The Pentagon Didn’t Fire Dan Caldwell Over Leaks. They Fired Him for Opposing War With Iran.

Warning. The Quest Protein Milkshake is the world's most powerful milkshake.
With 45 grams of protein, it may even be too powerful, too rich, too creamy, too delicious. Warning.
Do not drink if you do not want to achieve gains. Repeat.
Do not drink if you don't want gains. Enjoy at your own risk.
Quest Nutrition

big on protein

low on sugar

huge on flavor

it's basically cheating. Dan Caldwell is a Marine Corps veteran who wound up until three days ago advising the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, on military policy.
He was one of the strongest voices in the U.S. government, in the Trump administration, against the war with Iran.
And his rationale was simple. It's not in America's interest, and many Americans will die and billions will be spent on a war we don't need to fight.
And as someone who fought in Iraq, he was able to take that case to the principles with some force. Then, three days ago, he was fired from the Pentagon.
But not for his views on Iran, no. Dan Caldwell was fired because, reporters are told off the record, he had leaked classified documents to the media.
But what were these classified documents exactly? Well, no one at the Pentagon could know the answer to that because Dan Caldwell's phone was never examined, nor was he given a polygraph. So actually beneath the headlines was nothing other than a false accusation.
Was Dan Caldwell fired because he opposed the push to war with Iran? You decide. Here's Dan Caldwell.
So there is an enormous amount of pressure on this administration to participate in military action against Iran. And the president's position has been, I think, really clear for a long time, which is we don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons.
That's bad for everybody. Yes.
He sincerely believes that. He's against proliferation.
He's very concerned about nuclear weapons in general, I think. But we would prefer, strongly prefer a diplomatic solution.
And he's being attacked up and down, including by a lot of people in the administration, in private, and really try to, we're trying to steer him toward military action. So leaving aside all the, you know, internecine fights going on, just as a real life matter, what would happen if the U.S.
participated in a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites? So I strongly believe that for diplomacy to work, there needs to be a credible military option. And the president needs that.
The Pentagon where I used to work needs to provide that. That is their role in American foreign policy is to provide that leverage for diplomatic solutions to work.
Now, that's how it's supposed to work. Does it often work that way? Unfortunately, the last 30 years have shown us that it really doesn't.
But the Trump administration is trying to make it work that way, like it's supposed to. So we're pursuing diplomacy with the leverage of potential military action.
Correct. That is how it's supposed to work.
Now, there's risks in that. You could create a security dilemma, a spiral.
So you have to be careful, but that is essentially why the DOD exists. Now, with that said, there are obviously specifics I can't get into, but I think it is fair to say that a war with Iran risks being incredibly costly in terms of lives and dollars and instability in the Middle East.
Lives and dollars, American lives, American dollars.

The lives of Americans, the lives of Iraqis, of Saudis, of Iranians, of-

Israelis.

Emiratis, yes, of Israelis.

And of course, Iranians.

It could be an incredibly costly war.

And I think that that is very obvious to anybody who's been watching the region for a while.

And I think that that is very obvious to anybody who's been watching the region for a while. And I think that's why over the last few years, you have seen certain countries in the region change some of their positions on how they want to engage Iran.
There are a lot of Gulf Arab countries, for example, who they by no means view Iran as a benevolent force in the region. They're very aware of the threats that they could pose, but they also recognize that a war for them would be extremely costly.
And so they're trying to adopt a different posture. And that's a recognition on their end of the costs that a potential full out war with Iran could have.
And I think the president, vice president, they know this. And that is why they are making sure they're prioritizing diplomacy.
And let me just say, thank God we have Steve Whitcoff in the administration. He is truly doing the Lord's work and trying to stop this war through diplomacy and also end another ongoing war in Russia, Ukraine.
And they're making sure that his effort is the main effort, not a military effort at the moment. So just for people who haven't been following this, what you're alluding to with the Gulf states, there are six of them, but two of the biggest ones and the closest U.S.
allies would be UAE and Saudi. And those are primarily Sunni states run by Sunnis.
And they are hostile to Iran for a bunch of different reasons going back a long way. Iran's proxy forces in neighboring countries.
There's a lot here, but they've been basically enemies of Iran or perceived that way. And so the thought was, well, they would back military action against Iran, but you're saying all of a sudden wake up and realize, no, they don't back it.
They don't want a major war in the Middle East right now because of what they're trying to do with their countries in terms of economic development, because they're trying to give their people a better life. It's worth noting that Khalid bin Salman, the Saudi defense minister, was in Tehran, I believe, a few days ago.
And he's the brother of Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince. Yes.
And they recognize fully the threat that Iran poses, and they take it seriously. But just like the trump administration, they are prioritizing diplomatic outreach and trying to achieve somewhat of a detente.
And that doesn't mean you disarm and you join hands and the Middle East becomes this, you know, happy, hippie, you know, circle jam band. It means that people recognize it's in no one's interest to have a major war in the Middle East.
the idea that it could become a major war is kind of absent from American news accounts so the idea is that the United States probably in partnership with Israel or vice versa Israel in partnership with the United States would take take out the I think six Iranian nuclear sites and that would kind of be the end of it, that it wouldn't become a major war. I mean, I don't think I've ever read any account that suggests it could become a major war, but you're saying it could.
Look, when the minute that the bombs or bullets start flying, you can never say with certainty what exactly is going to happen. But I think that because of the fact that Iran has been put on its back foot, and Iran is weakened, they've had a lot of failures in the region.
I think that actually creates an opportunity for more and better diplomacy. But there's some who argue that creates an opportunity for more military action and again maybe maybe that's true but all indications are is that any type of strike would likely incite a a major war in the in the middle east and again i won't get into specifics because of what that could entail.
But that is a likely outcome of any uh sustained set of strikes on certain uh certain parts of iran i saw a graphic the other day um that showed the number of u.s military installations in that region around the persian arabian gulf and um i don't know if it was a complete list, but there are a lot. There are a lot.
And there's publicly available information. There are a lot of American service personnel stationed in that region in different places.
And some of the places, there aren't that many. They're not massive, well-defended bases.
They seem like small bases, including in Iraq and Syria, but others. I mean, why wouldn't those people be at risk? It's not even just the service members.
It's diplomats in these large embassies in places like Saudi Arabia and the UAE and Kuwait. There are some places where there's actually family members in the Middle East.
So it's not just service members that are at risk. It is American government employees, primarily diplomatic staff.
It's also a lot of American workers in the region working in the oil industry, working in the finance industry. There are a lot of Americans that would be at risk, not just service members.
And that is, again, that is something that, as you point out very well, is often overlooked in any discussion around military action. Well, it's not even mentioned.
It's not even mentioned. The threat to American lives is not even mentioned.
And that's, of course, not even considering the potential for terrorism. I mean, 9-11 happened because extremists disagreed with American foreign policy.
I mean, they said so again and again and again and again. You're supposed to ignore that and think they did it because they hated our freedoms.
What they did was evil. I'm, of course, not in any way excusing it.
But they said why they did it. We disagree with what you're doing.
And they attacked the U.S. and killed 3 000 americans so is i mean there's got to be a concern given how many iranians came into the country under the biden administration illegally like that there are probably agents of the iranian government here and like there could be acts of terror here if we did this i mean that is that is a risk with any overseas military op.
I do think this is, you know, another reason why we need to take homeland defense and homeland security more seriously. But yes, that is a real risk.
I will say, you know, backing up to 9-11 comparison is there was a series of mistakes in both American foreign policy and American security policy that paved the road to 9-11. I mean, the inability of the FBI and CIA to work together, the decision to, through friendly nations, to fund certain groups, to allow, you know, the growth of certain forces to fight communism, which at the time was probably

the right decision because of the threat the Soviet Union posed. But the road to hell was paved with good intentions.
And one of the reasons why we're in the situation we are in the Middle East with Iran is, we have to be honest, because of the war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a check against Iran is that he forced Iran to devote resources to deterring Iraq that now Iran doesn't need to put against deterring Iraq conventionally or through their own proxies.
Now they're able to put that money into places like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and also devote more resources to its missile program and potentially its nuclear program as well, too. That is, I think, one of the things that you can't overlook when discussing foreign policy and that not enough people have the conversation about, how did we get here? It's like people don't want to have a conversation about how we got to where we are in Ukraine.
You know, NATO expansion played a big role in that. You know, 30 years of failed American foreign policy towards Eastern Europe, the support of of certain revolutions, the support of certain political figures.
there were smart people from George Kennan to, you know, even the former CIA director,

whatever you think of him, Bill Burns, who warned that this stuff would happen.

And again, these decisions that we make in a certain moment, very focused on one thing, have second and third order consequences that sometimes are very easy to see, that they're quite obvious. Like if anybody had any understanding of the region and the power dynamics in the region in 2003, they would have known saddam hussein however awful he was would inevitably benefit iran there was hardly any discussion of that in the lead up well i know i was i was i was president in the country when all of that happened and i and i didn't know anything but it just seemed obvious if you have a majority shiite country and you force democracy whatever that on that country, and all of a sudden you get a Shiite government, it's probably going to be aligned with Iran, right?

It went from a bulwark against Iran to an ally of Iran, which it remains, I think.

It is effectively, the Iraqi government is effectively Iranian proxy.

Okay, so why would you do that?

I mean, was it, and this weren't getting far afield, but it's directly relevant to what's happening right now. Yeah.
Even I, as like a 35-year-old journalist, could see that this was going to have this effect. Why were the geniuses in charge of our policy not thinking that? Or maybe they were.
Maybe there was some larger goal. Boy, that could could be a three hour conversation in and of itself so i think there's a lot of reasons why we invaded iraq none of them good um but the one thing that should be acknowledged is is that even before 9-11 there was an effort to create the conditions for the United States to go and invade Iraq.
They thought that by overthrowing Saddam, that this would lead to an outbreak of peace and democracy across the Middle East that predated 9-11. And you had things like the Project for a New American Century.
You had Paul Wolfowitz at the tail end of the Bush administration, very angry that George H.W. Bush didn't go all the way in terms of Baghdad.
And then you had this post-Cold War moment where the United States was not simply a superpower. It was a hyperpower.
And we had nobody who could effectively challenge us. Russia was a mess.
China was still on the upswing. Some smart people saw what was coming.
But the assumption was we bring them into the WTO, we do free trade, China's going to become a democracy. And so when you have nobody in the world that can effectively challenge or check you, that can

create political conditions domestically that lead people to think that there will be no

consequences for American foreign policy.

And I also think, too, that our experience in the Balkans and how those wars went also

convinced a large part of the American security establishment that, oh, we can deal with Iraq rather cheaply and quickly, and it'd be no big deal. And you saw a lot of that in the early days of the Iraq war, people gloating, people assuming that, you know, once the statue of Saddam in Fidro Square fell down, which, by the way, was, you know, pulled down by Marines from 1st Marine Division, that, you know, we'd be out there pretty quickly.
And history showed that that was not the case. No, it certainly wasn't.
Well, whatever the motive, the actions of the U.S. government under George W.
Bush greatly strengthened Iran, removed the main sort of bulwark against their expansion and freed up a lot of cash, as you just said. So here we are.
We're facing enormous pressure to go to war with a country that's not Iraq, that's actually more powerful than Iraq. A lot of this is public information, but to the extent I know you're doing your best not to reveal anything that's classified, but to the extent you can kind of characterize it using publicly available information, what is the current strength of Iran, do you think, as a military power? Again, they're quite clearly on their back foot.
Anybody who's been watching what has happened to them in the region the last seven, eight months can see that. Hezbollah has suffered significant defeats.
Iran lost arguably its closest ally in the region in Bashar al-Assad, lost a key pipeline of weapons and supplies into Lebanon, which restricts their ability to help Hezbollah rebuild itself. They suffered some setbacks from some initial Israeli airstrikes at the end of last year.
And I just want to be clear about those airstrikes is that they were very limited, and they were very targeted. And the Iranian response was effectively, you say looking at it and again I I don't have any information if this is the case but it was telegraphed and so the Israelis knew it was coming they were prepared they had American support to help repel it it was symbolic it looked like to me yes I mean that's what it appears right it appears so again though, we can't deny that they have suffered some significant setbacks.
However, they still retain significant conventional military capabilities, an effective missile force. They have effective proxies in Iraq.
They have a very effective drone program. And those things, I think the Iranian missile force, more than even a potential nuclear program, and this is based on their experience in the Iran-Iraq war, they very much view their missile force as their ultimate guarantor of regime and national survival.
And again, that goes back to their experience in the Iran-Iraq war when Saddam Hussein, sometimes with indirect or direct American support, would use his Scud missiles and Tupolev bombers to effectively bomb and attack Iranian cities. And the Iranians didn't have really an effective defense against them, or even an effective way to counter-strike Iraq.
They were able to get some Scud missiles from Libya and other sources. It's an interesting story.
Gaddafi and Saddam had this kind of rivalry. So Libya, even though being an Arab, secular Arab socialist state, kind of like Iraq, they wound up backing Iran, but they were never able to match Iraq's long range strike capabilities.
And so that is a big reason why they have invested so heavily in developing missiles, drones, cruise missiles, and things like that that can strike all across the region. And that is really the real threat.
And that is- Iranian conventional weapons, missiles. Correct.
As of right now, yes. Right.
So when we hear that they're weakened, we're talking about their air defenses, mostly. I won't necessarily get into that, but they're, there i mean part of their conventional capabilities have been weakened um but not defeated and they still retain significant capabilities everybody knows a good night's sleep is super important it's actually one of the most important things you can do for your health and your sanity and that's why we are excited to tell you about something that really helps.
Beam's Dream Powder. It's proudly an American product.
It's run by Americans, people who share the values that you have. Hard work, integrity, delivering results.
It's science-backed. It's healthy.
It's a blend packed with ingredients clinically shown to improve sleep without poisoning you. So you wake up refreshed and ready to take on the day.
A good sleep really does make a big difference. Dream is made with a blend of all natural ingredients, including melatonin.
It's designed to help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up feeling not with a drug type hangover, but feeling great and pure and refreshed. Plus, it tastes good.
It's already improved over 17.5 million. It's hard to read that because really 17.5 million nights of sleep.
People across the country wake up feeling ready for their day. Beam is giving our listeners you the best gift discount up to 47% off in honor of our 47th president, Donald Trump.
So try Dream Powder. Get up to 47% off for a limited time.
Go to shopbeam.com slash Tucker. Use the

code Tucker at checkout. Shopbeam.com slash Tucker, the code Tucker for up to 47% off

in honor of President Trump, an American company, a great product.

Tucker says it best. The credit card companies are ripping Americans off and enough is enough.

This is Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas. Our legislation, the Credit Card Competition Act, would help in the grip Visa and MasterCard have on us.
Every time you use your credit card, they charge you a hidden fee called a swipe fee and they've been raising it without even telling you. This hurts consumers and every small business owner.
In fact, American families are paying $1,100 in hidden swipe fees each year. The fees Visa and MasterCard charge Americans are the highest in the world, double candidates and eight times more than Europe's.
That's why I've taken action, but I need your help to help get this passed. I'm asking you to call your senator today and demand they pass the Credit Card Competition Act.
Paid for by the Merchants Payments Coalition. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
www.merchantspaymentscoalition.com They speak of darkness and danger. But totalitarian novels also give us hope.
Showing us how to defend our society from the horrors of tyranny. In Hillsdale College's free online course, Totalitarian Novels, Hillsdale President Larry Arnn teaches us lessons from classic novels like George Orwell's 1984 that are as relevant today as ever.
Sign up now for Hillsdale College's free online course, Totalitarian Novels, at tuckerforhillsdale.com. That's tuckerforhillsdale.com.
It sounds to me like people who thought a lot about this have reached the conclusion that if we were to participate in a strike on their nuclear facilities, lots of Americans would die. There is a real potential to that.
Again, you know, you can't, there's a saying in the military that no plan survives the first contact. And it's larger to that no assumptions survive the first contact, but it's still a significant risk that that could happen.
And I, I think it's fair to say is that that that is weighing in the calculus of a lot of people in the administration.

So the choke point for a lot of the global oil trade is, you know, the very end, you know, the terminus of the entrance to the Arabian Gulf, Persian Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz famously. And do you think Iran is capable of shutting that off? I think that is a real risk, if not significantly curtailing the ability to ship energy through that vital sea lane.
And what happens to global oil prices? They catastrophically spike. Now, over time, the oil market will sort itself out.
For sure. You'll have more production here domestically and elsewhere.
Oil's fungible. But initially, it would have a pretty catastrophic impact on global oil markets at a time where the United States is facing some economic headwinds.
So you could see catastrophe both in the form of a global depression, potentially, and the deaths of a lot of in that region and here uh in the wake of a war with iran the third point that i don't think is ever mentioned in any account i've ever read about these plans to just bomb iran and rid them of their nuclear program is the fact that iran is now part of a global coalition of big countries that oppose us now see this is this is very interesting tucker

is what why why are they part of that coalition and it's because of our own stupidity we force

these countries together that don't naturally have aligned interests okay iran is a shiite theocracy

russia is an authoritarian country run by vladimir a group of oligarchs, essentially. China is a quasi-communist, quasi-state capitalist state.
North Korea is one of the last true communist authoritarian countries on the face of the earth. A lot of these countries should have natural tension.
And there's been points in the post-Cold War era where a country like Russia was willing to do things like not sell weapons to Iran because they didn't want to inflict instability on the Middle East. Russia also traditionally, despite the fact they've supported some of Israel's adversaries, did have a good relationship with Israel.
So Israelis along the United States were able to convince the Russians at key points like, hey, don't sell these weapons to Iran or don't do this. And so while they were growing closer, there were still gaps between them.
And let's also be honest, too, is Russia has had significant problems with Islamic radicalism in their country. and they don't want to support a regime that in the past has supported Islamic radicals, both Sunni and Shia across the Middle East and across other parts of the world.
They don't want them doing that in certain parts of the world. And so why are they pushed together? Well, it's because we adopted this mindset, and even before the Biden administration adopted this, is that this autocracy versus democracy.
And again, it wasn't well defined before that, but we started just bucketing these countries together. Here's a great example.
Axis of evil. When they said, we have this axis of evil of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
We just talked about it. Iran and Iraq hated each other.
They were natural enemies. And by the way, North Korea- And what does North Korea have to do with it? Here's an interesting thing.
Iraq and North Korea broke off relationships in the Iran-Iraq war because they were so close to the Iranians. And the North Koreans, it appears may have ripped off the Iraqis in the nineties.
They got them. This is, again, it hasn't been confirmed, but they may have ripped them off when the North Koreans offered to sell them weapons.
And the North Koreans are actually kind of famous for this. They, they got the money and said, yeah, we can't give that to you.
They actually tried at one point in the early nineties. Again, I can't say if this story is for sure, but I read this on a military blog.
They try to pay for some Russian military equipment with used car parts. So I bring this up in that.
And again, Russia and China, these are two countries with historical antagonisms. Uh, they've, they've have a shared border that they've, they've, you know, during the Soviet times, they fought wars over.
They have the Chinese look at Siberia and its resources and it's growing its own, its population I don't think is growing right now because they killed 100 million baby girls. But this is an area with resources that they need and that there's been in the past conflicts over.
There should be tension between those two countries, but our foreign policy of bucketing them all together, sanctioning them, treating them as one united front has kind of willed it into existence. Has made them one united front.
Yes. And it shouldn't be that way.
We should be able to pull them apart because they have interests that don't align. We should be able to be working more with the russians and i hope that you know if if again steve whitkoff is successful and others in the administration there's a lot of great people in the administration working on russia ukraine right now if they're successful we can hopefully maybe get to a better place with russia and they can help us with iran let me just ask you to pause it it's everything you is, by the way, in the public sphere, you're not guessing about any of this.
It's obvious. No honest person would deny it.
And it's so crazy, these policies, that it's almost like they were formulated by people who were trying to tank the United States. I mean, these are policies that are hostile to American interests, not indifferent.
You know, I think maybe that's a possibility, but the more I've interacted with some of these people and seen them up close, it's almost given them too much credit. I mean, never attribute to conspiracy what stupidity can explain.
Is that what you're saying? That's there. There's definitely evil forces at play, but a lot of this is stupidity and laziness.
In my, albeit short time in the Pentagon, like with Ukraine, a lot of people in the Pentagon wanted to keep doing what we were doing in Ukraine. Some of them really had an ideological commitment to the Ukrainian project.
I think a lot of the officers... A more transgender Eastern Europe.
You know, Zelensky has a savior of global liberalism. The war against Christianity, they're all in.
Yeah. So I think that because of their experience, in some ways you can somewhat sympathize with it, is that they did sympathize with Ukraine.

But, you know, I saw a lot of it, and a lot of it was it's easier to say we should keep doing what we're doing than admit that we had been screwing things up and think of a different way to do things. I think that more than ideology.

And ideology plays an important role.

The belief that American needs to be the global hegemon to enforce liberal hegemony. But really for a lot of the people, and I think the same applies to the State Department, it's just easier to say we should just keep doing what we're doing.
I believe that. I've spent a lot of time around the bureaucracy.
I think that's right. It's just like the physics principle.
Object objects in motion tend to stay that way yeah so um no i completely believe that but big picture just like swooping out a little bit another middle eastern war like i think the overwhelming majority of americans and certainly the over overwhelming majority of trump voters like wait a second no so um in fact, the president was elected to some large extent on the promise to not get us involved in another forever war. So I just have really been struck, but you're the expert by how much pressure is applied to the administration to do this, to get us involved in another war in the Middle East.
Did you feel that? I think there clearly is a very strong coalition within the United States that wants us to see another war in the Middle East. And it crosses both parties.
Just to point something out, and I wrote about this in Foreign Affairs with a friend of mine Reed Smith you know during the campaign the Democrats attacked Trump for being too dovish on Iran and they attacked him for not doing more after killing Soleimani not doing more after some of the Iranian drone strikes on Saudi Arabia in 2019. They accused him of being too weak on Iran.
And the Democrat Party trotted out Liz Cheney, of all people, and the endorsement of her father, had her going to battleground states, talking about the importance of staying, quote, strong in the Middle East and continuing to fund on an unwinnable war in Ukraine. And that was the position they adopted.
So it's kind of transcended the traditional right-left way we think about American foreign policy that came into being at the end of the Cold War, or even before that. It really predates the end of the Cold War.
It really goes back to, you know, in the post-Vietnam era, especially the Democrats were the doves, Republicans were the hawks. It really kind of transcends that.
And you have this transpartisan movement to keep America engaged in the world. And I think it's good for America to be engaged in the world, but engaged in the world so that their primary purpose is not to protect American interests or safety or the conditions of American prosperity, but to ensure that America is enforcing liberal hegemony.
So getting back to Iran, there's a lot of reasons why people want war with Iran. I think when it comes down to it is a lot of people still think you can do regime change wars successfully in the Middle East.
Regime change wars. I thought this was all about getting rid of the whatever half dozen Iranian nuclear sites because we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
Well, I think Donald Trump has exposed them because they're essentially, I mean, some of the biggest advocates of war with

Iran, whether it's groups like Foundation for Defense of Democracy, writers at certain publications, essentially they are saying the problem with diplomacy is it doesn't lead to regime change, is that the policy should be regime change.

It's almost like the nuclear issue is really about creating a pathway to regime change. And it really still goes back to this idea, is a lot of them deep down inside believe, and some of them say it out loud, that we could have made Iraq successful.
And Iraq is just a mess. It is an absolute just cluster.
Well, it's a proxy of Iran to the country they hate. Let me just make a note on this.
The most deadly forces in the middle, the forces that pose the most risk to the United States United States forces are the popular mobilization forces in Iraq they are an official arm of the Iraqi government that we created after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 which we fund through aid and whose troops that we train still with a couple thousand troops in Iraq. So American troops in Iraq right now are getting attacked by people who are part of the same government that American troops are helping to support and whose security forces they're helping to train.
It is the most counterproductive and insane foreign policy mission in the globe right now. And I hope the administration will make changes to that.
But that's, yeah, that's how I'm saying it is. I don't understand.
So, I mean, in the last, I don't know, 22 years, 24 years, I guess, since 9-11. Amazing.
Our record with regime change in the Middle East has been like 100% failure. Yeah.
And if you go to Libya, you go to Syria. Yeah.
But failure on every level. It hasn't- Even Yemen, you can include Yemen because we back the old government before it collapsed and Yemen devolved into a civil war.
It hasn't made the United States safer or richer. It hasn't, by the way, I would argue, made our allies safer either, however much they may have wanted it.
It hasn't been good for them either that I can see. And it's been a disaster for millions of people, human beings, in those countries.
But mostly it hasn't helped the United States. So how could you, with a straight face, advocate for yet another regime-change war against a real country that's not Libya, not Iraq? It's Iran.
It's the Persian Empire. Like, how could you say

that out loud? Are they actually saying that out loud? Yeah. I mean, some of them do say it out

loud. Yes.
Is that they think, oh, the Shah, you know, the Shah's son has reemerged. I mean,

this guy is the, he's the ultimate fail son, in my view. And then you have groups like the MEK, People's Mujahideen of Iran, who pay a lot of American politicians to advocate for them and advocate for regime change.
They are essentially saying, hey, we have governments in waiting that can just swoop in there and everything will be fine if you just get rid of the mullahs. Where have we heard that before? You know? It's hard to believe this is actually real.
I know it is. It is hard to believe.
I mean, it's ignoring the most obvious facts of the last 30 years. Yeah.
It goes back to what I was saying about what I observed in the Pentagon, I think, is that it's easier to advocate for the same things over and over again than to say we should do something different. But what do you make of the senator? I mean, maybe you have a different experience, but I just hear constantly about Republican senators.
I'm sure there are Democrats too, but I hear about the Republicans, Lindsey Graham being the most obvious, but many others constantly applying pressure to the administration to have a regime change war against Iran. I'm not going to confirm your nominees.
We're going to hassle, I mean, like threatening the Trump administration in order to force them to lead a regime change war against Iran. What could possibly be their motive? What is that? Look, there, I think, and I've talked about this before in my past jobs.
I think there's a disconnect in Washington, D.C. among elected Republicans, with the exception of those in the White House currently, between the base with the base actually believes on foreign policy.
And so the base very much doesn't want new wars. Like voters you're talking about people who put them there and time and time again you saw the majority of republican voters in a lot of these primaries saying that they wanted fewer wars is the republicans in a lot of cases were now less hawkish overall and you know polling it doesn't tell the whole story all the time, but you saw voters, generally, the Democrats are getting more hawkish primarily because of Ukraine, but you saw Republican voters and independent voters becoming more and more wary of foreign wars.
However, because foreign policy for a lot of voters is often not a highly salient issue. It's not in their top three.
A lot of Republicans and Democrats are able to get elected despite having horrible records on foreign policy. Now, there are elections where it makes a difference.
2016, for example, there's real evidence that the fact that Donald Trump was viewed as less hawkish than Hillary Clinton played a decisive role in him winning Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The counties that flipped from Obama to Trump, they had higher levels of what you call military sacrifice.
So troops deployed, wounded, or killed than some of their adjacent counties. So that likely contributed both to his 2016 and possibly his 2024 victory.
Now, I have good dear friends of mine that they're much smarter to me on polling and social science. They may disagree with that.
But there have been times where actually the political incentives are to be less hawkish. But those don't show up in most elections.
So you have a lot of Republican leaders in particular that are just disconnected from the base. Now, I think the good news is, though, is you're starting to see that change.
And you saw that play out with Ukraine aid, where I think the last major Ukraine aid vote, and it may actually be the last major Ukraine aid vote yet ever, is I think you had over half of Senate Republicans vote against it, and more than half of House members vote against it. And that went from, like, you only had six Republicans voting against the first big Ukraine aid package in 2022, and only 40 House Republicans to now, I believe, about 26, 27 senators, and then nearly 110, 113, somewhere in that range, House Republicans voting against it.
So you've seen changes. And definitely, the Republicans elected since 2018 in both the House and Senate, they're far less hawkish than people elected before then.
That's indisputable. Well, it hasn't worked.
It hasn't worked. And I don't think anyone who puts the interest of the United States first, really does in his heart, could come around to another regime change war in Iran.
Like, that's almost prima facie evidence that you are not putting your country's interests first. That's the way it feels to me.
Maybe I'm being uncharitable. No, and I think this goes back to a simple belief of what is the purpose of American foreign policy? I believe, and I think President Trump, Vice President Vance, I believe even Secretary Rubio, Secretary Hegseff, and others in the administration fundamentally believe the purpose of American foreign policy is to ensure American safety and the conditions of our prosperity.
That doesn't mean we're going to ensure 3% GDP growth. It's the things that enable us to be prosperous.
So like, for example, prioritizing the defense of the Panama Canal over the negligible issue of which Eastern European oligarch gets to loot the Donbass. Like, they believe that, you know, that is more important because the Panama Canal indisputably is more important to us than who controls the Donbass or who controls some desolate patch of desert

in the Middle East.

So nicely put.

Well, Easter is finally here

and there's no better way to remember the story of Christ.

Jesus dying for your sins

is the most powerful thing that has ever happened in history.

It is really the beginning of history

and it's worth celebrating.

This Easter, embrace the freedom of the resurrection

on Hallow, which is the number one prayer app in the world.

Join Liz Tabas, who plays Mary Magdalene in The Chosen,

actor Kevin James and others

Thank you. Easter, embrace the freedom of the resurrection on Hallow, which is the number one prayer app in the world.
Join Liz Tabash, who plays Mary Magdalene in The Chosen, actor Kevin James, and others in an immersive and jubilant prayer experience worthy of Easter itself. Every single day, you learn how to walk in freedom amidst the circumstances often crushing of your daily life and let go of the things that you're attached to and that are causing suffering and instead embrace the peace and freedom that come when you place your trust in God, which is the only place to place your trust.
So enter the joy of Easter with a brief prayer, reflection, meditation every single day that will help you continue the habits that will change everything, the ones you establish during Lent. We love Hello Here.
We love the app. We know you will too.
It's got thousands of prayers, meditations, music help you build a daily habit of prayer and to grow closer to God. Download Halo today at halo.com slash Tucker.
You get three months for free. You'll be grateful you did.
Honestly, you will be. Did you know you could invest in crypto through your retirement account? That's right.
iTrust Capital allows Americans to invest in over 60 of the most popular cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin in a tax-advantaged IRA. Take control of your future.
Get started at itrustcapital.com forward slash Tucker and use the promo code Tucker to get a $100 funding bonus. That's itrustcapital.com forward slash Tucker.
Paid ad for informational purposes only. Taxes may apply.
Crypto is speculative and carries risk of loss. Itrust Capital does not provide legal investment or tax advice.
At Shane Company, we know getting engaged is an exciting time. We also know that finding the perfect engagement ring can be overwhelming.
As experts in forever love since 1929, we're here to help you get it right. We have a wide selection of beautiful ring styles to choose from, including vintage floral designs inspired by nature and classic styles with clean lines and sleek metals.
We'll also protect your ring for life with our unmatched free lifetime warranty. Get started and find your store at shaneco.com.
Shane Company, your friend and jeweler. How did you get involved in all of this? What's your story? And can I just say, and I should have asked at the outset, what was your, you just left the Pentagon under circumstances I hope we can talk about.
What were you doing when you left? So I was a senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense. I was focused on policy.
I was the senior advisor in the front office for policy. And so my job day to day was advising the secretary on policy, making sure that he was prepared for meetings, making sure that he was prepared for giving certain speeches and talks, and then providing him policy advice as needed.

We had a very smart policy team, the undersecretary of defense for Policy, who just was confirmed, thank God, Bridge Colby. He's doing a great job.
The way the Pentagon works is you need somebody in the front office that can connect the secretary effectively to policy. And policy has so many jobs and so many things they have to focus on that you need somebody in the front office that can help be that immediate policy advisor that is able to walk in and talk to the secretary right away.
Right. Okay.
Is that the job that you dreamed about as a child? Like, how did you wind up here? You know, it's funny. There was a part of me that didn't even want to go to the Pentagon.
It wasn't necessarily something that I dreamed of. I mean, I think my first job I was really obsessed with, like a lot of young boys, is being a firefighter.
And then... Where'd you grow up? I grew up...
I was born in California, lived in Massachusetts for a while, but home is Scottsdale, Arizona. That's where I consider home.
My kids were born there. My parents still live there.
My grandma still lives there. I still have a lot of family there.
And that will always be home for me. So how did you...
You were in the military? Yes, the Marine Corps. You're in the Marine Corps.
How did that, how'd you wind up in the Marine Corps? So I went to a Jesuit all boys school and the last two years are very intense. The expectation was everybody's going to go to college.
And by the end of, of my time in high school, I was, didn't want to do more academics. I didn't want to go to college, but it was the thing you had to do.
So I dragged myself down to Tucson to go to the University of Arizona. And candidly, I was miserable.
I didn't have any motivation to go to class or do stuff, and I just was hating life. And then one day, my best friend, just a dear friend, I love him to death, James O'Connor, he was...
From high school? From high school. He had dropped out of Arizona State University and enlisted in the army as a paratrooper like his dad and was attached to 101st as part of a pathfinder unit and he was in iraq at the uh in the summer he went to iraq near the fall 2005 and i remember him on aol instant messenger sending me a message saying my my team almost got hit by an ied and i was kind of like what am i doing here i get in the fight.
Because growing up, you asked me what I wanted to do is I was very interested in military history. And my grandfather, who is very important to me, he was a paratrooper, but I became obsessed with the Marine Corps.
And he had me read two books, The Nightingale Song, about... Amazing book.
It's an amazing book. I still go and read it every couple of years.
It's honestly... And he released...
I think he's passed away now. He has.
He's a Baltimore Sun reporter. But he released a longer version, kind of an unexpurgated version, which is amazing.
And then he had me read Fields of Fire by Jim Webb. Oh my gosh.
And Jim Webb is one of my personal heroes. Those are both Vietnam books.
Yeah. And so they had an unvarnished view of the Marine Corps, but I still wanted to be part of that.
And so, you know, I... So James, I get the message from James, and I say, I got to get out of here.
Dropped out, told my parents who were apoplectic. weren't impressed yeah i i they were scared and um uh i still feel bad about that fear i put in them because i went and i listed in the infantry i didn't go in the marine corps you enlisted yes as an 03 03 11 in the marine corps um now my first two years in the marine that's not that's like the least glamorous thing you can do i you know what for some people yes and i know that you have some marines that work for you yeah but enlisted marines yeah and i'll do respect to them but there was a saying in the infantry it's like if you ain't infantry you ain't shit yeah and everything the Marine Corps did from its fighter squadrons

to its artillery to its tanks, was in support of the enlisted riflemen locating with and destroying the enemy and repelling enemy assault by fire maneuver. And so everything was in support of the 0311 doing its job.
And so I love being in the infantry. And there was kind of this thing like if you were infantry, like you felt, whether it was true or not, you were cut above the rest.
Your life sucked more. But that was a point of pride.
And I love that. And so, but my first two years.
So you just, bottom line, you drop out of college and enlist in the Marine Corps during a war. Yes.
This was 2005. You know, things were going just swimmingly in Iraq then.
Afghanistan was kind of on a simmer, but it was, you know, still bad before getting much, much worse. So my first two years, I, in boot camp, I was selected for a program called Yankee White.
And this is the Presidential Support Program. So if you've ever seen the Marines saluting in front of the White House, they're part of the Presidential Support Program.
And as part of that, I went to be part of the Marine Security Force at Camp David. So I spent, I think, almost two years up there about that while President Bush was president and that was a great duty station.

I loved it.

Some of my closest friends still to this day I served with up there and it was a great

command.

I had a great first sergeant, great commanding officer, great platoon sergeant.

So I spent two years there and then once my time was up there, I went to 2nd Battalion

1st Marines, which was very lucky.

I got put in another great company, Fox Company 2-1 and we did a workup and we needed a deployment

Thank you. My time was up there.
I went to 2nd Battalion, 1st Marines, which is very lucky. I got put in another great company, Fox Company 2-1.
And we did a workup and we needed a deployment to Iraq. And this was end of 08, 2009.
I'll be honest, it was not as bad as it was in Ramadi and Fallujah a few years before. and it was mostly an uneventful deployment with some exceptions.
There was some incidents and things like that. But you kind of left Iraq at that time thinking, okay, this isn't going to be like the new, this isn't going to be Scottsdale, Arizona anytime soon.
But this could kind of work. This could kind of be like tijuana mexico um but um the strip clubs yeah but five years later with the exception of al-assad every every place that i was at in iraq was under the control of isis the places you were personally yes you had been from from the city hit to south sinjar the mountain, the mountain where the Yazidis were trapped,

where there was those massacres and they enslaved.

All the women?

Yeah.

We were all around Mount Sinjar.

We spent a lot of time in the Yazidis.

Very interesting people.

Their religion is very interesting.

They worship what a lot of Westerners would call the devil. I don't think that very accurate but they were very pro-american they were they were always dressed in colorful outfits and they come and wave at us and um whereas when you were in the suny parts they just kind of ignore you and they're like when are you guys gonna leave you know uh and so five years after that all had fallen apart and that was and a lot of those people who waved at you were dead or sex slaves.
Yeah, I have a picture of myself on my Twitter with two young Uzetti boys. And they're either dead or they're in a refugee camp.
Maybe they were able to go back, but that's probably the reality of that, unfortunately.

Where were you five years later by the time you saw this?

I was working at Concerned Veterans for America, and that's where I met Pete Hegshef.

And one thing that happened over those five years and continue to happen is I saw...

So I did two things.

I learned a lot about why the war started.

Lord, I did two things. I learned a lot about why the war started, learned about the decisions that brought us there.
And I didn't have an overnight transition. It took a while for it to happen, but I saw the impact on my community of veterans.
And it's only gotten worse since then. What was the, I'm sure talk for hours on it but if you could sum up the effect of the iraq war on guys you knew what would it be um so three marines that i served with uh either in 2-1 or camp david were killed in action a half dozen were seriously wounded including some of their double amputees.
So all in Afghanistan, well, a few in Iraq. As we sit here, I believe about 20 have committed suicide or died as a result of service-related injuries.
20? That's for people who serve in the infantry. That's very common.
There were infantry units who fought in the Battle of Fallujah and Ramadi and other very intense conflicts that have suffered more Marines who have killed themselves than were actually killed in action. You know, you really try to navigate this topic without being filled with hate.
You don't want to become a hater. But it's hard when you hear stuff like that.
And you think of someone like David Frum, not even an American, screaming at people, calling them bigots for not wanting to engage in another regime change war. I mean, it's like, it's hard.
It's a disgrace that he is allowed in good and proper company. I think the Iraq war was a monstrous crime.
That's the only way I can describe it. It was a crime first and foremost against the Iraqi people and then the Syrian people because those two wars are clearly connected.
You know, ISIS essentially was formed in American prisons. Well, ISIS sprung out of Zarqawi's group, but the leadership like Baghdadi and even the new president of Syria, Jolani, they were in American prisons and they met people that would eventually help form their core leadership teams in al-Nusra, which is the al-Qaeda branch, and then ISIS.
you know Baghdadi met in prison an american prison you know iraqi military leaders and and started to learn more about military tactics and a lot of those people he was in prison with would be the people that would help him take over most of iraq and syria what did it you're not the first person i've asked this of but what did it feel like as someone who actually served there um who wanted to serve there, dropped out of college to enlist, not go into ROTC, but to enlist in the Marine Corps. What did it, you gave your whole life to it, and then to see the carnage, the Americans whose lives were destroyed, and then realize this was all kind of fake, like what effect did that have on you? started really pushing me to where I'm at now in foreign policy.

Like we need to do something differently.

And it kind of radicalized me in a certain way on this.

And really, there's an argument that you need to be, when you're talking about foreign policy,

you kind of need to be cold and detached.

Like some people say that realists need to be cold and detached. I don't necessarily buy that.
But, you know, when I hear about launching a new military operation, somebody talk about something, my first thought is, what's it going to be like for the guys? What's it going be like for the, the, the boys that are going to be in the front. Um, and you know, men, men, women too.
Uh, it just,

that's kind of the, the, you can't help, but look through it for that prism. And it's sometimes you

do have to attach yourself from it, but yeah, that's, you know, that's, that's what I, I really

think of. But the big thing is like, we have to stop this from happening again.
This cannot happen

Thank you. have to attach yourself from it.
But yeah, that's, you know, that's, that's what I really think of.

But the big thing is like, we have to stop this from happening again. This cannot happen again.
I couldn't agree with you more. And I wish more people would articulate this perspective.
I think it's, it's pretty, so among the guys you serve with in the Marine Corps in Iraq, like, would you say many agree with you? Yes. Yes.
Right, left, most of them are rabidly anti-interventionist. Some of them make me look like Paul Wolfowitz.
And you're talking about the guys who served, who carried rifles in Iraq. Yes.
Yeah. And we did at Concerned Veterans for America, we did a lot of polling when I was there, and we consistently found that the veterans and military family population was more opposed to new wars by pretty noticeable margins than the general population as a whole.
It's interesting. So you mentioned death, killed in action.
You mentioned injuries, profound injuries. You mentioned suicide, psychological injuries.
And I'm sorry, I didn't even mention broken families. Well, that's it.
That's what I was about to ask. Keep going.
I mean, high rates of divorce. High rates of divorce? We were talking before we were on the air.
I know a lot of enlisted Marines. My dad was one.
I don't know. I don't think I know any guys who enlisted the Marine Corps during the War on Terror who aren't divorced.
I sure there are but am I imagining this there are some combat arms and special forces communities that have 90% divorce rates 90% yes we undervalue that like that is a disaster for the people involved in for their children like that's a true tragedy um true tragedy divorce is a death and so if you've got 90 divorce rates like that i i don't

know why no one pauses to say how can we how can we not do this to people yeah do you agree yes

now look i mean divorce has always been a problem in the military you have a lot of guys

Thank you. not do this to people.
Yeah. Do you agree? Yes.
Now look, I mean, divorce has always been a problem in the military. You have a lot of guys, you know, getting married too young to get out

of the barracks. We were talking about that beforehand, but it's the strain of deployments

on these specific units that just spikes divorce rates in certain units. And when you have guys

that are spending 70, 80% of their time away away from home either training to be deployed or deployed it's hard and military services is always going to be hard but the increased deployment tempo we've had particularly post 9-11 is exacerbated that well that's the first thing i noticed when i started covering all this stuff for going over there, it's like these guys were doing like a crazy number of deployments.

And I just think you're going to destroy a man over time if you keep sending him to war, no? Yeah. How could you not? Yes.
I think everybody has a breaking point. And there are guys who are able to do...
I mean, there are people in Ranger units that are on their 15th, 16th deployment, guys who've been in for over 20 years. What does that do to you? I mean, there's so many things it can do to you.
I mean, there's some people that are able to just turn it on and off and put it in a box. But I would say that for everybody, just physically, it breaks you down down you know you got 38 guys that have 38 year old guys that have bodies of 60 year olds just mentally it just can can wear you down as well too I've argued with Dan Crenshaw in public a lot I made fun of him a lot and I mean this with true sincerity I look at that guy and I'm like you were damaged by war.
I'm sorry. I mean, I don't know, I don't know, Dan Crenshaw, but I do know a lot of people who have been damaged by their experience, really damaged by their experience.
You know, I'd say that he's kind of an outlier, too, in the community where he's still, for whatever reason, is supporting American primacy and the status quo. and increasingly, most of his fellow veterans in the Republican side are actually rejecting that.
Well, they hate him. And I certainly understand why.
But he's unbalanced. It's not that we have a disagreement over policies.
That guy, there's something really wrong with him. And maybe I'm being too generous, but I just have to suspect knowing a lot of guys like that.
Well, I can understand why that. I mean he did right he threatened to kill you.
He threatened to kill me but yeah you know I'm not worried about that I just like yeah I'm trying to be Christian and generous about this like he's a very damaged person and perhaps he always was but I know a bunch of damaged people who went through those experiences. I mean you must also also it's been devastating on on our community it really has and there's some people to say oh the word damp like they try to soften it oh you shouldn't use the word damaged that that's the proper word to describe it I'm saying that with love yeah and compassion and gratitude for everything they've done for us and for their patriotism and decency and I I'm not saying that as a criticism.
I'm saying that as you would about someone you care about and you hate to see them hurt. I mean.
Yeah, I agree. So you get out of the Marine Corps.
What do you do? So I finished up college. I didn't really want to go to college, but I blew through in like two, two and a half years.
I worked for a member of Congress for a couple of years. How were you feeling when you got out of there? Did it have lasting effects on you? You know, my first few months out of the Marine Corps were tough.
There was some stuff in my personal life that was happening. My father, this is when the economy was really bad.
My father passed away from a drug overdose. And then leaving the Marine Corps, leaving a group of guys you had thought were your brothers and living in an apartment by yourself, that had a negative.
Like that was not a fun time. I thought it was going to be a blast.
You know, I have a bunch of money saved up from deployment. I'm going to go on the GI Bill.
I'm going to, you know, a party school. And I just eventually just said, hey, I'm just going to get through college.
I want to get a job. I got married.
And so I just blew through college. And then I got a job working for member of Congress out in Arizona.
And I was primarily focused on veterans constituent work at first. And that was actually fulfilling veterans get benefits and I learned a lot about how dysfunctional the VA was and how dysfunctional Department of Defense was too because you know helping guys with problems with the DOD and after two and a half years there you know just be candid I needed to make more money I had by that time I had a child and so a friend of mine introduced me to Concerned Veterans for America, which at the time was run by Pete Hegseff.
And I was recruited there first as somebody doing some field work and then eventually as a legislative and one of the policy directors. How long were you there? I was affiliated with Concerned Veterans for America in one capacity or another for, gosh, almost nine years.
Wow. I was eventually the executive director, and then even when I moved to a new job, I retained a senior advisor role.
Huh. And were you close to Pete the whole time? When he was with Concerned Veterans for America, yes, we worked very closely together along with Darren Selnick, who's another individual that left the Pentagon last week.
And I was primarily working with him on policy and comms, mainly focused on our efforts to fix Department of Veterans Affairs. So fast forward to the 2024 campaign, Trump wins in November, and there's a mad scramble to staff the administration.
What role did you play in that? So early on, even before the election, it was very informal because, you know, President Trump didn't initially do a formal transition that you'd seen before, which actually I think in some ways was a good idea. At the time, I maybe didn't understand why, but because of all the leaks and stuff that had hurt him in the first campaign, it ultimately became a much better run transition.
And I think a lot of the credit goes to, of course, the president himself, but Susie Wiles, and I think Sergio Gore as well, too, was heading personnel. So I was working with a group of people early on to identify people that could serve in the Department of Defense.
And one day I get a call from someone and was told, hey, what do you know about Pete Hegseff? I give, you know, a few bullets about what i know about him and then you know i call pete and we we had not i mean we had still stayed in touch but we weren't you know working as closely together as we watched before it was like hey just so you know um the transition was asking questions about you and he says yeah i know i'm being considered for the role of secretary of defense. So, wow.
Okay. That's, that's, that's cool.
And so a few days later, uh, through veterans day weekend, he gets the job and, um, I started working with him during his confirmation. Uh, I helped him during the confirmation, helped him defend against a lot of the attacks that were made against him, helped with strategy.
But what I eventually took over was being his main link to the personnel operation. So helping to vet and place personnel within the Department of Defense.
And so I'd fly down to Florida a lot and work with some really great people on the PPO. They're now on the PPO team and doing that.
And so I did. So you're not working for the government at this point? No, I'm doing this on a volunteer basis.
And, you know, I was paying out of these flights out of my own pocket. Really? Did you get reimbursed? As of now, no.
Now, we're sure you've heard plenty of those free phone promises from America's biggest wireless carriers. If those deals sound too good to be true, it's probably because they are very often too good to be true.
They come with layers of fine print requiring you to sign up for four lines plus activation fees, plus, plus, plus this, that, the other thing. You don't even understand what you're signing up for.
And by the time you're done, you've paid for that free phone 3X. It was a pretty expensive free phone.
It's kind of a scam, honestly. Our wireless company is called Pure Talk, and it's got a much better and much more straightforward offer, and it comes with no strings whatsoever attached.
With a qualifying plan of just $35 a month, you get legitimately the brand new Samsung Galaxy A26 for free. It's actually free.
There aren't hidden costs. You're not signing up the rest of your life or promising to name your kid after them or something.
From virtually indestructible Gorilla Glass to next-generation camera lenses, the phone has basically everything that you want. All you need to do is switch to PureTalk.
$35 a month for unlimited talk, text, and 15 gigs of data with Mobile Hotspot, all on america's most dependable 5g network go to puretalk.com slash talker to claim your free samsung galaxy with qualifying plan when you switch to pure talk wireless by americans for americans this episode is brought to you by u.s cellular my favorite part about having u. Cellular home internet is all the things it lets me do.
Its quick connection lets me enjoy things like streaming my shows, keeping up with my friends online, taking work calls without lagging, and not having to stress about cost. Switch to U.S.
Cellular and do the things you love with the internet you love. Just $39.99 a month when bundled with a wireless plan.
And if you don't love it, you have 15 days to let us know. Terms apply.
Visit uscellular.com for details. The Glycerin 22 is built to unlock that run forever feeling.
Optimized for soft landings and powerful toe-offs at every point of every step. How? Two types of nitrogen-infused cushioning seamlessly tuned into one experience.
Softness has never been this powerful. Let's run there.
Learn more at brooksrunning.com. So you're paying your way down to help Pete Hegseth.
You're obviously strongly in favor of Pete Hegseth. Correct.
You wouldn't be doing that. Yeah.
I was very strongly supportive of him becoming Secretary of Defense. Yeah.
Yes, I know him obviously very well. I work with him.
He's such a good guy. And I would just say, you know, there's a lot of stories eventually written about me and the personnel that I was, you know, the puppet master and that I had ultimate decision rights and that I was trying to block people that supported this or that or oppose this and that.
It was all nonsense. I mean, let me tell you, again, I've already used this already, but there were people on the PPO team that were much more hardcore foreign policy than I was.
And so in a lot of cases, I didn't even need to block unaligned people. They were already getting blocked by people earlier in the process.
Well, I must say, I don't think a fair listener could accuse you of being radical in any sense. You seem totally mainstream to me.
Nothing you've said seems ideological or crazy or fringe or anything like that. You served in the Marine Corps during a war.
You didn't think that our policy was serving the country or the people who defend it. And you're just trying to keep that foremost in mind as you help create policy for the next generation.
Yes. Is that a fair? I think that's, yeah, I mean, I obviously bias, I think it's totally fair.
And I just sort of point out is that one thing that was amazing about working on the transition, it was tough sometimes, it's frustrating sometimes. And then in the administration was, there are so many good people in this administration.
I remember I worked a lot. I never went in, but I worked a lot with the first Trump administration.
And you can see me on the internet. I was standing behind the president when he was signing veterans bills all the time.
President tweeted about one of my media appearances once. I remember where I would have people from the White House and from the VA trying to talk me and Concerned Veterans for America out of supporting something the president wanted, particularly VA choice is giving choice to veterans or making it easier to fire bad VA employees.
These are political appointees saying, why do you want to do that? That's too radical. You know, just we need to fix this or that on the margin.
And in this time time around you have i think you know just like any administration there are people that aren't on board with the president but one of the coolest things i would just say working administration was having friends and people that share your mindset across the interagency yes and being able to call them up and bounce ideas off each other. And that was a really good experience, I will say.

And you saw that transition too.

Well, and you feel it.

You feel it.

And I'm not involved at all.

I'm just watching.

But it seems like the fastest way to derail the whole project, the Trump administration and the united states of america is a war with iran and that's why i've just been watching it as carefully as i can because i feel like again if you hated donald trump and you hated what the administration is doing on immigration trade anti-wookness whatever and you wanted to stop it the first thing you would do is apply pressure to have the u.s military engage in a war with iran i mean that that's my perspective on it anyway i think that and also continuing to do what we've been doing previously in in russia for sure for sure though it i don't know why well i'm going to ask you all about this but it feels like wickhoff is is helping a lot there god bless he's i mean i've already said he's a godsend god bless steve wickhoff i couldn't agree more uh as a man and as a an instrument of peace and a figure now out of history um okay so you did make just from an outsider's perspective one maybe career mistake by giving on-the-record interviews before you went in describing your foreign policy views, which I think are fully within the mainstream of the world in the U.S., but out of the mainstream among, you know, warmongers in Washington. So, like, there were—people knew that you weren't fully on board with the regime change program.
Is that fair to say? Yeah, I was very open about it. I was very on the record about it.
And most of the time, when I was saying that we shouldn't do this, it was actually in support of, you know, the president's stated preferences, like the president clearly doesn't want this. In the first term, there were people in his administration that wanted it.
He clearly didn't want it. And so it was supporting people who didn't want the war.
And so I was essentially- But Donald Trump had said, has said, and now his actions make perfectly clear, he would strongly prefer a diplomatic solution. Correct.
I don't want to speak for the president, but it's fairly obvious that that's what he wants. Well, he said it.
I mean, he said it again, and he ran on it. So it's not a crazy position.
And now things are getting so bonkers in this country that saying that makes you a bigot or something, a Nazi. It's like, I'm just going to ignore all that.
And I just want to get back to your experience. So I'm just watching this from the outside, and I'm thinking, having spent my life in my life in dc i was like dan caldwell's got a target on his back that i don't know if he knows that yeah um and then i read all of a sudden that you're a traitor you're like marched out of the pentagon um for leaking for leaking right um and the whispering campaign, the character assassination campaign begins and it hears its outline.
I don't want to upset you. You may not even be aware of this.
Dan Caldwell leaked classified information to liberal media outlets, to the media, to NBC News, for example. So I just want to be totally direct with you.
Did you leak classified information against the wishes of your superiors to media outlets? Absolutely not. Did you photograph classified material and then text pictures of that material to an NBC News reporter? Absolutely not.
And I have not spoken to an NBC reporter while at the Pentagon. Are you do you know what you've been accused of? No, I don't.
Sitting here right now, myself and Darren Selnick and Colin Carroll, the other two individuals that were escorted out of the Pentagon, initially placed on leave and then fired on Friday. We have not been told as of this recording.
One, is there what we were being investigated for? Two, is there still an investigation? And three, was there even a real investigation? Because there's a lot of evidence that there is not a real investigation. But again, sitting here right now, there are a lot of unknowns about this.

As a former Secretary of Defense would say, there's a lot of unknown unknowns.

There are some things that are pretty clear, but we have no idea what specifically we're

investigating.

So we can know some things just by the details.

So here are a couple.

Have you been polygraphed?

No.

I've never been hooked up to a polygraph machine since I've been in the Department of Defense.

Okay.

Have you given up your private communications devices, your private phone, your phone?

No.

To anybody?

No.

Okay.

So that raises the obvious question.

I'm trying not to use the F word here because the lying is just driving me insane.

You're being accused of leaking classified information, but the people accusing you would have no way of knowing whether you did that or not because they haven't polygraphed you or taken your devices your private devices correct i mean there there are you can't even make the allegation because there's no conceivable way let me just say there are so many different things that would prevent me from doing the things that you've laid out and again i don't even know if that's what i'm really being investigated for. Again, if there's a real investigation, but all these, the point is, is so what I have told some people who have asked me about what's going on is, is I would repeat something that I heard in the Marine Corps in our work up to Iraq.
I believe it was in something called a combat hunter course, which was, isn't what it sounds like. It's actually about observing things better.
And I remember an instructor very clearly saying, when you're in this environment, believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you say. And I think this needs to apply to this situation.
Yeah. The problem with it is, it's just a very serious allegation that you betrayed your boss and friend, Pete Hegseth, who you've worked with for like over a decade,

who you supported from the very beginning.

I think that's all in my, I don't want to speak for you,

but you're being accused of betraying Hegseth,

who's under attack from people who want a war with Iran.

Let's just be totally blunt about it.

And so you're being accused of betraying him,

betraying the president, and committing a crime that's a crime so this is not just like hey dan caldwell's got you know bad taste in neckties this is like dan caldwell's a criminal yeah it's just you know there's sometimes i think it just hasn't fully set in with me and what what's going on and and you know i just i want to talk about two the two other gentlemen that were that are going through this with me and what's going on with them in some ways is more infuriating because as you said i have a public profile i took some what shouldn't be controversial positions but are and you know i i was out there you know advancing things that a lot of people in the foreign positive establishment didn't want. Doesn't justify what's happening to me, but that like, let's just be honest, that is the nature of the games played in DC.
You know, Darren Selnick and Colin Carroll are patriots. Let me talk about Darren a little bit.
Darren's another person that worked with Secretary Hegsef for over a decade. He is somebody who spent decades working around veterans and military health issues.
He served in the first Bush administration at the VA. He served a critical role in the second, or excuse me, the first Trump administration.
He was a key player in advancing the VA Mission Act, one of the greatest accomplishments of the first Trump administration, which fundamentally reformed how the VA delivers health care. Darren, I think, can go to bed every night saying he saved thousands of veterans' lives because of the reforms he helped advance.
He's an Air Force veteran. In between his stints in government, he worked at Concerned Veterans for America with me and Pete, helping develop revolutionary reform to the VA that in large part were implemented by the first Trump administration.
To come back, he picked up, left his nice life in Oceanside, California. His wife stayed behind and he got a crummy apartment in Arlington, Virginia, and worked sometimes 16, 17-hour days to advance his secretary's agenda.

He played a key role in ripping out woke and DEI nonsense from the administration.

Darren was a key driver of that.

So by your description of Darren Selnick, he doesn't sound like he is engaged in the policy fights or he's some crazed ideologue.

So before I talk about Colin, Colin has not transitioned as far as I know. But I don't actually know what Darren Selnick and Colin Carroll think about Iran.
Darren could, Darren Selnick could be a secret 12 or Shia for all I know. Colin Carroll could want to, you know to nuke Iran until the sand glows.
Darren was a, he was deputy chief of staff focused on back-end office operations and personnel and military health policy. Colin Carroll, let me talk about Colin because he's, I think, an incredible individual too.
Colin was a Naval Academy graduate. He served as a recon Marine in combat.
Then he literally became a rocket scientist, working in tech, working in companies like Andrel, and he was Steve Feinberg's chief of staff. Colin's focus was on science, R&E, and budget.
He was down and in. And these gentlemen were patriots, and they did not deserve it.
none of us deserve to get traded this way, but in some ways angers me more than what's going on with them.

So we did an amazing interview with Alex Jones the other day.

It got huge numbers all over the internet.

But then we heard from YouTube, they're partially demonetizing the video because it had a forbidden word.

It had, and we're quoting now, extreme profanity. What did we say in that interview that was extreme profanity? We used the word tranny.
Tranny, tranny, tranny, tranny, tranny. It's mildly hilarious.
We didn't even think about it when we said it. It made the most powerful people in our society mad.
And that's why they demonetized us. But we're not intimidated at all for a really simple reason.
We're not controlled. We are funded by the people who watch us.
And that's why we have the freedom to say exactly what we want and the freedom also to make jokes that include the word tranny. It's a huge blessing.
You can become a member and help support free speech by going to Tucker Carlson dot com. And we will continue to be as honest as we possibly can and also tell mild jokes once in a while not extreme profanity but it's possible we will use the word tranny because it's hilarious thank you for supporting us what's happening y'all it's anthony edwards the open earbuds are great especially for when you warm it up for pre-game you like to hear the sound of the ball, but you want to hear the music.
But you also got to hear your coach. Super dope because it gives you the best of both worlds.
Check out Bose.com for more. To get real business results today, you need professional-looking content.
Meet Adobe Express. It's the easy way to make social posts, flyers, presentations, and more.
outset that depending on DoD is the largest human organization in the world. And it's not even clear.

I mean, I should say at the outset that depending on DOD is the largest human organization in the world, has more people than any. Correct.
I think in the history of the world. And there's a lot at stake.
The future of the world is at stake. It's DOD.
They have nuclear weapons. And so the pressure exerted on that agency from outside, but also the fighting within it, make it like one of the most complicated and treacherous work environments ever created.
Is that fair? That is fair. And I will say the one thing we had in common, there was a couple of things we have in common, was we were threatening a lot of established interests in our own separate ways.
And we had people who had personal vendettas against us. Yes.
And I think they weaponized the investigation against us. I think that's part of what's going on here.
But look, Colin, and let me just say Steve Feinberg, I didn't know him before this. I have a lot of respect for him.
I do too. I think he's going to be a fantastic deputy secretary.
Steve Feinberg and Colin were going to shake up how acquisitions are done, how the budgeting is done, how we do science and research. And Colin, Colin's got one speed and that's go.
And he, you know, he wasn't afraid to challenge people when they're acting stupid and wanted to keep doing the same thing. Darren's the same way.
Darren upset a lot of the people that want to keep doing, using the military to be a giant social science experiment. So we, and of course, I have some views about the role of America in the world, as we've discussed, are a little controversial.
All of us in our own ways threatened really established interests.

Your views are only controversial in Washington, D.C.

Let me tell you that as a matter of fact.

Correct.

They are not controversial anywhere else in this country or the world.

We threatened a lot of established interests inside the building and outside the building. So I just want to restate, because this is why you're here,

because you got bounced out and you're being accused of betraying your boss, your president, your nation. You have, I don't want to speak for you, not leak classified information to the news media.
You've never undergone a polygraph exam and you've never handed over your personal phone. Are all those statements true? That is all 100% correct.
And let me just say, actually, my first instinct when they came and escorted me out of my office was, I actually thought that they were going to try and get me to testify against the secretary because the secretary over the whole signal gate stuff is under an inspector general investigation. That was my first instinct was this was part of it.
So there was an investigation into leaking. I think the president, like all presidents, doesn't want leaking.
I mean, nobody wants leaking, right? If you're in charge, you don't want your employees to be leaking against you. So there was this leak investigation that was ongoing for weeks, right? Was your access to classified information limited during that time? Not at all.
In fact, the day I was escorted out of the building, I went into, I won't get specific, the highest of high level intelligence briefings. And up until the minute I was pulled out of my office, I was on highly classified systems doing my work.
So you were looking at highly classified information up until the moment they brought you outside and separated on the basis of the claim that you were leaking classified information. I was doing my job.
Part of my job entailed looking at intelligence, helping make recommendations to the secretary, giving my thoughts, working with a policy team. And most of our work was done on classified systems.
The reason I'm pressing on this is that doesn't make any sense. Doesn't make any sense to me.
Right. So if you're, I mean, because just to be clear, you don't want people leaking classified information from the Pentagon.
Let me be clear. That is a problem at the Department of Defense.
There has been things that have been shared with the media, particularly, I would say, the Panama stuff, that is unacceptable. I've been the recipient of classified information for decades, including from the Pentagon, in the form of leaks.

And every journalist who's doing his job has been. So, like, there's a lot of leaking of classified information, I can tell you.
But let's be honest. Everyone knows where that's coming from.
It's from the career staff who don't look like what the president and the secretary and vice president want to do. there's people on the joint staff that I come to respect, but a lot of them are

incredibly hostile to the secretary and vice president want to do. There's people on the joint staff that I

come to respect, but a lot of them are incredibly hostile to the secretary, to the president, and the vice president's worldview. It's pretty obvious that that's where most of the leaks are coming from.
There's a less obvious place. I just want to point something out.
As we sit here today, Tucker, and this could change by the time this is aired, but as we sit here today, Susan Rice, Michelle Flournoy, Eric Edelman are still in good standing with the Department of Defense. What? That is correct.
Susan Rice? Susan Rice. The Obama Susan Rice? Yes.
Susan Rice is still on the Defense Policy Board. Right now? As we speak, sit here today, by the time this is released, that might change.
But as we sit here today, she is still on the Defense Policy Board. now as we speak sit here today by the time this is released that might change but as we sit here today she is still on the defense policy board now that doesn't mean she can go in the building and get access to whatever she wants but it means that she works with DOD employees she can interact with them and has the credential and the affiliation with Department of Defense but Susan Rice has no relevant experience for a job like that at all.
She's a political hack. Correct.
Yet, as we sit here in April of 2025, about 100 days into the president's first term, she and a bunch of other people who are incredibly hostile to the president and his worldview remain on the defense policy board. You're sure? go on the website and check it right now and i checked with colin and darren and they they they confirmed that as well too well that's shocking um and again i i would i would just say if you want to look where leaks are maybe coming from that would be a place to start so but just back to your story and i won't linger on it every time i mention this your jaw tightens i can feel your frustration um and i should just say point frustrated you well i'm completely convinced that this is nonsense and um sinister nonsense but um if you you're the subject of an investigation a leak investigation if the investigators had determined that you were leaking classified information to the news media you probably wouldn't have continued to receive access to classified information correct correct and i probably would be sitting here today you'd be in jail dude you'd be you would have been handcuffed correct if if i if if, well, again, I just want to be clear here.

I still don't know if the term they used is, and that you see the DOD using, is unauthorized release of information.

If I think there's a lot of rumors and people are exploiting this that we can talk about.

If I actually did some of the things that anonymous people on the internet and in the pentagon are saying i did i'd i'd be in handcuffs and you're not i'm not yeah i'd be like reality winner or uh bradley manning or edward snowden or one of those people it's very obvious to me um having far fewer details than you have, that you're one of the people who is perceived to be standing in the way of a regime change war in Iran. And that was kind of your crime.
That seems obvious to me. I think it's complicated.
There's other layers to this. But based on what has been happening since then, I think that is a factor is that I think and it is being weaponized against me is I think that.
They want to also go after and I think that had I can't say this with certainty, but just speculating that had somebody in the White House not said, OK, we need to put a stop to this, there have probably been more people treated the same way that Colin, Darren Selnick, and myself were treated. So the fastest way to knock someone out of commission and eliminate his influence, and in your case, his job, is to tell the person that he works for that that person's betraying you.
That person's betraying you. And so, I mean, it sounds to me, again, I keep putting words in your mouth, but it sounds to me like you have felt, and it sounds like you still feel, that your views are aligned with those of the president.
100%. I wouldn't have joined this administration if I didn't feel that way.
Again, I don't speak for the president, but here's the other thing too. I had this attitude in the Pentagon, and maybe this was, you know, I still had this attitude that I was still, you know, in the Marine Corps.
It's like, hey, when a decision is made, when we've decided on a course of action that we're going to do this, we're going to make sure it's executed properly.

Yes.

And you still raise concerns.

You still, if you see something happening, then you can do that.

But if you are so repulsed by what's happening, then you should resign.

So I think what you're saying is that you were serving your boss, bosses, even when you personally disagreed. Correct.
As you did in the U.S. Marine Corps.
Correct. Okay.
How does, I don't even want to ask you, but I'm going to, how does this make you, I mean, you must feel like you're living in a dream. A nightmare.
I said earlier, sometimes I feel like it hasn't fully set in because it does feel like a dream. It's like, when am I going to wake up at 0430 and just get ready for work and walk my dog, drop her off at doggy daycare, and then roll into the river entrance back in the Pentagon? I feel like on some level that's happening.
And, you it, I feel like it hasn't fully hit me, but it's been awful. I mean, the impact on my family, you know, I'll just say I wanted to try and hide this from my mom as long as possible because I was worried.
She's a warrior. I love her to death.
She's a saint.

I didn't want to tell her. Then an hour later, somebody leaked to Reuters describing exactly what had happened to me.
And then six hours later, they pulled the same stunt with Darren. And then 12 hours later, they pulled the same stunt with Colin.
And so, you know, it's been devastating and it's caused a lot of stress to, to my family. Just one thing I want to say is I've, I've been a friend and supporter of Pete Hegseff for a long time.
And I'm, I'm just personally devastated by this. It's, it's, it's just awful and, and and whatnot.
But at the end of the day, putting all this aside, Pete Hegseff needs to be a successful Secretary of Defense. And the entire Department of Defense be continued to be consumed by chaos.
They have a great team there. They have a great deputy secretary.
We just talked about Steve Feinberg. They have a, I think one of the leading lights of the America first foreign policy movement in Bridge Colby, a dear friend of mine running the policy shop now effectively the Pentagon's number three.
He has a lot of great mid-level and junior staffers under him. You're going to have some great undersecretaries coming in.
These are just world-class people. These are not political hacks.
You know, people like Mike Duffy at ANS, people like Emile Michaels at ANS's acquisition and sustainment at research and engineering. Service secretaries, I think are going to be great.
Dan Driscoll, even though he has a secondary job running an agency that shouldn't exist, ATF, I think he's proven to be a great Army secretary. And look, one of my favorite things, Tucker, is admitting you're wrong about people.
One person I was wrong about was John Phelan. I was skeptical of him being Navy secretary.
And so far, I have to say him and his team are off to a great start. I think Troy Mink is going to be a fantastic Air Force Secretary.
And so there's this fantastic team underneath the Secretary that can enable him to be incredibly successful. He has to move past this.
He has to get a solid team around him in the front office. And this isn't a plea to hire me back.
I can't really just want to move on and go back to doing what I was doing before and being an advocate on the outside. But without Darren and I and others, he needs to get a strong team in there.
And there's some great people that I think could do that.

And the chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

Oh, I have to say, this is interesting you bring him up.

Chairman Dan Raisin-Cain, incredibly impressive.

And I actually think, if I'm being honest, one thing that has incited the building against President Trump and the secretary

was the selection of him.

They want a lot of people wanted the secretary and the president to go the normal route, including some people in the administration and pick a combatant commander, you know, a general guerrilla or an Admiral Paparo. I actually like Admiral Pamparo, but they wanted him to go that route.

No, instead, they did something that needed to happen,