Jake Sullivan: Trump Is Making China Great Again

Hey, what's up?

This is Seton from the Dan Patrick Show.

As a football fan, you want the best way to watch your favorite team at home, and now you can experience game day in all its glory with a Samsung super big TV.

It's super big, it's super clear, giving you a closer view than being on the sideline.

That's how clear it is.

And you can go big without the blur thanks to SuperSize Picture Enhancer on their biggest TVs.

So, get ready for game day with the ultimate fan-worthy TV at Samsung.com.

Super Size Picture Enhancer utilizes AI-based formulas available on 85-inch and larger TVs on models QN 70F and above.

Do that with Acrobat.

Now you can do that, do that with the all-new Acrobat.

It's time to do your best work with the all-new Adobe Acrobat Studio.

Hello, and welcome to the Bulwark Podcast.

I'm your host, Tim Miller.

Quick reminder: it's Wednesday, so I'm also over on the next level feed.

Sarah's back from vacation, and I'm going to make her talk about that New York Times article about the A-gays in the Trump administration.

So, you know, if you want my views on that, make sure to check out the next level.

But on this show, I've got a new guest.

Delighted to welcome him.

You as National Security Advisor to Joe Biden.

It's Jake Sullivan.

How are you doing, Jake?

I'm doing okay.

Thanks for having me on.

Just okay.

That sounds right.

That's a good answer.

I was told you asked to go on the podcast because you wanted a platform to formally endorse Donald Trump's campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Is that right?

Do you want to do that right now?

You know, know, I thought long and hard about it, but no, I definitely do not want to do that.

Okay.

Also, I feel like after yesterday's cabinet meeting where everybody went around and played the part of a Kim Jong-un documentary, we just run out of...

praise for Donald Trump.

It's all been done.

It's all been given.

So nothing more.

Any of your past bosses desperate for recognition at this level, kind of begging you to get them peace prizes or like put their picture on the side of buildings or anything?

Is that something you ever encounter?

Honestly, i've never seen anything like it and it's there is a a kind of ludicrous humorous quality to it but it's also a little bit scary because it yeah you know it reflects something deeper and dangerous about the president's autocratic tendencies and the fact that these people around him are just so slavish that I don't think they would stand up to him on anything at any point.

And without those kinds of guardrails,

I think it's bleak what we may be facing here in the coming days and months.

Yeah, I agree.

I mean, even that sliver of Trump supporters who don't want autocracy, I think if you got them drunk and were like, hey, do you think that this crew and the cabinet would stand up to him if he decided he wanted to stay in three years?

I don't even think they would say yes, you know?

And so that's a pretty bad place to be.

I mean, obviously, as National Security Advisor, you dealt with a lot of...

countries sliding towards autocracy that were already in autocracy.

Are there parallels you're seeing?

Are there things that alarm you in particular as you compare to what you saw around the world?

Absolutely.

I mean, you can just go institution by institution.

Trump's effort basically to coerce and silence the media, these efforts to get these big settlements and to push them off of too much criticism, his taking on law firms, his taking on universities, his taking on anybody who he perceives to be either speaking out or financing civil society to speak out.

This looks a lot like Erdogan.

It looks a lot in Turkey.

It looks a lot like Orban in Hungary, but with one big twist, which is in both of those cases, it took a long time

for them to play out their strategy.

We've been at this now for seven months.

And you just look at the breakneck speed with which Trump is moving to try to break down the various guardrails of our democracy.

It's extremely concerning.

And then layer on top of that, this redistricting effort to try to lock in the permanent majority in the house which i think democrats are trying to mobilize to fight back against that and next week it'll be something else and the week after something else this is a very concerted effort and many of the elements of it come straight out of the playbook that other elected officials wanted to become autocrats have used in other parts of the world through history.

Yeah.

So a lot to choose from here, a lot of things to be concerned about in the first seven months, as you mentioned.

I guess we're just wondering for you, you use the word dangerous.

What do you think has been the most dangerous policy move of this administration so far?

I guess what I think is this may not be the most dangerous, but it's the one that really set the red flag flying, waving hard.

And that was the move against the law firms.

Because

what that tells me is something deeply structural, which is that if you can basically scare, coerce, intimidate the legal profession as a concerted strategy, that's structural.

That goes to so many different elements of the system, so to speak, being able to stand up and push back against your autocratic tendencies.

But, you know, I actually haven't racked and stacked all of them to rank in an order because there's so many disturbing things.

And the accumulation of them, one after another after another, they end up having a compounding effect.

So each additional move is, in a way, not just incrementally worse, it's decisively worse because it's layered on top of so many moves he's already taken.

Yeah, a couple in particular I wanted to get your take on just because of your experience and like relationships.

I feel like the purges from the administration have been a little bit underplayed, particularly at DOD and the intelligence agencies at state.

You know, we've lost at FBI.

We've lost a lot of expertise over the course of the first seven months.

The director of the DIA out, Air Force Chief of Staff, you know, Tulsi, getting rid of the intelligence, the people that did the intelligence reports that simply said that Venezuela was not invading us.

I assume you know a lot of these people and worked with a lot of these people.

Just talk about what your concerns are there and if there's anything that's been particularly striking or alarming as far as people getting pushed out.

Well, first, what we're talking about here is a group of incredibly honorable, dedicated, capable public servants who have tried to devote their life to this country, who work for little pay and take a lot of grief because they're in the public eye and face a lot of stress, and they do it because they love America.

And Donald Trump trashing them in the way that he has, I think is just an absolute abomination.

And there should be more people speaking out against that in a very personal way about these people and what they are going through.

But then there's the broader implications of it.

And the thing that worries me the most is that a through line here is that anybody who basically tells the truth, who doesn't put spin on the ball, who simply provides the intelligence assessment or the defense assessment or the diplomatic assessment, calls it as they see it, they get shown the door.

That is Xi Jinping stuff, in my view.

That's the kind of thing that a dictator does when they don't want to hear bad news.

And what President Trump seems to have done is set up an entire apparatus where his

henchmen or henchwomen, for lack of a better term, are essentially executing this playbook for him.

And I think where it's going to leave us is less capable from the point of view of intelligence to assess and identify threats to the United States, less capable to be able to respond to them effectively, either through the Defense Department or the State Department.

And America's national security will suffer as a result.

And I think that these chickens are going to come home to roost in terms of the lived experience of the American people.

It's quite disturbing.

Are there any people that you know, like listeners might not know that you're like, God, I mean, that was somebody I worked with.

They've been in government for 30 years, weren't political, and now they're leaving.

The top people at the National Security Agency, the basically America's cyber warriors, the folks who are responsible at this vital moment with the advent of artificial intelligence and the acceleration of cyber threats, These are some of the most incredible, lifelong non-political public servants kicked out with nobody really seemingly coming in behind them.

And so I think we do have a massive gap in America's cyber capabilities right now at exactly the wrong moment.

The rationale for that was what?

They didn't say that the 2020 election was stolen?

Is that the rationale?

What was their stated rationale?

I don't even know.

I actually don't remember what the asserted rationale was, but

this is classic purge loyalty test.

It's just insufficient loyalty to dear leader, can't be trusted, got to go.

That seems to be the through line in all this, whatever the particular

stated rationale is.

You mentioned the China and the AI stuff initially I wanted to talk to you about.

I don't feel like he gets enough shit for being weak on China.

I mean, like, he's sort of,

I don't know, bipolar on it or something.

Like, in some ways, they want to like project, and there are people in the administration who are like deep China hawks and kind of want to want to project kind of a great power struggle with them.

On the other hand, you know, when you guys were in, you were blocking AI chips to DeepSeek.

They've now changed that based on what appears to be kind of a corrupt deal to me.

Trump was popping off yesterday about how there'd be 600,000 students from China.

And I'm kind of for Chinese students and colleges,

you know, a reasonable amount, but doubling that amount from what was here a couple of years ago, ago, I think is a strange policy choice for this administration.

Like, what do you think is happening with all that?

Well, first, just think about the trade war.

This phrase, taco, Trump always chickens out, I think it's a kind of a brilliant turn of phrase, but it's particularly apt when it comes to him launching a trade war against China and then turning around and backing down.

Remember, he slapped 145% tariffs on, basically said, I hold the cards.

China's going to have to fold.

And China made him fold.

So that gave China a sense that, hey, we actually can push this guy around around a bit.

And that's basically what we've seen since then.

Second, as you said, in the Biden administration, we blocked the highest end microchip semiconductors from going to Chinese entities that are tied to the PLA, the People's Liberation Army, basically so that our most advanced technologies can't be used against us and our allies.

President Trump basically called in the CEO of NVIDIA, talked to him for a while and decided, no, no, no, I'm just going to go ahead and ship these chips to China.

It's one of the few areas areas where you've actually seen a few Republicans come out and say, what the hell is going on here?

That makes no sense.

Why would we give China this capability that they can use for national security purposes against us?

What do you think is going on here?

I think this is just kind of classic.

Trump listens to the last person who's in the room and he let

somebody who had a financial interest in selling these chips to China convince him to do it.

And he doesn't see.

He also folded on the TikTok thing, though.

And there are a lot of Chinese investors in his crypto.

I don't know.

There's a lot there that is eyebrow raising.

Well, the TikTok thing, I do think, is kind of straight up.

He thinks that it helped him politically.

And I think he has friends who have a financial interest in it.

And he's just blatantly violating the law.

There is a law on the books that says TikTok has to be divested.

And President Trump is simply ignoring that law.

I think that one is very much about personal and political gain.

But, you know, it's interesting.

Not long ago, I was talking to somebody who had just been in China and seen senior Chinese officials.

And they were saying, you know, it's very interesting to watch President Trump because we've had a long-term strategy to basically try to weaken and divide America's alliances, to set America's allies and America against each other.

And President Trump is just doing it for us.

So all we have to do is sit back and watch.

If you're a leader in China right now, you're watching the United States basically become less appealing as a place for talent to come, cut down on its own research, development, and scientific innovation agenda, start trade wars with its allies, all things that are core to American

power.

Totally got ourselves out and then sell us these ships.

And to top it all off, telegraph on the rare earths issue.

Hey, we can't, we just can't deal with that.

We're going to have to.

China's got so much leverage over us that we've got to fold.

You put all that together, and I think it's not surprising that actually in Beijing, they're sitting pretty comfortably right now, feeling like they're in a good position.

And that was not the case a year ago, where I think China felt that the United States had aligned the rest of the world, was taking tough competitive actions, and their economy was struggling.

So that's been a big reversal based on decisions this president has made.

I think this is objectively true.

Don't you think, shouldn't Democrats talk about that a little more?

I know that one of your old colleagues, Ron Klein, was big on this during the Biden administration because I talked to him about that, about how Democrats should talk tough on China and be tough on China in various ways and point out the ways Trump has folded to Xi,

kind of undermines his...

bravado or whatever.

But it feels like there's a little bit of hesitation sometimes with Democrats.

They don't want to sound like they're the hawkish ones.

Yeah, I think there are two things going on here.

One of them is

just the sheer number of targets.

and every day there's something different in the news

and there tends to be a little bit of running to the soccer ball.

And this China issue is more of a long-term structural issue, less of something where you have like a Putin, you know,

Trump summit kind of thing or whatever the case may be.

But then the second is what you just said, which is I think Democrats are a little bit hesitant.

to sound like uber hawks on China.

And I get that to a certain extent.

We do not want a new Cold War here.

What we want is just to compete vigorously, effectively,

in concert with our allies so that we are shaping the world and China is not shaping it to our disadvantage.

So I think there's a huge space here.

And I hope that there will be more voices who step up and speak out on this without taking it, obviously, too far, because I think the indictment here of Trump is extremely powerful.

And you need look no further than the Chinese leadership itself who's sitting there going like, hey, this is awesome.

This is working out quite well for us right now.

I assume you get calls from, I don't know, I assume you had grappa or whatever with people at NATO summits or at some point.

You think it's grappling.

I don't know.

What are you doing?

What are you drinking?

You get some fancy wines with the Norwegians or whatever.

I assume you got buddies around the world from all your travels now.

What do our allies, people that...

are still involved in foreign policy and national security in Europe and elsewhere.

What do you hear from them right now?

You know, I'll tell you something that's pretty depressing, actually.

You know, over the last four years, we spent a huge amount of time aligning with our European allies and our Asian allies on a collective strategy to de-risk from China, reduce our exposure on supply chains,

reduce China's ability to dump products that kill our jobs and our workers, that kind of thing.

When I go to these places now or I talk to leaders there, what they're talking about is de-risking from the United States.

They now see the U.S.

as the big disruptor, the country that can't be counted on.

And you see this show up in opinion polling now, public opinion polling globally.

China has moved ahead of the United States in popularity in a whole lot of countries.

And that was not the case one year ago, where countries now are basically, you know, saying the U.S.

brand is in the toilet.

And China is looking like actually in a bizarre way, a more responsible player.

So that's one of the big things that I hear from my friends who continue to work in these governments in Europe, in Asia.

Take a look at India as another example.

I mean, here's a country that on a bipartisan basis, we were working to try to build a deeper and more sustainable relationship with.

And the China challenge loomed large in that.

Now you've got President Trump executing a massive trade offensive against them.

And the Indians are saying, well, shit, I guess maybe we have to go show up in Beijing and sit sit with the Chinese because we've got to hedge against America you've got Scott Besant out there threatening the Indians instead of the Russians that's the dick that they're using in the Russia negotiation it's like well we're going to make sure India doesn't buy your oil anymore it's crazy

exactly

hey y'all I warned you I warned you our Toronto show has sold out The Canadians love Sam Stein so much that, you know, there are lines around the block to get tickets to it.

But the good news is we still have tickets left for our live shows in Washington, D.C.

and in New York coming up in early October.

So go get those tickets now at thebulwark.com/slash events.

I'm missing LSU for South Carolina for you guys.

I'm going to be in New York for that.

And so assuming that's an afternoon game, I might have a couple bourbons in me by the time we get on stage on Saturday night.

So that one could be a rowdy one.

So if you're looking for an excuse to go to the Big Apple, go see a show Friday night.

Come see us Saturday night.

Could be a fun little weekend.

Go get tickets.

Like I said, thebork.com/slash events.

Thebork.com/slash events.

See y'all soon.

To the Russia-Ukraine negotiation.

Negotiation.

I don't know if you want to call it that summit.

Do we call it that?

I don't know what we call it.

I want to get your biggest picture thoughts, but I'm obsessed with the red carpet and the soldiers rolling out the red carpet and being on their knees in front of the Russian plane.

How do these things get planned out?

Like, I've never been in a room for this.

Like, it doesn't feel like that was an accident, really.

Like there, there was a discussion, I would imagine, between the Secretary of Defense, I guess, maybe whoever's in your job.

And it's like, what are we going to do?

Will Trump meet him at the tarmac?

You have to call in the red carpet people, I guess.

You've got to figure out where they are.

Yeah.

Like, how did that happen?

So the way this goes down is there is a team at the White House called the Visits Team.

And they work closely with the protocol office at the State Department.

And

that's folks whose full-time job is just to think about the staging of these kinds of events.

And that goes for everything from, you know, when a foreign leader comes to the Oval Office, what's that going to look like?

Who's going to be in there?

How does the press come in?

You know, how does the president greet the leader?

All of that to these big summits.

Now, what made this one unusual is it took place on a military base.

that that very rarely happens.

Usually you'd find some venue.

The last time President Biden met President Xi on American soil, it was at this old gold baron's house in Woodside, California.

Sunnylands and Palm Springs or Sunny Lands, right?

These places have these great looks.

It's really rare to do it on a military base.

So you would never have soldiers around doing the red carpet thing.

Like we don't, we don't have a detachment of Marines who just are at the ready to go roll out red carpets.

This was unique to this.

And what I basically think happened is they didn't think it through.

They didn't think, oh, the normal way we do this where we have State Department protocol people put down a carpet.

So last minute they were like, who's around?

Okay, get out there.

You got to go do it.

And I think they didn't recognize the just absolutely terrible optics of it and that image.

And but the choice there, they had to think through the fact that Trump would sit there waiting for him.

And that's the other thing, like they didn't have to do that.

That's unusual, too.

You rarely see that from an American president.

Trump clapping.

I I mean, Zelensky, when Zelensky came to America, he was not...

I mean, Trump waited for him at the White House.

You know, he did greet him once he got to the White House.

We walked off the plane.

He didn't have a cheering section for him.

Yeah.

One thing Trump does seem to do, though, is he does stand at that front door of the White House, right, when people roll up.

I think he somehow sees this as a bit of a power move.

Like he's standing there.

Maybe it's like a hotel guy, hospitality industry.

General manager.

Yeah.

Yeah.

General manager of the Trump Hotel kind of thing.

Maybe that is what it is.

Welcoming VIPs.

You know, if a famous person was coming to the to Mar-a-Lago, he'd want to be there.

Yes, welcome, welcome.

Let me show you the facilities.

Yeah, exactly.

Spas down this way.

No, I think that may be right.

Now,

that does seem distinctive and unique to him, this kind of he goes out and stands there to do the greeting.

But the overall vibe of...

the literal rolling out of the red carpet, the soldiers on their knees, the president clasping Vladimir Putin.

I mean,

this guy who is a blatant and brutal aggressor, a thug, a tyrant.

You know, I think it sent kind of shockwaves through our allies, sent shockwaves through the Ukrainians, and frankly sent a message to Putin.

Hey, actually, I'm in the cat bird's seat here.

And that's basically how Putin played it from that moment forward.

I think he walked out of Alaska feeling pretty damn good about himself because he thought basically he'd walk Trump off what Trump had gone in to do, which is to try to get a ceasefire or impose consequences.

And Putin left, no ceasefire, no consequences.

You know, I'd call that a pretty big win for him out of Alaska.

They don't even have, like, what are

they barely even threatening any consequences.

There's no concessions.

I guess they've threatened some economic consequences, but they're not even asking Putin for any concessions, as far as I can tell.

You guys weren't really, were not negotiating with them, I guess.

Is that fair to say?

I mean, it's fair to say that we didn't host any big summits between Biden and Putin,

but we had channels to the Russians at senior levels where we could talk to them privately to explore, you know, is there any possibility that we could all sit down together to do negotiations?

Now, in our view, that would have had to include Ukraine.

We weren't going to negotiate over the head of Ukraine.

But those conversations with the Russians always finished the same way, which is they were not seriously prepared to negotiate, which meant that we had had to continue to support Ukraine and to try to increase the pressure on Russia.

And one area that towards the end of the Biden administration, we turned up the dial was oil sanctions.

In the first couple years of the war, it was tough to impose sanctions on Russian oil because the global supply was so tight that if we had done that, it would have spiked the price of gas like crazy.

for Americans.

And also, it would have meant that even if Putin was selling a lot fewer barrels, he'd be selling them at a massively high high price.

So in a way, you wouldn't be taking that much revenue from him.

That changed late in President Biden's administration.

And so we began imposing sanctions on oil.

That is the big lever that Trump has, because right now the global supply environment is pretty good.

And if Trump wanted to, he could really squeeze Putin on oil.

And that is the main revenue source for Russia's war machine.

That's what he should do.

And that's what he apparently is not prepared to do.

But I think that would be the logical next step to actually get the Russians in a position where they would be prepared to make some concessions.

Were you involved in those conversations?

Like have you talked to Lavrov?

I assume you've talked to him several times.

What's it like?

What are you looking for in those conversations?

How do you read through the Russian style, if you will, which is, you know, their manner of speaking is, I think, a little less direct than we're used to.

What are those conversations like?

Yeah, I've dealt with Lavrov over the years going back actually to the first Obama term because Lavrov's been around for a very long time.

The reset button?

Is that your fault?

The reset button is not on me, although I was working for Secretary Clinton at the time.

That was someone else's innovation, although I was there when

that happened.

That may have been the first time, actually, that she met Lavrov.

I think it was in Switzerland in 09.

Quaint in retrospect.

Was not maybe the best, but in retrospect, it seems like a rather quaint little controversy.

Quaint.

Compared to where we're at now.

Yeah, exactly.

That's a good word for it.

So as national security advisor, I wasn't dealing with Lavrov, though.

He was Tony Blinken's counterpart.

I was dealing with senior folks at the Kremlin privately by telephone.

Not, again, to be clear, I wasn't sitting there negotiating with them because that's something we would have to do with Ukraine.

But I was, we could communicate on things like escalation management or threats that Russia was making, you know, in Europe or beyond.

And I could also ask, hey, how are you guys seeing the war?

And hear from them whether there was any opening to try to launch a serious negotiation.

But basically, all of that was conducted by secure telephone call.

And we did not read out those calls because we kept that channel private during our time in office.

On the escalation management side of things, I think my people, the, you know, whatever you want to call us, the neocons, the former Republicans, the main critique of you guys.

Are you a neocon?

Am I?

They're my people.

I don't know that I am really, per se.

I certainly am probably a more hawkish neoliberal globalist.

How about that?

You know, I think to be a neocon, you kind of have to be of a certain age.

Now it's kind of, now it's just sort of a shorthand for hawks that believe in democracy, promotion, and expansion abroad.

And so maybe I qualify under that definition.

But, you know, I guess we have a podcast here, Shield of the Republic, Eric Edelman and Elliott Cohen, and those guys, like their main critique of you would have been limiting Ukraine in the beginning, not providing attackums and other long-range offensive weapons earlier, shackling them in various ways, being overly concerned about Russian escalation towards nuclear when it was kind of an empty threat.

What would your response be to that?

Well, I'd start by just saying that they've already pocketed the baseline, which is just a massive amount of military aid, intelligence support, deep integration into helping every aspect of Ukraine's effort to defend itself against Russian aggression.

And I think you can't just pocket that.

That was an enormous effort.

That was not a foregone conclusion by any stretch.

We went and got tens of billions of dollars from the Congress.

We spent every dollar Congress appropriated.

And we went way beyond just providing weapons.

I mean, we built an entire ecosystem to support Ukraine in this war.

So it really comes down to just a couple of weapon systems.

One of them was F-16s, where the argument was we should have given them earlier.

Well, President Biden authorized the provision of F-16s in May of 2023.

It's now August of 2025, and Ukraine only has a small number of F-16s.

Why?

Because they just don't have the pilots to build a whole new Air Force around a whole new platform.

So I think that that is not a serious, like the idea that if we had given F-16s a few months earlier would have dramatically changed the world.

Are you ready to see how big of a hawk I am right now, Jake?

Should we have just been providing air support for Ukraine?

You mean having U.S.

pilots shooting down Russian planes?

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah.

So that would have been the United States directly at war with Russia.

You know, I think from President Biden's perspective, having the United States directly enter the war where we are blowing up and killing Russians and they're killing us.

And then you have two nuclear powers on an escalation ladder.

He felt our job was to support Ukraine by providing them the material, but not ourselves enter the war.

I think that that was the correct judgment.

And frankly, I also think if we were going to enter the war directly, you'd want to go to Congress to get authorization to do that because then you'd be basically fighting Russia.

And seriously, do you think the United States Congress was going to approve?

the deployment of American forces to directly fight Ukraine.

I think it's unlikely.

A lot of times people say, well, why don't you just have a no-fly zone, you know, just have the U.S.

But the problem with that is when you play it out, it is.

You're saying a no-fly zone is essentially indistinguishable from actually directly involving the U.S.

in the war.

Yeah, I mean, it's enforcing a no-fly zone means

U.S.

on Russian direct combat and killing.

And then you're off to the.

Come here as a maybe on that, but tell me as a strong maybe.

But okay, what about let's go through the rest of it?

Let's go through the rest of the weapons.

So then the second was the Abrams.

And by the way, on the F-16s, you know, I was an advocate for providing the F-16s

and

think it was right to do.

And, you know, we have given some, and they are not useless.

They just have not been a game-changing weapon.

The Abrams tanks was a big focus in the early months of the war.

Our military guys basically said the Abrams is not right for this.

battlefield.

It's got a special kind of engine trying to maintain it.

It's unwieldy, et cetera.

We gave them a bunch of Abrams and and they never really asked for a lot more.

What they wanted were Bradleys, which we were giving them, you know, from very early on, because Bradleys are a highly effective tool in the war.

Now, the war has evolved basically to be more of a drone war than a tank or infantry fighting vehicle war, but I don't see how the Abrams would have made any kind of difference.

And then there's the ATACOMs.

And it's true in the early months, the concern about long-range missiles was, you know, what is the likelihood that this is going to lead us into a potential direct conflict with Russia.

But that

got set aside reasonably early on.

And the real issue became, do we have ATACMs?

Do we have enough of these things to make a real difference?

And the military was basically saying we need to keep the ATACOMs we have for our own war plans.

We can't give them to Ukraine.

And so that was a case that was coming from the Pentagon.

And eventually, we figured out a way to get more ATACOMs so that we could provide them to Ukraine, which we did.

And Ukraine was using them for many months.

And I think they're a useful weapon.

But the idea that they're a silver bullet that would have fundamentally changed the overall trajectory or outcome of the war, I don't think that that has been demonstrated.

And

we see now

that the single biggest and most important dimension of this war has been the evolution of the drone program.

And we were in there on the ground floor helping build that behind the scenes when no one was calling for it.

No one was out writing op-eds like they were about ATACOMs.

That's what we were building out to put Ukraine in a position where they could hold off this

massive military machine of the Russians and impose huge costs.

Costs both in Ukraine and in Russia, by the way.

So my view on this is

You can look at any given decision and say, well, you know, should we have calculated that differently here or there?

I think in the end,

what the United States did in mobilizing a massive coalition of countries and a massive military effort to support Ukraine made the difference between Russia overrunning Kyiv and not overrunning Kyiv.

And now we have to continue to double down on that support so that Ukraine ends up with a just peace.

Yeah.

What about your conversations with Zelensky and his team?

I'm just curious if you have any kind of color on that people might be interested in, what it was like dealing with them, and kind of related like how you think he got into that just horrific like situation in the Oval Office and the way and how he was treated by Trump advance.

Yeah.

I mean, so Zelensky is younger than I am.

I mean, he's a young guy, former actor.

How old are you?

I'm 48.

Okay, you're looking good.

All right.

Former actor, younger than you.

Got him.

So think about it.

Like, this is a guy who, you know, was not elected as Winston Churchill to run a war.

He was elected, you know, to try and help bring Ukraine and Ukrainian democracy into the future.

And then all of a sudden, here he's facing the...

Kind of like a Jesse Ventura type figure when he was elected in Minnesota.

Yeah, or Arnold, maybe like Arnold.

Arnold and Arnold Neiser?

Arnold, yeah, okay.

I'm actually from Minnesota, so I remember very well when Jesse DeBotti was elected.

I'd say Zelensky, a little more Arnold than Jesse.

More than Arnold.

Okay.

Good at it.

I think Jesse was on RT, actually, for a while.

So maybe an offensive comparison.

I think Jesse ended up being a Russian stooge.

So we'll call him it.

Arnold is definitely not a Russian stooge.

He's a freedom fighter.

So I think the

analogy is that.

So

there was a real question, I think,

in the days leading up to the invasion.

How is Lenski going to react?

You know, is he going to become the wartime leader?

And we didn't know, and the Europeans didn't know, especially because in the weeks and months leading up to the war, he was pretty dismissive of the idea that there would be a massive invasion.

But man, in the first 24 hours, he came into his own.

And you could almost see like a physical change in Zelensky from seeing him in 21 to seeing him after February of 22.

Just the way he walked, the way he sat, the way he spoke.

He really kind of ended up inhabiting the fighting spirit of the nation.

And like you could physically sense that when you were in the room with him.

And then, you know, for a guy who basically was living at the office, working 24 hours a day under the most enormous stress, he was funny and he was calm.

And he, you know, was able to converse like in a very natural, human way all the way through the Biden administration.

And he and Biden, you know, butted heads from time to time on things, but.

ended up having a very good relationship.

And, you know, they would get quite tactical about

the kinds of support that we were providing or a particular initiative that Zelensky wanted to pursue, right down to his proposals, his kind of negotiation proposals that he brought in the fall of 24.

So that was Zelensky.

The Oval Office thing, you know, it's interesting because the Europeans were kind of saying to Zelensky, you don't want to walk into that.

That's a trap.

It's a mistake.

So people saw it coming.

But I think even the people who saw it coming didn't expect it to be that ludicrous.

Expect Shady Vance demanding thank yous.

Yeah.

I think Zelensky thought by the time they got to that moment, he had kind of, you could kind of see it.

He had thought, okay,

this is okay.

It's going to work out okay.

It was right towards the end of the back and forth, right?

And so I think Zelensky thought he was kind of in the clear, and then the hammer just dropped.

And I think he was kind of floored and dumbfounded by it.

Rightly so, because it's flooring and dumbfounded.

Yeah, a little too nice to JD to call him a hammer.

I don't know, just condescending prick dropped on him.

Yeah, good point.

Good point.

This is Larry Flick, owner of the floor store.

Labor Day is the last sale of the summer, but this one is our biggest sale of the year.

Now through September 2nd, get up to 50% off store-wide on carpet, hardwood, laminate, waterproof flooring, and much more.

Plus two years' interest-free financing, and we pay your sales tax.

There's just one thing, it ends Tuesday.

Go to floorstores.com to find the nearest of our 10 showrooms from Santa Rosa to San Jose.

The floor store, your area flooring authority.

You want your master's degree.

You know you can earn it, but life gets busy.

The packed schedule, the late nights, and then there's the unexpected.

American Public University was built for all of it.

With monthly starts and no set login times, APU's 40-plus flexible online master's programs are designed to move at the speed of life.

Start your master's journey today at apu.apus.edu.

You want want it?

Come get it at APU.

All right.

Now we're getting to the fun part.

Let's see here.

This is what happens when you write for the Atlantic instead of the bulwark.

All right, Jake?

October 7th, 2023.

The Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades.

Jake Sullivan, do you think you jinxed us?

You know what?

I actually kind of worry about that.

I'm a superstitious person.

Yeah.

Knocking on wood, black cats, the whole thing.

So as an Irishman, never say.

make statements.

Do you think you're cursed?

Now, to be fair.

Do you think any reason to believe you would be cursed?

To be fair, I also said for now, and this could change at any time.

I don't think you expected like later that day to be the time.

Well, it wasn't that day.

No, no, no.

That was in late September.

I mean, it was close in time.

It was not on October 7th that I did that.

So I made this statement in a conversation and

basically pointed out that you didn't have the wars, the civil wars, all the other things that have been going on essentially through the 21st century.

But I noted very explicitly emphasis on for now because all of this could change.

And the two things in particular I pointed to as wild cards were Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So bad sentence, superstition, jinx.

Anyway, obviously, I wouldn't say it again.

It was eight days before.

You're right.

The Atlantic updated it on October 7th is a nice little

favor to you.

So that was the date that's on it now.

So when it comes to the Israel-Palestine war, I think that honestly,

this might be damning you with a faint compliment.

I think

the bulwark, like are we are about as supportive as the Biden posture towards Israel in the early months as anybody, right?

I think that you had even more hawkish pro-Israel crowd that wanted you to do more.

Obviously, the folks who are concerned about the Palestinian humanitarian issues We're going after you for the left from basically the days after October 7th.

As you kind of see how things landed now with the benefit of hindsight, like what would you say would be your top regret about how it played out?

I mean,

my top regret is just

the

immense human tragedy.

that is

October 7th and everything that followed.

The death, the destruction,

and it just going on and on.

And that's like, that is hard to sit with.

And,

you know, I

lay awake at night thinking,

could we have done something differently?

Could we have gotten this stopped sooner?

Could we have gotten it stopped in a way where it didn't restart?

Because, of course, remember that when we handed things off to the Trump administration, there was a ceasefire in place, massive surge of humanitarian assistance, and a timetable for negotiations to fully end the war.

But, you know, could we have gotten it done so that we were handing things off differently?

Yeah, I wrestle with that.

And what else?

What if all the time?

But is there like a specific thing that you think you should have done with the benefit of hindsight?

I mean,

the case that people make is you should have cut off weapons to Israel sooner, you know, at some point,

you know,

before

the ceasefire and hostage deal was in place

at the end of the Biden administration.

And, you know, just without trying to mount a case for the defense, I would just say the thing that we were grappling with throughout all of 2024,

which is not the case today, is that Israel was under attack from multiple fronts.

It was under attack from Hezbollah, from the Houthis, from Syria, from Iraq.

obviously from Hamas and from Iran itself.

And so the idea of saying to Israel,

we're not going to give you

a whole set of military tools in that context was challenging.

That was a very real consideration that we had to grapple with.

But

I'm talking to a lot of people about this who worked on the file, both in the U.S.

and in other countries.

I am reflecting on it.

I'm turning it over in my head.

I don't know kind of what my ultimate answer is to what specific thing and when should we have done it differently, but it's, it's something I'll keep grappling with because at the end of the day, like

just it's a god-awful tragedy and

it continues.

Now, I think what is happening today

is different from what was happening in the early period.

And my view is that people who,

you know,

thought this was wrong from the start didn't stare squarely at October 7th.

And people who think it's just and righteous today are not staring squarely at what is happening in Gaza right now,

you know, with the killing and the starving of innocent people.

So, you know, I wrote an op-ed for an Israeli paper speaking directly to the Israeli public saying this war has to end.

It has to end.

It should be over.

Yeah.

I agree with that, Susan, on both points about the initial reaction and where we are today.

I guess so, just to kind of go back a little bit more on that question of, you know, because you've stopped giving Israel weapons.

Like, wasn't there space between like what you did and cutting them off as far as leveraging and leveraging weapon sales, pressuring BB more in public?

And I kind of feel like you guys ended up in the sour spot where you were going to pressure BB privately, you know, based on reporting that we see.

And the kind of pro-Israel side felt like, well, that was...

too much actually.

And I heard from a lot of back to my Neocon friends, you know, who are pissed at you guys for for like, for doing that and should have, you know, let Bibi do whatever to respond to October 7th.

But on the flip side, because there wasn't public pressure and because Bibi was kind of able to do whatever he wanted, like with some maybe you want to dispute that, but directionally he was able to do whatever he wanted.

You know, I think people on the left, rightfully, were like, well, you guys are fully complicit in this.

Like you guys are fully, you know, involved.

Like, was there not a way to be more public about your critiques and pressure him more from a public standpoint rather than going along with where he was taking you?

Look, I'm open to that argument that over the course of 2024, there was increasing public criticism and statements about what Israel was doing, both with respect to humanitarian assistance and civilian casualties.

But I'm open to the argument that we could have adjusted our public posture in some way.

I'm not sure if your argument is that if we had done so, it would have dramatically changed

the conduct of the war.

I find that somewhat unlikely, a change in public posture,

but maybe.

So I will give that some thought.

But I would like to point out one thing that I think is really important, which is, you said BB could pretty much do whatever he wanted.

We're seeing BB do pretty much whatever he wanted now with respect to a three-month full blockade of all food going into Gaza and then this totally screwed up Gaza Humanitarian Foundation setup.

That was not the case last year.

We didn't get in as much aid as I would have liked, but we pressured Israel in ways that opened crossings and moved trucks to the point where I believe that we did prevent the famine that was warmed up last year.

And the famine we have now is a direct result of a different U.S.

policy that has let Israel basically get away with not allowing aid to go into the strip.

So, I mean, obviously it's worse now, but I mean, there was still children dying

from the weapons, but also of starvation and like the efforts to get food in.

I mean, like the Gaza Pier like just didn't work.

It was a total disaster.

Right.

And so, I mean, I agree that it's worse now, but I mean, it wasn't, and you can't say you're satisfied with how it was before.

No.

And in fact, I started by saying I wasn't satisfied.

And I would agree with that.

I mean, okay.

Well, they're not satisfied, but that has to be.

You have to reflect back on that and say, well,

clearly we could have done done more to get to get food aid in.

And if the plan was the Gaza Pier, that didn't work.

The only point that I'm trying to make, because I agree with all of that, that we, you know, you look in hindsight and say, not enough.

You know, what could we have done to get more?

I will fully acknowledge that.

My point, Tim, is that you said, you know, you guys.

Bibi could do whatever he wanted.

You guys had no influence on him, no impact on him.

And if you just look, go month by month on how much aid was going into Gaza from an asserted israeli position at the beginning of none we're not going to allow food in to what we did over the course of last year i'm not trying to sit here and beat my chest about it by any stretch but what i am saying is that we worked a hard

and we did impose uh forms of pressure on israel to get more food in and i do think it had an impact again not satisfied not enough but i think that that has to be part of a full telling of this story.

You're talking about the forward-looking element of this and what you wrote in the Israeli paper.

You still talk to Democratic politicians.

They asked for you for your advice on foreign policy.

And what do you think about the Democratic Party evolution on this?

I mean, you're seeing many more Democratic electeds now, you know, saying that we shouldn't provide weapons to Israel at all.

Some of the Obama administration foreign policy folks have talked about completely reorienting

our relationship with Israel from how it has been in the past over this.

What do you think about how democratic politicians looking ahead should talk about this and what the right kind of policy should be?

Well, I think a couple of things.

First, I think the case for

withholding weapons from Israel today is much stronger than it was one year ago.

One, they don't face the same regional threats.

Two, there was a ceasefire and hostage deal in place and the ability to have negotiations, and it was Israel who just walked away from it without negotiating seriously.

Three, there is a famine, a full-blown famine in Gaza.

And four, there are no more serious military objectives to achieve.

It's just bombing rubble into rubble.

So I understand why you have an increasing number of Democratic members stepping up and saying, my position on this has changed because the situation, the facts have changed.

Do you agree with that?

Has your position changed?

Well, I have, in fact, told a number of members who were thinking about the votes on these resolutions that the situation as it stands today, following the breakdown of the ceasefire in March, means that a vote to withhold weapons from Israel is a totally credible position.

That is a position that I would support.

So...

But for me, the bigger question you're asking is about the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

And

here, I think

it comes down to what is the future of Israel?

Are we going to be dealing with a prime minister and a right-wing government for years on end, or is there going to be political change in Israel?

Because I think that would have an impact on what the nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship, what is the democratic character of Israel two, three, four, five years from now will have a huge impact on what the nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship will be.

If nothing changes in their government, if it continues to be a far-right government that continues this sort of policies, then it won't be the Israel as we've known it.

And I think a lot of Israelis would say, you know, they wouldn't recognize Israel then.

And obviously, that should have an impact on the relationship.

This is Larry Flick, owner of the Floor Store.

Labor Day is the last sale of the summer, but this one is our biggest sale of the year.

Now through September 2nd, get up to 50% off store-wide on carpet, hardwood, laminate, waterproof flooring, and much more.

Plus two years interest-free financing, and we pay your sales tax.

There's just one thing.

It ends Tuesday.

Go to floorstores.com to find the nearest of our 10 showrooms from Santa Rosa to San Jose.

The floor store, your area flooring authority.

When disaster takes control of your life, ServePro helps you take it back.

ServePro shows up faster to any size disaster to make things right, starting with a single call, that's all.

Because the number one name in cleanup and restoration has the scale and the expertise to get you back up to speed quicker than you ever thought possible.

So whenever never thought this would happen actually happens, SurfPro's got you.

Call 1-800-SERVPRO or visit SurfPro.com today to help make it like it never even happened.

One more thing on this.

I should ask, because I do feel like when we focused on looking back for good reason, there was focus on the humanitarian issue.

Like, what about the hostages?

Again, I understand you guys are working in a very, in a situation that, you know, there's a lot, there's a lot happening.

There's a lot developing in real time.

it's easy to look back retrospectively do you think there was a way to focus on getting the hostages out earlier like do you think it's possible that bb kind of didn't even really want that goal you know because there was some political advantage you do hear you do hear that i mean just thinking specifically about the israeli hostages is there anything you look back on on that and think hmm you know i feel like maybe the that there was a way to to do this differently.

Well, the fact that we didn't get all the hostages out means, you you know,

we didn't succeed.

And, you know, can I point to a particular tactic that would have produced an outcome that got all the hostages out?

I don't know because the challenge I see or that we dealt with all year last year was, yeah, Bibi was not particularly interested in prioritizing the hostages, but Hamas also was not really coming to the table to do a hostage deal in a serious way, at least until after Hezbollah struck the ceasefire.

And that was in November.

And that's when serious negotiations really got going.

Because before then, Hamas kind of thought, well, the cavalry will come, Iran, Hezbollah, others.

Why should we do a big hostage deal?

Why should we stop the war?

So on that one, I think we were in a tough spot because of challenges on both sides, both the BB side and the Hamas side.

Yeah, the Hamas side almost goes without saying.

Sometimes it's important to say it, though.

Sometimes people forget to say it.

It's important to say it.

The Hamas side was not interested in providing the hostages either, of course.

All right.

The fun stuff continues.

You said on a panel recently that Joe Biden's debate performance was a shock to you.

Come on, man.

Really?

What?

It was a shock?

Like you didn't, like there was no,

you weren't worried about it?

I was fucking panicked.

I was going into the debate.

I, my palms were sweating.

I wasn't even working for him.

I was like, can this old man make it through this next two hours?

And I don't know.

Anybody, any watcher of him was concerned about this.

And we would have focus groups where people would tell us that they just want to hold him to make sure he can stand up straight.

Like you were really, you were really surprised?

Well, Tim, I did not expect what we saw at the debate.

If I had or if, well,

I was on the national security side, not the political side, but you think people expected that out of the debate?

I mean, I didn't expect it to be that bad, but I wasn't sure.

I don't think people were, I don't think people that were observing it were like shocked.

They were like, oh, yeah, this is the sum of all fears.

Like, I was worried that this might happen.

We've seen signs of this.

You had never seen anything that made you feel like that type of performance might happen.

I will tell you.

I will tell you more than me.

Yeah, and

I've said this repeatedly because it's the truth, which is the Joe Biden I dealt with every day in the Oval Office in the situation room was someone who was well and faithfully executing the duties of his office.

He was making decisions.

He was involved in crisis

management.

He was involved in strategy.

And I did not expect, by any stretch of the imagination, a performance like that at the debate.

Why do you think it's happening?

Hunter was doing a podcast recently.

Hunter

hasn't accepted our invite.

Hunter is doing a podcast recently where he blamed it on the foreign trip that you were on with him.

That was like a week and a half before.

It's like,

how did it happen then?

If it was totally a surprise, I don't understand.

Like it was just a one-off block.

Well, I would just put it this way.

I mean, on that, just take that foreign trip as an example.

He did a press conference with Zelensky.

You know, go back and watch it.

That was the Joe Biden I was dealing with.

And on the, you know, the stops before that, he did a sit-down interview with ABC on the D-Day anniversary.

So he was out in public, engaging, meeting with foreign leaders, doing interviews, doing press conferences.

And then he turns in this performance at the debate, which was,

you know, by his own admission, just terrible.

Terrible.

Everyone could see it.

And I think that that had, that people were not expecting to see something like that, which is why it had the dramatic impact that it had.

It was not something that was like, oh, yeah, yeah, we kind of expected that.

That was not my experience.

Yeah, I'm not saying I expected it.

I'm just saying that like there were signs.

And he was shaky in other press conferences and interviews.

Like he didn't do that much.

And he was out.

He was working as president.

I was being publicly speaking compared to other presidents.

Like

he wasn't out there in a lot of those, you know, public kind of venues quite as much.

It defies logic.

I don't believe you that like you, that you were totally surprised, that there was not, that you weren't worried about it, that there weren't concerns.

Well, I guess all I can say is that from my point of view, I expected Joe Biden to go and turn in

at least an okay performance in the debate.

That's what I expected.

And he very much did not do that.

Now, does that mean that I didn't like see him

have

moments in his public communications that weren't great?

I'm not saying that.

What I'm saying is that I did not expect the kind of thing to happen at the debate that happened.

And that's what I said to Politico.

That's...

what I believe.

And the Joe Biden I dealt with as president was somebody who I thought did a good job as president and handed off a good hand to the incoming president.

And I guess the other point that I would just make is that there's a division between two issues that I think have gotten conflated.

One is, should Joe Biden have run for re-election?

And here, he ultimately didn't run for re-election.

So that pretty much kind of

answers that.

The answer is obviously not.

He shouldn't have run, right?

You can say that now.

Like, obviously obviously not.

Well, obviously he dropped out.

So it's axiomatic.

But I mean, you don't think that he could have been president in 2027.

I mean, this leads to the second issue.

So there's the, should he have run for president?

And then there is the,

did I have concerns about him doing the job as president?

Yeah.

And the answer to that question is, I did not have concerns.

I watched him doing the job as president.

Halloween, 2028.

But he's running for a four-year term.

We had a terrorist attack in, you know, in August of 2028.

Do you think that he was going to be at the top of his game?

But Tim, I'm trying to divide between should he have run for re-election and did I have concerns watching him do the job as president?

While is in the job, right.

But when you're running for re-election, he's going to have the job still for four more years.

You would have had to have had concerns.

Did you see signs that would have made you felt like maybe I have concerns about this guy in three years from now?

I think that what is being cast out there right now, what is being proposed, is that somehow he wasn't capable of doing the job as president in 2024.

And that is what I am pushing back on.

Jonna.

Looking to buy your first car or home?

Understanding your FICO score is key to achieving your life goals.

Knowing your FICO scores helps you apply for loans with confidence and avoid surprises.

With MyFICO, you get access to your FICO score, credit reports, 24-7 monitoring, and alerts on the go.

Take the mystery out of your score and get your FICO score for free today.

Visit myfico.com/slash slash free.

That's myfico.com slash free and discover the score lenders use most.

This is Bethany Frankl from Just Be with Bethany Frankl.

Here's my summer tip.

Don't overthink your dogs' meals.

My pups love just fresh from just food for dogs, complete, balanced, fresh, shelf-staple meals that go everywhere from New York City to weekends in the Hamptons.

I mean, you can have real food ready to go for your pup anywhere.

No cooler, no hassle, just grab and go.

I've seen the difference.

Healthier coats, more energy, tails wagging at mealtime.

Biggie and smalls love it, and I'm all about stuff that just makes sense when life is busy.

Go to justfoodfordogs.com and get 50% off your first order right now.

No code needed.

The Havana syndrome thing is interesting for me.

I thought it was a conspiracy theory, and then it seems like maybe it wasn't.

When Michael Weinz was on, he was telling me that there was some report about how Havana syndrome, it seems like they were assessed.

This was a real thing.

It was a real attack on some of our folks.

And you guys didn't want to put it out or had cross views on that.

What was your thoughts on the Havana syndrome story?

We put a huge amount of effort and energy into not just trying to get to the bottom of it.

Was there a foreign nexus?

Was this being conducted by a foreign intelligence service?

But also, how do you support the people?

who had very real health effects.

And I'm very proud of actually the work we did.

And we had a coordinator at the White House who was working that.

Now, ultimately, it was the intelligence community with no political interference whatsoever from the White House that reached certain conclusions about their, from their perspective, not being a foreign nexus.

Right to the end of my time, I was continually calling folks in to say, let's keep looking at this.

We should not close the book on this.

So I'm not sure.

So what do you think the real story is?

I don't know.

I mean, honestly, I think it's a completely confounding issue.

I think people suffered in a real way, and those people deserve our support, and we gave it to them, I think, in an extremely creditable way, with support from the Congress, by the way, who provided resources for that.

But what the source of all this was, I really don't know.

What I believe is that we shouldn't shut the book on it.

We should keep looking at it.

All right.

When I have Democratic foreign policy people on, we end with the pop quiz.

Tommy Vitor has done pretty poorly on this.

I want to say Ben Rhodes did better when he was on recently.

And the pop quiz is based on the fact that when George W.

Bush was running for president, he got received a pop quiz from a local reporter that he did not do very well on about foreign leaders.

And this was great fodder for Democrats in the ensuing years.

And so we get to turn the tables on you.

The first question Bush was asked was to name the head of the Chechen Republic.

Can you name the head of the Chechen Republic?

Kadyrov.

One for one.

Better than Bush.

If Ben Stiller made a Zoolander reboot today and was told to kill the prime minister of Malaysia, who would he be targeting?

Anwar Ibrahim.

I feel like when people talk about the threats of Russia going into other countries, there's a lot of countries that come up.

One that does never come up is Lithuania.

And given how many great Lithuanian athletes there were, if Putin was really going to try to bring back the Soviet Union, I feel like Lithuania would be a target.

Who would the president of Lithuania be?

I have to pass on that one.

All right, we'll give you one more.

How about Estonia?

I think a more common target is Estonia.

Our friends in Estonia, our great allies.

So this is where I'm at, because I'm out of government.

It was Kayakalas who is the prime minister, but she's now the

chief European diplomat.

And

the new prime minister is somebody who came in after I left.

She's great, Kayakalas, by the way.

The new prime minister is...

Christian Michael.

Michal, Michael?

I don't know.

One of the others.

We're to give you a half point on that.

Two and a half out of four.

You and Ben Rhodes get a tie, I think.

You beat Tommy Vitor.

So congratulations on that, Jake Solvin.

Do you have anything else I didn't ask you about?

Anything you're hot to trod on?

Any

broadsides against Pete Hegseth or Tulsi Gabbard or anything you want to get off your chest?

I think

we've covered a lot.

I look forward to doing it again at some point.

All right, Jake, man.

I appreciate you coming on the show.

And the next time we're going to pretend like the Biden 2024 campaign didn't happen, so we're not going to talk about anything that happened in 2024.

The next time you're on, and I hope you'll come back soon.

All right.

Sounds good.

Thanks a lot.

All right.

We'll see you, brother.

Spoke my truth, paid my debt.

Can't you see?

I'm a wreck.

Let me lose.

I digress.

This is me.

And I'm blessed.

This is me.

And I'm blessed.

This is me.

And I'm blessed.

This is me.

And I'm blessed.

Anybody find through the stress?

Anybody find through the

top reasons advanced manufacturing pros want to move to Ohio.

So many advancement opportunities for technicians, machinists, managers, operators, and more.

How about a powered-up paycheck and an amped-up career?

Plus, the energy of big-time sports.

And after work, plenty of ways to unplug

the career you want and a life you'll love have it all in the heart of it all build your future at callohiohome.com

Kevin and Rachel and peanut M ⁇ Ms and an eight-hour road trip and Rachel's new favorite audiobook the cerulean empress scoundrels inferno and Florian the reckless yet charming scoundrel from said audiobook and his pecs glistened in the moonlight and Kevin feeling weird because of all the talk about pecs.

And Rachel handing him peanut M ⁇ Ms to keep him quiet.

Kevin, I can't hear.

Yellow, we're keeping it PG-13.

M ⁇ Ms, it's more fun together.

At Bright Horizons, infants discover first steps, toddlers discover independence, and preschoolers discover bold ideas.

Our dedicated teachers and discovery-driven curriculum nurture curiosity, inspire creativity, and build lasting confidence so your child is ready to take on the world.

Come visit one of our Bright Horizons centers in the Bay Area and see for yourself how we turn wonder into wisdom.

Schedule your visit today at brighthorizons.com.