomorrow to Vegas for a speaking gig.

Then I go to LA for a couple days.

Then I'm back to Vegas for F1.

And then I'm going to Brazil next week.

I'm going to Sao Paulo for a speaking gig.

Yeah.

Have you been to Brazil?

I have not.

It's lovely.

I think it's,

first off, the beef is outstanding and the people are really hot.

So, you know, peanut butter and chocolate, beef and hot people.

How can you go wrong?

How can you go wrong, Jess?

I don't know.

And then one day maybe you'll see your family again.

Oh, them.

Them.

Yeah.

I don't know.

I think they're doing just fine.

All right.

That's all for this episode.

Thank you for listening to Raging Moderates.

Our producers are Caroline Shagren and David Toledo.

Our technical director is Drew Burroughs.

You can find Raging Moderates on its own feed every Tuesday.

I think we've made that abundantly clear.

That's right, Raging Moderates on its own feed.

Please follow us wherever you get your podcasts.