Susan Glasser: Giving Away the Store to Putin

Hey y'all, we've got a couple new things I want to point you to. First up, today, Tuesday, I am starting a new pod called FYPod that is focused on Gen Z issues.
I'm doing it with my buddy Cameron Kasky. He was the kid that started March for Our Lives after the Parkland shooting.
We are going to bring on a wide array of Gen Z influencers and activists and, you know, people, anxious kids with takes to talk particularly about what's happening with young men, but what's happening politically with Gen Z. The reason I'm doing this, because I don't know if you noticed, I got a lot of my plate.
I'm promising you that this is the last one. I'm not doing any other, not adding any other pods this year.
But for 2025, I thought, you know, one area where I could potentially add some value both to my own growth, but also to the discourse, quote unquote, was by talking to and about these young men, and also listening to them. Because, you know, we saw this happening, right? It's not as if we're totally blindsided by the move towards Trump among younger men.
But I think the degree to which it happened was, I think, pretty shocking to everybody. And as a millennial who has a seven-year-old, I don't have a ton of Gen Zs in my life.
I don't have a ton of Zoomers in my life. I thought it'd be valuable for me over the course of this year to both go into other platforms that are more populated by 20-somethings than this one.
We appreciate people of all you just listening to this podcast. But also by hosting some 20-somethings on the platform that we've created here.
So I'm pumped that Cameron's going to do it with me. He's so funny.
And he has a huge network from his time and March for Our Lives. So we're going to bring in a bunch of different people.
It won't just be young guys, also be some young women. But we'll be focused particularly on the challenges facing young men.
I think it'll be a fun pod. Please go subscribe to it.
There's a link in the show notes. Again, it's called FY pod, for you pod.
It's a play on the for you page on, on TikTok and on other social media accounts where, where you're getting fed news by the algorithm. We're going to feed people some news via our mental algorithm.
And we taped the first episode with a guy named Dylan Geick. He's famous.
If you're like 23, apparently I'd never heard of him, but he's so charming. It was a fun episode.
Check it out. If you have Zoomers in your life that you think might like it, send it to them.
If you're a parent of a Zoomer and you think it might give you some insight into what's happening with your kids, you should listen to it or anybody else in between. So I hope you enjoy For You Pod.
One other thing, as I've mentioned several times, we are popping on YouTube over the course of the day with breaking news, shorter takes, you know, something's happening that is outside of the podcast cycle, either me or Sam Stein, or sometimes Sarah and JBL, Will Salatin, others are jumping on YouTube for shorter, you know, video reactions to what's happening in the news. We've heard from people that some of you who are just like podcast only who don't use YouTube don't want to miss what we're doing over there.
So we've been posting those videos on Substack for people that are Bulwark Plus subscribers, but also now we've created a podcast feed that just aggregates those takes as they come in. It's called Bulwark Takes.
I'll put that link in the show notes as well.

So load up your podcast feed, sign up for FY pod, sign up for Bulwark takes, give us five stars,

give us a little review. It helps us with the algorithm.
It helps more people discover us.

Really appreciate that. I'm excited to start these projects and appreciate you all

for being along the ride with us. Up next, Susan Glasser.
Hello and welcome to the Bullard Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller.
I'm delighted to be back today with staff writer at The New Yorker, Susan Glasser. She's got her weekly column on life in Washington.
She's also the co-author, most recently, of The Divider, A History of Donald Trump in the White House, which she co-wrote with her husband, Peter Baker. And I got to hang out with her son, Theo, in Palm Springs a couple weekends ago.
That was just such a delight. He's so great.
Oh, man, you know how to get right at a mom's heart here, right? By the way, the best title of all, I must say, is parent for sure. Yeah.
I mean, he was just such a delight to be around. Good hang, you know, annoyingly smart, you know.
I'm looking for flaws. I didn't find any in Palm Springs.
I'm sure some would emerge with a longer time. You know, we can't all be perfect.
Tim, you know, you do do uh you know i don't actually i do real talk i tell people you can tell when i'm fake plattering i promise well you know i mean way way to lead off uh with the mom okay we've got to talk uh i think mostly today about the ongoing negotiations if you want to call them negotiations surrender uh between the united states and russia that's happening in Saudi Arabia. As we speak, we have some developments this morning, it's possible some new stuff will, will come up here in the hours between now and when it publishes.
But just before we get into what's happening today, just for folks background, like you spent four years as Washington Post bureau chief in Moscow, your most recent article was about your most recent recent column rather, was about how Trump has basically been giving away the store to Putin over the first, then it was 24 days. It's been about another week since then.
So just kind of talk about your perspective, having been in Moscow, and then kind of the biggest picture of what you're seeing here, and then we'll kind of get into the details. Yeah, I mean, look, it's two decades and more since Putin came to power in Russia.
And of course, the biggest transformation is not only the return to dictatorship inside Russia, but the idea that the United States would come full circle and elect a president like Donald Trump, who rather than view Putin as an adversary, is now seeking to welcoming him back into, you know, sort of the family of nations after the largest unprovoked land war in Europe since the end of World War II. We are talking, you know, a mass casualty event with extraordinary implications for American security as well as European security, not to mention the message that Putin's invasion has sent to Xi Jinping and to others who would seek to revise by force the international boundaries.
I mean, it's just the act of lawlessness, murder, mayhem that is being sort of condoned by Donald Trump is pretty extraordinary. And I think that, you know, it's another of those clarifying moments in which Donald Trump specializes, right, Tim? He loves to almost make a mockery of his apologists and enablers.
And, you know, frankly, for months, I was hearing even before the election from the sort of more conventional Republican types here in Washington, every kind of BS and gaslighting and, you know, oh, don't worry, Donald Trump is going to piece through strength. He's not going to sell out Ukraine.
He's going to, you know, he's actually going to give more weapons to Ukraine. He's actually going to shore up Ukraine.
He's going to show Putin how tough we are. You know, OK, fine.
Donald Trump laughing at those people. But I think you see why that kind of gaslighting is successful.
Europeans were shocked and terrified to realize that all their sort of fantasy hopes of maybe it won't be so bad after Trump gets reelected, dashed almost in an instant in the last few weeks. So we don't know yet what's going to happen in these talks specifically.
But I think we understand now in a big picture sense, where Trump is headed with this. I do wonder sometimes whether those types of Republicans were like gaslighting themselves or us or both.
You know, I was in a debate, if you'll call it that with Dan Dan Crenshaw before the election. And this was the message that he was saying on that, you know, that I was delusional that if you just actually look at the record from the first term, maybe you didn't like Trump's tweets, but he actually was very strong on, you know, countering Russia and much stronger than Biden even.
And he was making the pitch as if Trump was going to get in there and, you know, send some nice tweets to Putin, but that the policy would all be, you know, something out of whatever the Reagan administration. And that was just so obviously delusional at the time.
I guess it doesn't really matter whether they're deluding themselves or not, but it is, that is a true observation, right? Like, like you're around, you know, you're doing the circuit around Washington. Many people thought that it was possible that that was what was going to happen rather than that he was going to do exactly what he told us he was going to do.
Correct. And I actually think it does matter.
I mean, you know, but to your point, I remember a debate I had over dinner at a very senior European ambassador's home with a Republican who just this morning I saw, you know, tweeting as the first critical tweet I've ever seen this Republican who's very pro Trump make about Trump. And it was specifically in regards to Putin, you know, something like, gee, you know, you wouldn't want to invite Hannibal Lecter to dinner.
and you know this is a guy who was literally in a knock down drag out argument with me to the point

that that it was clearly rude at this ambassador's home going on and on about, you know, we were just fantasizing, we were just absolutely, you know, victims of Trump derangement syndrome. And, you know, Donald Trump was actually going to be great for Ukraine and great for European security.
And, you know, there was no issue, nothing to worry about for NATO. And, you know, the people at the dinner were like, what is this man talking about? But I think that lying to people over and over again, whether you really believe the lies or not, that's something I feel like you have to answer for your own character.
But, you know, the net effect is that, you know, the lies have consequences. And when you see the comments and you see the visible shock and dismay that were written all over the faces of Europe's leaders over the weekend at the Munich Security Conference, as they understood that they had both been lied to and also clearly lied to themselves about what was happening.
And, you know, that has consequences. It certainly means, at a minimum, Tim, that they were not prepared adequately for a scenario that they should have been very, very prepared for.
Just tell me a little bit more about that. I mean, obviously, I guess you were having conversations with those folks from Europe.
I mean, how are they kind of processing all of this? Is it going to be total submission to whatever Trump and Putin decide? Is there European resistance to this emerging? I mean, obviously, there's going to be long term ramifications about Europe no longer feeling like they can trust us or to be part of, you know, their security blanket. But what about the short term? Well, what's remarkable is that you saw some comments suggesting that even from the first Trump term on, Europeans understood that the United States was not necessarily an unwavering partner that they could always count on, that we were having these sort of four-year wild oscillations in our policy that would affect them at a minimum because of our inconstancy and that we might make a pledge now that we wouldn't be able to redeem for six years on.
But to take it from an unreliable ally to some of the comments saying the U.S. is now the adversary, that the U.S.
is now undermining in an active sense European security. That's something new.
You saw, however, the continued, frankly, fecklessness of the response on the part of the Europeans. They have, in fact, relied upon American security guarantees, on American military leadership, on until recently American diplomatic leadership.
NATO has been established by the U.S. and led by the U.S.
since its inception in the aftermath of World War II. And it's hard to see what a NATO without the U.S.
in the lead or possibly what a NATO without the U.S. at all would actually mean.
And they called an emergency summit. President Macron did in France on Monday in the aftermath of Trump's phone call with Putin last week and the comments by J.D.
Vance at the Munich Security Conference. I can't say that that summit came out with a resounding sense of how Europe is going to proceed going forward.
And remember, there are multiple interlocking issues here. It's not just, well, gee, is Trump going to pull the plug on US assistance for Ukraine? Is Trump going to make a bad deal or a separate piece with Putin on Ukraine? But also, he may actively and almost certainly will actively undermine NATO.
He might withdraw from it outright. as you know, he's pledged to do that before, even if he doesn't.
What if he pulls out US troops from their forward positions, defending the line essentially between NATO and Russia? You know, that's a very real possibility. It is.
So let's talk about this. Obviously, this is a developing story.
And so I'm just going to read a couple of the reports about kind of what the contours of the deal, so to speak, are. I kind of hate even calling it that.
Fox this morning says the plan includes a ceasefire and then forcing elections in Ukraine before signing a final agreement. The notion there, I think, is that Putin thinks that an election would yield a leader that is more amenable to him than Zelensky.
You wrote about some of this in the New Yorker Telegraph, wrote about this, which is the Trump demand that part of the deal includes $500 billion in payback from Ukraine, including the critical minerals, rare earth minerals, but also other stuff. And that maybe that would include some kind of security guarantee.
And then what you just mentioned there is the FT was reporting European officials think Trump, this part of the deal could move troops out of the Baltics, which is something that obviously the Europeans would be concerned about. So that stuff's kind of developing, but just wondering your thoughts on kind of all those contours of what they're discussing.
Yeah, well, let's talk about that, you know, $500 billion extortion demand on Ukraine that the United States essentially should be the owner of half of Ukraine's rare earth minerals. First of all, let's put on the table that the United States has given nothing like $500 billion to Ukraine.
So the idea that it's payback is ridiculous. That's actually a straight out extortion, blackmail demand.
The U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars in military assistance and security aid to Ukraine since the full-scale invasion, a lot of which has gone to U.S.
military suppliers who are then essentially the customers and sending weapons to Ukraine. Europe, by the way, despite Donald Trump's lies about it, is now in the position of having collectively provided more money to Ukraine since the full-scale invasion three years ago this month.
So let's be clear, like under $100 billion in US military assistance, you can't exactly then demand half of the country's patrimony and rare earth minerals to the tune of $500 billion and say, oh, that's payback. It's very much in keeping with Trump's view of the United States, which he expressed even in his first term in office, right? There's nothing new with Donald Trump here.
He often expressed that this idea of the U.S. as essentially a mercenary force, by the way, that offended many of his more conventional Republican advisors in his first term more than that.
In fact, actually, it was his references over and over again to U.S. soldiers as basically mercenaries that so offended Rex Tillerson, his ill-fated first secretary of state, that it prompted the Rex Tillerson fucking moron outburst at the Pentagon in the summer of 2017.
So in my role as, you know, Trump historian here, I need to point that out because it's a kind of a shocking view of American power as as that we're essentially the mob heavies here.

And, you know, Trump historian here, I need to point that out, because it's a kind of a shocking view of American power as as that we're essentially the mob heavies here and, you know, give us money with a gun pointed at your back, or we won't do anything for you. It's a radically different view of American security.
So there's, there's that we can talk about. But also to your point, I just think the undermining of NATO has already occurred, even short of formally pulling out.
You know, our whole premise of NATO is essentially collective mutual defense, right? All for one, one for all. We're attacked on 9-11.
That's the only time NATO has ever invoked this principle of collective defense. Donald Trump, do you believe right now that Donald Trump would go to war to protect Estonia? Are you kidding me? How could anybody believe that? I mean, this is a part of the whole bluff, I think.
I guess it's related, but just continue on that point. But also, even if they did agree to a security guarantee, I mean, like, who would believe that the Trump Vance administration would do anything to protect whatever part of Ukraine falls under that security guarantee or the Baltics, right? Well, the Baltics are covered by NATO.
They are members of NATO. We are legally obliged to defend NATO.
And by the way, I know we're going to talk about Greenland later. Okay, just think about this, wrap your mind around this insane situation that is an only in the Trump era situation.
Denmark, of course, you know, is the power over Greenland right now. It is a NATO member and ally of the United States in good standing.
If we militarily took over Greenland, we'd also be obliged to defend Greenland from our own takeover. You don't go to war with your allies, people.
And again, it's really a remarkable thing. Trump, in that sense, has already made NATO's Article 5, the whole foundation of the treaty, a dead letter.
Because you laughed out loud when I asked, would we estonia but that in fact is legally what we're obliged to do would anybody think that we would at this point and i find it just very hard to like what would even be the case for the the argument that like trump would make to people you know i mean like he is rhetorically even if he wanted to the united states is legally obliged to do so that's For sure. But I just mean to his own voters.
Like, I mean, like his whole rationale has been that this is a waste. We're getting screwed by these people.
We should focus on ourselves first. Like the idea that Trump would send troops into Estonia, I think is farcical.
Hopefully we don't have to cross that bridge. Well, to be clear, by the way, we already have a US military presence in- But I meant like combat troops.
Exactly. And it's a reminder that Putin has won in every possible respect already by the fact of Donald Trump's re-election.
So now we're just learning the details. And it's not an accident that the Russian state media, Russian newspapers calling this Putin's success already.
Getting Trump back to the table with Russia in and of itself is a victory for Putin after being isolated and marginalized. Trump has already spoken out loud and said that he would like to welcome Russia back into the G7 and turn it back into the G8, something that the other leading countries rejected out loud, laughed out loud when he proposed this in his first term in office.
Now he's proposing this even after Putin has launched this war. Again, the guy has been consistent in his preference for Putin, in his preference for America's adversary and his attacks on America's allies.
We're the chumps who somehow haven't really fully understood that Trump actually means to sell out the United States to Russia. Yeah.
You mentioned the Russian newspapers. It was the one that you shared was a dumbfounded Europe need by America just below the belt is still struggling to get its breath back.
It was a Russian, a columnist in the Russian paper. I mentioned it briefly at the beginning, but the election thing is interesting that Russia

and all of kind of the leaks about what Russia wants out of this deal, like they do want

elections.

And I wonder if maybe that is partially, I don't know, maybe it's me not understanding,

maybe it's Putin not understanding what the reality on the ground in Ukraine, but it does

feel like they think that they might be able to win this war without actually firing more

shots, that they might have an election and that the election might be won by some

Thank you. they think that they might be able to win this war without actually firing more shots, that they might have an election and that the election might be won by some Russian puppet type and they can just, you know, do this takeover quasi electorally.
Yeah, I mean, I think that was the original hope, frankly, of Putin. And he has a long history of manipulating Ukrainian elections and dominating the country through, you know, sort of political methods, disinformation methods.
Remember that the invasion itself, for us Americans, we tend to date it back three years to February of 2022. But for Ukrainians, they date the beginning of this war to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and the launching of the actual shooting war in the country's east.
That followed on the revolution in the Maidan that began in December of 2013 and was all about, you know, when Russia's essentially handpicked guy as the president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych was forced or chose to flee the country. And Russia has subsequently called that an illegal coup.
But you know, the guy was a corrupt dictator who fired on his own people, and had negotiated a power sharing arrangement, and then overnight, fled the country. And so Russia has dominated Ukraine before in this way that you're suggesting it might want to do again.
Obviously, that's a lot less costly of Russian lives. If through manipulation and, you know, dirty dealings, you can dominate a country in that kind of more soft power way, then absolutely, I think Russia's always seen that as a possible outcome, that they wanted to gobble up as much territory as they could militarily, but then seek to continue to dominate essentially a weakened Ukraine politically as part of the aftermath.
So yes, absolutely. They would seek to put a proxy leader in and replace Zelensky in any way that they could.
One more thing on the negotiations in Saudi Arabia. So Zelensky was not included, of course.
Rubio this morning said, nobody's being sidelined here. The only thing President Trump's trying to do is bring about peace.
It's what he campaigned on. It's something the world should be thanking President Trump for.
It's like North Korean commentary

there from the Secretary of State. Then the other news item right as we were starting to tape is

Zelensky was originally going to go to Saudi Arabia tomorrow. It was unclear what his plans

were and whether that was going to be related to the negotiations at all. But he's postponed that

trip, suggesting now he wants to avoid being linked at all to these talks. So I mean, I don't know who they're trying to fool there with the no one is being sidelined, but clearly the kind of lip service that Trump and Rubio have been giving to, including Zelensky in this, seems to be dissipating.
You know, I was struck by that comment too, Tim. You know, you can't sideline somebody that you haven't even let them to show up to the game.
You can't sideline somebody if they're not even allowed in the stadium. You know, look, this is, it's really remarkable.
At this point, Zelensky's hope is that he can, you know, rally Europe to his side, that he can help, you know, work with them to come up with the United Front and essentially to negotiate among the allies. You know, it's also interesting and notable that the Russians came out of these preliminary talks saying, well, we're not sure when Putin and Trump are going to meet.
Once again, it seems that Trump is the one who is always the eager suitor with Vladimir Putin, always begging to meet with him. And it's notable that Putin isn't rushing to the table here.
This seems to be on Trump's timeline and that he, as always, is the eager suitor with Vladimir Putin. I think that's very notable.
Depressing there that you just, I don't know if you did it intentionally, but you were referencing the allies there as ukraine and europe not including us that's kind of a just depressing realization bill crystal is kind of writing about this this morning in the morning newsletter about how strange a feeling it is to be like basically rooting for the u.s's diplomatic efforts to fail so anyway such is life ever wonder how much of your personal data is out there on the internet for anyone to see? More than you think. Your name, contact info, social security number, and home address, even information about your family members, all being compiled by data brokers and sold online.
That's why I personally recommend DeleteMe. DeleteMe is a subscription service that removes your personal info from hundreds of data brokers.
You can sign up and provide Delete.me with exactly what information you want deleted, and their experts take it from there. Delete.me sends you regular personalized privacy reports showing what info they found and where they found it and what they removed.
Delete.me isn't just a one-time service. It's always working for you, constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you don't want on the Internet.
To put it simply, Delete Me does all the hard work of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broker websites. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me, now at a special discount for our listeners.
Today, get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeliteme.com slash bulwark and use promo code bulwark at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to joindeliteme.com slash bulwark and enter code bulwark at checkout.
That's joindeliteme.com slash bulwark, code bulwark. The other kind of gift to Russia lately and China has been the gutting of USAID.
And that's all happened since we last spoke. The news yesterday, the latest horror on this, was that we've now, I guess, ended aid for victims of Agent Orange in Vietnam.
And I think, obviously, that will be a massive propaganda win for the Chinese in addition to just being totally wrong. And that's such a minor part of the budget.
Donald Trump is driving around at the Daytona 500. I mean, like the cost of the Daytona 500 and the Super Bowl trips for Trump like would cover the Agent Orange victims for like another decade.
But I'm wondering, you know, kind of what your thoughts are just broadly on the impact of the USAID gutter. Yeah, I mean, first of all, I think you're really right to underscore that this isn't about cost cutting.
And if you wanted to do what Elon Musk's stated purpose was of reviewing the government and looking for areas for efficiency and savings, the last agency that you would focus on is USAID considering what a minuscule part of the American federal budget it was. We're talking under 1%.
So you could eliminate every single program, and it would make literally zero impact on the overall US government spending. So it's not about spending.
Let's stipulate to that. Even ideologically, it seems very much at odds with what many Republicans, including the feckless Marco Rubio, were advocating for.
They always wanted to spend more money on this kind of programs that were smartly extending American power in the world at a time when so much of our presence is militarized. You know, it's the leaders in the Pentagon who will tell you for decades that this was a much more effective

method of promoting American power. And many of these programs, of course, were canceled so abruptly.
It's Elon Musk literally sort of taking the knife to many of the poorest people in the world, themselves victims of previous efforts to protect American power, like you mentioned, the American, the Agent Orange. And, you know, I just, I think it tells you very much about Trump's approach to the world, which is my way and everybody else be damned.
And I think it's notable that many of the victims of this are the world's poorest and most vulnerable. I think that's similar in the approach to how they're carrying out the immigration thing.
There was a piece today, which I definitely recommend to your listeners in the Times, seeking to, you know, talk to some of the victims of sort of the mass dragnet of deportations that are happening, apparently without regard to who's caught up in it. And they're now housing some of these people in hotels in Panama.
They're shipping them to Panama, including this image that I'm going to have a hard time getting out of my mind, Tim, of a woman desperately trying to open the window and escape from this locked room in Panama where she had been taken. She sees reporters down below on the street.
So she writes on a sign, Afghan, holds it up, and then pantomimes what appears to be an airplane and then her being killed. The point being that if she was sent back to Afghanistan, she would be killed.
Remember, we fought in Afghanistan for two decades. We broke our promises to these people.
When they were evacuated, we said those who had helped the United States could come to our country to escape the Taliban. We're the ones who've broken our promises.
And I just, that image of that woman is really going to stick with me. I haven't read that article yet.
We'll put it in the show notes for people. That is horrific.
Another just horror story on this front, and just talking about kind of how stupid this is and how inefficient it is and wrong. And it's not just the people that were helping through USAID.
It's people that work for USAID. There was a horror story.
Kyle Chaney over at Politico was reporting about this. A USAID employee's pregnant wife was hemorrhaging.
She's, I think, 31 weeks pregnant. And the doctor, whatever country they were in, it's redacted, said that they should be medevaced out to a place where there's better medical care.
And there was a directive from Washington to not fund any of these emergency healthcare issues taking place under USAID. The senator for this person, also name redacted, tried to intervene, but it was too late.
And it was like too dangerous now to move the woman. It's just an unbelievable like story.
Like there's no point to this and it's just capricious, you know? Well, that's right. There's no point.

It's capricious. And I, you know, I'll tell you, I mean, again, that's, that is a horror story that really resonates for me when I was a correspondent in Moscow more than two decades ago.
You mentioned it already, Tim, you know, the Washington Post paid for medical evacuation insurance for us. And by the way, I needed to use that.
And in January of 2004, I was evacuated from Russia to London, because I was hemorrhaging with what turned out to be a potentially fatal ectopic pregnancy. And, you know, I mean, look, we're, we're at war on on women now now in this country, along with all the many other shocking things that are occurring.
And I can tell you, if it was men who faced the possibility of, you know, bleeding out and dying from ectopic pregnancies, then we wouldn't be talking about it like it was some optional, like, you know, abortion procedure, which it's not. You know, that's the world that we're living in right now so i appreciate you bringing it up even though it's one example i think it you know it's it speaks to a larger phenomenon that's that's happening in our society due to you know the the toxic politics that we have have you ever wanted to learn more about wine, but can't figure out where to start?

Or when you do start, it just feels like too much. Our next partner, Naked Wines, has changed the game for learning about wine without having to take a whole class about it.
This podcast is sponsored by Naked Wines. Naked Wines is a service that directly connects you to the world's finest independent winemakers, so you can get award-winning wine delivered straight to your door.
Use our code,BULWARK for the code and password at nakedwines.com and get their incredible deal of six bottles for just $39.99. You know, look, I went through a little phase.
I moved out to the Bay Area, right? And everybody's such a wine snob. So I tried to learn about wines and I have a few faves.
I'm into the nabbies now. into natural wines but I don't know if you feel this way it's just kind of a burden sometimes having to choose like there are so many choices you know you're thinking about pairings and all this and with naked wine you can just put in your favorites or you can put in some things that you like and they can determine some favorites for you and they'll send you you a bunch of bottles and that makes your life easy.
You get to learn. You get to learn about some new varietals, some new grapes.
I had some the other day. I was cooking a little pasta for the kiddo, paired it with a red wine.
It was wonderful. So, you know, Naked Wines makes it easy.
You can learn about wine, get it delivered right to your door. How do they do it? Naked Wine connects winemakers and wine drinkers directly, allowing for vineyard to your door delivery at up to 60% off what you'd pay in store.
By cutting out the traditional retail middlemen, winemakers can pass those savings on to you without skimping on quality. Now is the time to join the Naked Wines community.
Head to nakedwines.com slash the bulwark. Click enter voucher and put in my code the bulwark for both the code and password for six bottles of wine for just $39.99 with shipping included.
That's $100 off your first six bottles at nakedwines.com slash the bulwark and use the code and password at the bulwark for six bottles of wine for $39.99. I have a couple more topics.
They're not going to get any breezier. We should move to the questions here at home, and I guess it's related to the USAID employees.
But you shared an article from Larry Diamond over at Hoover about how the crisis of democracy is already here. Obviously, you're reporting from Washington, and there is, you know, huge churn and uncertainty among, you know, people that work for the federal government.
A lot of these kind of legal questions are up in the air about how protected each of these employees are. Just kind of wondering what you're hearing on this front and your thoughts on these extrajudicial attacks on the federal bureaucracy.

Yeah, I mean, I really, again, that is a piece that I highly recommend. Larry Diamond is, you know, one of the foremost scholars of democracy around the world, scholar at Stanford University.
And in this piece, he makes a distinction that I think is really important, because Trump has operated on such a broad front. You know, you can conflate different things, but not all aspects of this crisis are equal.
And, you know, while there are, let's put aside for a second, the many extreme far right policies that he and his team are seeking to implement, many of which might be implemented by another Republican president. So, you know, even if you or I disagree with any aspect of it,

you know, there are the policy disputes that are extreme, but fall within the spectrum of American political discourse. But then there's the frontal attack on the structures of American democracy.
And, you know, his point, which again, I feel like it should be said again and again and again. what's dangerous is not that Donald Trump and Elon Musk don't like foreign aid to take the conversation we're just having about USAID.
That's a policy fight in this country. The thing that makes it radical and scary is the unilateral assertion of authority.
Congress has appropriated the money, has authorized the creation of this foreign aid agency, has appropriated the billions of dollars to carry out this strategy. If they don't like it, then they have to play by the rules of our system and negotiate with Congress and have a political fight that yields a different result.
Take control Congress also. Just do it.
It's amazing because they don't have the votes to do what they're doing by executive fiat. And the great fear right now that Larry points out and others do as well is that we're hurtling toward a situation where with so many of these actions being challenged in court that Trump might become really the first president of the post-American Civil War era, literally.
You know, there's this line in that piece that says, no one has found any examples since 1865 of a president refusing to carry out a judicial decree. And that's the fear right now that is animating many of the legal experts and that is animating many of those who study democracy, because that could be the way in which he breaks the back of this thing.

It's like a sort of Damocles that's hanging over us, right?

Like we just don't know exactly how he's going to handle all that.

I think that there's a lot of people that are kind of discussing this that I see in the democracy space that are acting as if there's going to be this one big showdown, right?

That the Supreme Court says no. And that, you know, as J.D.
Vance says that he does the apocryphal Andrew Jackson quote, and it's like, John Roberts, send your army after me. And it's like, that isn't probably how it's going to go, right? Like it's going to be slow.
And they'll like pick a few examples where maybe a district court judge gets way out over their skis and they just don't really follow it and they don't you know and they're like wait as it goes through the courts but they still you know prevent people from coming to the office or whatever the firing is prevent people from access to certain you know government you know to their emails or to you their government business is. And then, you know, who knows, like maybe back down, right? Like there's a lot of ways this can go where they can sort of slowly undermine the judicial process and try to break everything, you know, before you get to kind of a big stand down.
And I think that is something that kind of concerns me that I'm not sure that people have really wrapped their head around. I agree that that's consistent with Trump's approach always, which is the blizzard of legal approaches.
And then they'll just make an argument, even if it's completely spurious, because frankly, that's what January 6 was. It was insane.
It was, you know, there was no lawyer who thought that you could turn January 6 from a ceremonial ministerial, essentially rubber stamping of the electoral certificates the states had already approved, that you could turn that into an event with consequences. And yet they find one lawyer to make a kind of crazy argument.
That was John Eastman. So that's the approach that I have thought they would take to undermining this entity of some of these judicial rulings.
They'll just say, yeah, exactly. Well, when the judge said we weren't allowed to spend the money, he didn't mean this money, blah, blah, blah.
And then it'll spawn its own series of lawsuits. And again, we only have one four-year term.
Look at how successfully Trump tied up all of the lawsuits and criminal cases against him, even when he was out of office. So I would see it as more of a sort of a rolling ball of legal uncertainty that has the effect of undermining any of the checks and balances and accountability that the court rulings are supposed to impose upon a rogue executive.
So I think that scenario that you float is one that I've been bracing for as well. One other specific example in the news, CBS News confirmed that Michelle King, the top Social Security Administration official, was acting commissioner, was replaced in her role.
King then chose to resign. According to the White House, this is part of the fight over Elon Musk and Doge getting access to people's social security data.
Musk was tweeting insanely, as always, about all of the fraudulent social security actions, why he needs this data, because there's a lot of old people, people that are over 100 years old that are still getting social security. Experts who've actually looked at this, because people have looked at this before, have said that there is some example of Social Security numbers being abused, but it's usually the opposite of what Musk is saying.
It's illegal immigrants that are using dead people's Social Security numbers and then paying payroll tax, right? They're using the security number to get a job. So they're actually paying into social security.
So it's probably on net gaining us money rather than costing us money. But that's neither here nor there.
I want to play for you the press secretary, Carolyn, and her comments last night on Hannity about this. I've been fighting fake news reporters all day long here in the Washington, D.C.
swamp, who are trying to fearmonger the American people into believing that this administration is going after their hard-earned tax dollars and their hard-earned Social Security checks. So I want to set the record straight on your show tonight, Sean, and I'm very grateful for the opportunity to do so.
President Trump has directed Elon Musk and the Doge team to identify fraud at the Social Security Administration. They haven't dug into the books yet, but they suspect that there are tens of millions of deceased people who are receiving fraudulent Social Security payments.
First, I was at Real Life. That just feels like it's from a movie.
Tens of millions of people. Deceased people.
Deceased people.

Deceased people.

There are only 70 million people on Social Security. I think that one in three of them are actually deceased

and it's part of a fraud.

I mean, the whole thing is just, it's farcical.

But anyway, I'm wondering your thoughts on that

and the Elon kind of activities more broadly.

If you haven't. We're in the laugh or cry stage of the podcast here, Tim.
Yes, we are. We are in the laugh or cry.
I mean, you know, it would be laughable if it weren't so serious to have vested so much power in people who could say absurd things like this. You know, it's Hannity is state media.
And, you know, this this press secretary, that's a frankly, an Orwellian misnomer for someone whose job seems to be to undermine and dismantle the free press. And, you know, until she brings the Associated Press back into the press pool, I don't want to talk about Caroline Leavitt.
I want to talk about how she's dismantling freedom of speech and the First Amendment in this country, period. What do you think about this question about whether other media outlets should be standing in solidarity? I think that's so tough because in the Obama administration, you'll remember there was this kerfuffle over Fox.
They didn't want to include him, I think, in a pool or something. I can't remember the exact specifics.
And the mainstream outlets, ABC, CBS, et cetera, said, we're going to boycott if Fox isn't included. Everyone should have access.
The problem with that is that doesn't really work this time. My guess is if ABC, NBC, CBS said that they were going to boycott over AP, Carolyn Leavitt would be like, peace out.
So I don't exactly know what they're supposed to do. Do you have any thoughts about that? I think they should go to court, number one.
And I think they should all sign on to the lawsuit. And I imagine they will go to court, but I also imagine that they won't all sign on to the lawsuit.
And, you know, I get it. I get it because it seems pretty clear that the goal is to have an actual, what I'm calling a Kremlin press pool, as opposed to a real press pool by the end of the year, if not much, much sooner in the Trump White House.
I think that, you know, is a part of their agenda that I definitely anticipate, offering Americans the facsimile and the appearance of Trump being surrounded by reporters when, in fact, they're not, you know, truly independent reporters, but handpicked for their loyalty to the regime. Certainly, it would be very consistent with the playbook of authoritarianism that he's following in every other respect.
So to me, this looks like an early testing, you know, probing fight. And by the way, when somebody who's seeking to undermine democracy and our constitutional principles goes after such a straightforward one, where is the uproar? You know, I can't say tactically speaking, what's the right course, but I can tell you that for me personally, this is a line that is crossed, that is serious.
And I would say to all your listeners, like, it's no joke when the president of the United States is trying to, you know, put his emperor hat on and tell the Associated Press the backbone of independent, neutral news in this country that goes out to all of the, you know, papers in all of middle America, when he attacks the backbone of our free press and says, I am so all powerful that if you don't adopt my language and call the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of America, then I will ban you. That is literally what our first amendment was designed for.
And yes, if you allow it to pass without complaining, then you are part of the problem. And I hope that the bulwark will stand up for the Associated Press.
And I hope that all of the people listening will too, because yes, it matters. Absolutely.
Totally agree. I'm glad that it wasn't on my list.
So this is why I needed your passion on this one. Because there is this parade force.
I said this at the beginning of the year. I was like, one thing that I want to do on the podcast is, is just focus on things that I feel genuinely passionate about, and that I want people to know about and have guests on to do the same, right? Because like, there is so much how like, we could just, I guess, run a 24 hour running podcast to just live live posts, the parade of horribles.
Maybe we could do that. But you know, like, it it's hard right to sort of determine what is important and i think that your perspective having been there in the press corps like is important on this about because i could understand why people might look at this and be like okay well whatever i mean nbc's still in there so that's fine but it is like it is a very dangerous place that we're going if you're starting to ban people over not using the, you know, the correct truth speak, the patriot speak that they're demanding.
Yeah, no, that's right, Tim. And look, you know, the goal here is to overwhelm us with outrages such that we're kind of soporific and unable to respond effectively to any one of them.
But, you know, I hated the post-election, you know, kind of democratic chest beating and media chest beating over, woe is us. Like, you know, we can't have resistance this time because it wasn't effective.
Like, I will tell you, I saw this happen in Russia. I've seen it happen in other countries that have lost their democracies as fragile and imperfect as they were.
You know, you have to object when lines are crossed, because you have at a minimum the ability to slow it down, to obstruct, to gain allies. And, you know, Donald Trump and Elon Musk, they're not going to stop, because you give them just this one little thing.
They're going to keep going and take something else. You are playing a game against the clock here.
And absolutely, it's not our job to predict the future or what's effective or what's not. We're not partisans.
The Democratic Party, they screwed things up. They're going to have to have their own reckoning.
But as we're civil society, that's what it means. And, you know, we have to be able to call it out in a clear, grounded, and, you know, unequivocal way.
Amen. All right.
Last thing in the laugh or cry portion, as you alluded to earlier, you're maybe partially at fault for the purchase of Greenland. I don't know.
But the idea of buying Greenland initially came to Trump from Ron Lauder, that was first reported. So I guess it's Ron Lauder, but that was first reported in your book that we mentioned earlier, The Divider.
And so you're doing this Donald Trump historian stuff where all these crazy examples, like the thing you mentioned with Tillerson earlier, it's sort of hard to know what then blossoms and becomes something bigger in the future. That's why it's important to document all this stuff.
So I'm curious if you had any other color from those early conversations with our cosmetic oligarch that has decided that he wants to purchase another country because he's pals with Trump. You know, Tim, this one is, I'm glad you brought it up because when Peter and I were reporting the divider after Trump left office the first term, we weren't really focused on, well, we should do some reporting about the whole Greenland incident.

Like, you know, like many people, it was treated as a laugh line when he brought it up first in August of 2019 and it became public.

And it was really kind of treated like a laugh line, you know, Trump and his grandiose ways.

And obviously that's not going to happen. Ha ha ha.
He's really kind of crazy. That was the summer of 2019.
Well, then we started doing the reporting after Trump left office. And a number of his former White House officials, including a very senior economic official, actually, not national security official, mentioned to us, hey, you know, he was really serious about that Greenland thing.
And actually, it wasn't a laugh line. And he had brought it up a lot.
And I had even had a decision memo that was circulating in the White House. And we were really intrigued by that.
So then when we were doing the reporting for the book, we started asking, you know, everyone we could think of, hey, wait, you know, is it true, like that he was really interested in this Greenland thing? And we eventually, you the thread and discovered that, in fact, it never became public. But Trump was obsessed for years in his first term with purchasing Greenland.
Privately, he was bringing it up at cabinet meetings. We talked to one of his former cabinet secretaries who said they literally were like, oh, my God, this is crazy.
What is he talking about? And this was years before it became public. Then when John Bolton, his third national security advisor comes in, in March of 2018, so again, really a long time before we ever heard about it, at one of his first private meetings with Donald Trump in the Oval Office, Trump tells him, hey, there's this really interesting idea that's come up, you know, from a friend of mine that we should purchase Greenland.
And, you know, you'll be hearing from him and you need to get on this. And sure enough, the phone rings and it's this cosmetics gazillionaire, Ron Lauder, who's been a friend of Trump's for decades.
In fact, they went to the University of Pennsylvania together. I kid you not.
And he calls up the national security advisor. And he says, yeah, I would like to volunteer myself as a secret private envoy to Denmark and negotiate the purchase of Greenland.
Well, Bolton demurs on having Ron Lauder as our secret envoy to Denmark. But, you know, he has to sort of placate Trump and he orders some of his national security aides to begin working up various options for Greenland.
And by the way, Bolton is one of a number of national security types who believes that Greenland is a very important strategic place, not so much because of the minerals which initially attracted Donald Trump, but because of its strategic location, the competition with Russia and China over the North and the like. And so he recognized that publicly talking about purchasing Greenland would be very antithetical to the goal of achieving more cooperation with Greenland, because it would mean exactly what we've seen, which is that Denmark gets its back up, which is that everybody is polarized and divided by Donald Trump.
At any rate, so that's the backstory. And so I wasn't surprised at all when Greenland came right back up after Trump won re-election, even though I think for most people, they were like, what the hell is this all about? Great example.
Like, there's nothing new with Donald Trump. He thinks what he thinks.
Well, some tragically relevant reporting from you, but thank you. Do we know, is Ron Lauder doing the Trump makeup too? Is he a key player in the different tone? Because he's been darkening his makeup lately.
Yeah, I'm not even clear on what terms those two are actually on these days. You know, he was supporting Trump, then he was falling out like a lot of these gazillionaires.
And then many of them, of course, went back to sucking up to Trump. But I haven't heard much about him lately.
And, you know, Trump obviously has his own very strong views on the makeup front. He does.
All right. Well, one more note on this from producer Katie.
She wants me to know that there's a new detail here. In June, United will be running direct flights from Newark to Nuke, Greenland, home to a new international airport.
So I don't know, maybe United and Ron Lauder, everybody's in on it. Who knows what could be happening in Nuke? We'll have to keep our eye on it.
Susan Glasser, I appreciate you very much. Thanks for coming back on the pod.

Tim, thank you.

I'm hoping that you don't move into 24-hour-a-day broadcasting mode.

I might have to.

For your own sake.

I might have to.

What else am I going to do?

All right.

Thanks to Susan Glasser.

Everybody else, we will be back,

not for 24 hours, but in 24 hours tomorrow

for another edition of the Bulldog Podcast.

We'll see you all then.

Peace. tomorrow for another edition of the blog podcast we'll see you all then peace I surrender to you.

I surrender to you. My son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, my son, I surrender for you.

From trying to trying to find me too.

For you.

I surrender.

I surrender, I surrender, I surrender, I surrender, I surrender, I surrender, I surrender, The Bulldog Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.