Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Professor Jeffrey Sachs on Ukraine, Russia, Israel and 2024
Video Transcript
October 07, 2024
post photo preview

Watch the full episode HERE

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


It's Friday, October 4. 

Tonight: Professor Jeffrey Sachs is a frequent guest on our program and one reason for that is that he is easily one of the most interesting public policy analysts with a virtually singular trajectory. Sachs, who is now on the faculty of Columbia, spent most of his early career at Harvard. That is where he received his bachelor's, master's, and Ph.D. in economics and was named a full professor by the age of 28. The reason for that extreme height up the ladder was that Sachs in the ‘80s and early ‘90s had become one of the most influential and globally respected economic policy planners on the planet. He had led several countries almost single-handedly, including Bolivia and Poland, out of their debt crises and became a significant advisor to the post-Soviet governments of Russia under both Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin. In sum, Professor Sachs has always had one foot planted quite centrally in the most influential mainstream circles. 

As recently as 2020, he was named by Lancet to cheer its commission on COVID-19, showing that he continued to be on the inside of significant mainstream organizations. His frequent media appearances, including on many network news programs and outlets like “Morning Joe,” were reflective of how respected he was in those kinds of establishment circles. And yet Sachs, despite his access to the highest circles of political power and policymaking, has never really been an adherent, certainly not a reliable hearing of establishment orthodoxy. Over the years, he has become increasingly critical, one might say radically so, of the core orthodoxies of the U.S. government and particularly of its foreign policy. He has long been a vehement critic of neoconservative ideology, was a vocal opponent of the U.S.-NATO role in the war in Ukraine, from the start, and has become one of the sharpest and most emphatic opponents of Israeli government actions and U.S. support for them. He also, even in his position as chair of that COVID commission, ended up concluding and arguing that it was more likely than not that the epidemic originated from a leak in the Wuhan lab and not from naturally occurring viruses. 

Now he has found himself so alienated by establishment Washington, you'll never see him on “Morning Joe” anymore, that he announced his protest support for Jill Stein and the Green Party in the 2024 presidential election as a way of expressing his increasingly radical discontent with the U.S. security state and its ongoing control of our government, regardless of which party wins elections. Shortly before this show, we sat down with him for a little bit over an hour for a very wide-ranging and I think very thought-provoking discussion about the 2024 elections, about the uniparty as represented by the support for Kamala of the Cheney family and Bush-Cheney neocons, the broader historical context for how militarism and neoconservatism and interventionism came to drive U.S. actions since the early 1990s. We talk about both the war in Ukraine and the regional war now raging in the Middle East and we end, or at least he does, on a surprisingly optimistic note, with a surprisingly optimistic vision for how all of this finally might be overturned. 

Like Professor John Mearsheimer, who was interviewed last night, Professor Sachs speaks not as a pundit or an ideologue, but as a scholar who has deeply studied all of these issues, as well as a first-hand participant in many of the historical events that continue to shape these policies, as well as our current war policies. 

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.


Interview: Jeffrey Sachs

G. Greenwald: First, it's always great to see you. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk to us today. 

 

Jeffrey Sachs: Great to be with you. Thanks. Thank you. 

 

G. Greenwald: As is usually the case when we have you here, an enormous amount is going on, crises all over the world, wars that are escalating. We obviously want to delve into those a great deal but before we get to those, I think that we haven't had you on since you announced your decision to endorse neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris, but instead to endorse Jill Stein's candidacy for president and the Green Party ticket. Can you talk about the reasons you made that choice? 

 

Jeffrey Sachs: Well, basically, I can't even vote for her on the New York ballot, so, I don't feel we have much choice. I don't think either of the two main candidates is up to the job of being president and I don't feel like voting for anybody that isn't up to the job. It's pretty bad that we have this situation. 

 

G. Greenwald: When you say not up to the job, do you mean they aren't personally capable of carrying out the duties of the presidency or are there specific issues where you believe neither of those two candidates have the right view or the right understanding of the issues to be an effective president? 

 

Jeffrey Sachs: Both. I don't think either for different reasons, is really capable of guiding our country to security and safety. That requires helping to guide the world to security and safety and I don't believe that either Trump or Harris is likely to do that. Neither of them has what it takes to be able to do that, which is both the knowledge and personal character to make the right decisions. Trump, we know about, I don't have to belabor the point. Harris is not only completely inexperienced, she shows no recognition of the real issues in international affairs. She pretty much blindly follows the Biden administration, which may be a bit understandable in her capacity as vice president but is not so understandable in her capacity as a candidate for the presidency. Both of them are on the deeply wrong side of the issues in the Middle East. Both of them are completely obedient to the Israel lobby, which is a disaster for Israel first and foremost, but also for the United States and the world. I should say first and foremost, for the Palestinian people. Let me be clear, but then also for Israel, for the United States and the world. And both seem to be pretty slavishly following that Israel lobby line when it comes to China. They compete with each other over who could be nastier and I would say dumber in how we're approaching our relations with China. It's not good. It's just not good at all. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, I get all that and those are all things that I want to dive into a little bit more deeply with you. Before we do, just on the same topic, you made a podcast appearance on the “All-In” podcast alongside Professor Mearsheimer, who's a frequent guest on our show and, in fact, he was on our show last night and we spent most of our time talking about the Middle East and Ukraine, but also about the 2024 election. And what he said is that this argument Trump is making about why he's more trustworthy or more liable to foster stability and peace in the world – namely that I was president for four years and none of these wars were breaking out, it was only once Biden was in office did the Russian invasion of Ukraine happen, it was only once Biden was in office that October 7 happened and everything that followed from that, now, the world is sort of in flames, whereas when I was president for four years, the war was more or less stable without a lot of very dangerous wars breaking out – and I asked him: do you think that was just kind of a coincidence, good luck on Trump's part, or is there something about Trump's demeanor and approach and ethos that is responsible for that? He said he thinks the Democratic Party's instinct now is to always be in favor of military intervention in one way or another, whereas he thinks Trump's is to be averse to that, that he considers not engaging the United States in wars to be kind of a source of pride for him. Do you think there's any validity to that perspective? 

 

Jeffrey Sachs: There could be. It's possible. But on the other hand, I would say Trump made a mess of so many global issues that helped to bring us to where we are. He obviously did not solve the Israel-Palestine issue. Quite the contrary. He obviously did not solve the issues with Iran, utterly the contrary. He escalated the issues with China. He armed Ukraine actually during his term. The escalation in 2022 was under Biden, but Trump was a part of the same process. Yes, NATO will enlarge aid to Ukraine and yes, the United States will arm Ukraine, which occurred under Trump. So, when you look at all of these theaters of conflict, Trump solved little, he understood little, and he appointed people like Pompeo and Bolton... 

 

G. Greenwald: And Nikki Haley. 

 

Jeffrey Sachs: And Nikki Haley. Maybe there are glimmers of hope that he will avoid a war. I don't want to argue against that, but I just don't find it so reassuring. I have to say, I think both of them are basically going to be continuing creatures of the U.S. deep state. Trump's rhetoric just in recent days about Iran, I'm paraphrasing that “we’ll destroy Iran,” but he said some pretty completely outrageous things in the last few days doesn't give me much confidence. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, I think they've convinced him, even though there's not any evidence for it, that Iran is actually trying to engineer assassinations against Trump and knowing that he would take that very personally. I'm not saying that's the only factor, but I do believe that he's convinced of that and, of course… 

 

Jeffrey Sachs: That seems to be a phony story from what I can get, traveling in and out of planes but it seems like a plant of the FBI, from what I heard. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah. I mean, that shouldn't be surprising. And of course, he has Miriam Adelson financed his campaign. And anyway, I think there are a lot of reasons to be concerned about that as well. Last question on Jill Stein and elections. You know very well the argument having just kind of laid out a case to be concerned about Trump, which is that although you can't vote for Jill Stein because you're in New York, even if you could, it wouldn't much matter. New York is, I think, still a pretty safe state for the Democrats. But the argument is, of course, in swing states, the more people who listen to you, who trust your credibility and hear you endorsing Jill Stein, the more people who follow through on that and actually vote for Jill Stein in, say, key swing states, in reality, it's really just a vote for Donald Trump in effect. I guess my question for you is, number one, do you accept that premise? And number two, if you do, does that concern you? Do you care? 

 

Jeffrey Sachs: I'm very worried about both of these candidates and very worried about the state of our country. I'm very worried about the fact that our foreign policy really is determined by deeper forces. I think what Putin said in an interview with Figaro in 2017 is very interesting. Putin is quoted as saying that by then, in 2017, he had worked with three U.S. presidents and he said they come into office with some ideas but then, as he described it, the men in dark suits and blue ties show up to explain to them the way things really are. And we know, with Trump, Bolton showed up and Pompeo showed up and they explained how things really are. We should understand in the United States that what passes for our democracy right now is not real engagement of the people and our elections are completely overblown in terms of what they do regarding America's role in the world, which right now, because of how close we are to complete disaster in a global war, is actually the preeminent issue. And we have a deep-state problem that is absolutely severe. So, I'm not telling people how to vote. I really I'm not. I'm not voting. So, I cannot myself vote for anybody, even on the ostensible lesser evil basis, if I don't feel that they are meeting the minimum standards for decency as a president of the United States. It's sad. Of course, it's extremely regrettable. I think it's a weakness of our system. In parliamentary systems, you have many more choices. You can have coalitions that emerge afterward. We have two lousy choices right now. The two explanations for our two lousy choices are that we are a plutocracy where politics is driven by huge money that has nothing to do with us and we are a deep-state system where the things that really determine life and death for us, and especially the 90 seconds of proximity to nuclear Armageddon as defined by the Doomsday Clock, is not determined by democratic institutions engaged in public deliberation and debate. It's determined secretly, surreptitiously, with narratives that are based on lies and where public opinion plays very little role. This is alarming. So, I would say that no matter what happens in November, honestly, we have our urgent work cut out for us to restore some semblance of democratic responsibility – small D – democratic responsibility for our foreign policy because if we continue to be led by the CIA, the NSC, the Pentagon, the arms contractors, the Israel lobby and all the rest, we are just going to go deeper and deeper into war. 

 

G. Greenwald: I just have one anecdote to illustrate what you are saying. We had on our show, Speaker Mike Johnson, a couple of months before he became speaker when nobody thought of him as a potential speaker, and one of the reasons he had caught my eye was because he was becoming this very vocal and effective critic of the U.S. Security State, the need to have much more fortified privacy for individuals to curb surveillance. He was very critical of the attempt to renew FISA, he came on my show and he laid all of that out in extremely convincing ways, and I walked away and I even said to people, wow, he seems impressive to me. And he's very smart. He's a lawyer and has given a lot of thought to these issues. He becomes speaker and within a month not only was he shepherding the FISA renewal law that he told me so explicitly and had been saying for months he was opposed to, not only was he shepherding it and making sure that it passed, but he was also blocking any attempts to impose even minimal reforms on how the NSA or the CIA or the FBI could spy on Americans. When finally somebody confronted him and said, this is a complete reversal from everything, you changed on a dime as soon as you became speaker, his explanation was I was taken to a very secret, sensitive part of the CIA and they showed me the briefing that convinced me that this spying is necessary. It's just such a vivid and candid expression of who actually rules Washington. No matter how you think you're voting or what the effects of the election are. 

 

Jeffrey Sachs: That's exactly right and it is exactly true. And people should at least scratch their heads when we have had these so-called negotiations over cease-fires in the Middle East. Who's negotiating? The CIA and Mossad? Are you kidding – the CIA, is supposed to be an intelligence agency? Of course, we know it's a private army of the president and the secretive one, but they're the ones negotiating. And I can tell you, case after case, it's the same story, and I see it when I deal with the politicians as well, they're taken aside and the facts are explained to them and everything is confidential. Believe me, our life and death are in the hands of confidential papers that we're not going to hear about. And what's said in public is phony. And this is how our government operates right now. And so, it's just to say about the election, again, nothing is solved on Election Day. We have a struggle to restore a democratic process in the United States. And that means take it out of the plutocratic hands and that means to take it out of the deep state CIA-Pentagon-Arms Contractors hands. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, I don't know if you've given a lot of thought to this because maybe it doesn't deserve all that much thought. But, you know, I know that you recall very well how Democrats talked about George Bush and Dick Cheney and the neocons, especially Dick Cheney, as this kind of Hitler figure, this fascist, this warmonger who wanted to go to war just to increase the value of his Halliburton stock. They also accused him of stealing the 2000 election away from what they consider the rightful winner to be, which is Al Gore. Now, here we are, 20 years later, and Dick Cheney and his daughter in his name are actively campaigning for the Democratic candidate, not just campaigning for them because they think Trump is a threat to democracy, but because they're specifically saying that the Kamala-led Democratic Party's foreign policy is closer to “our foreign policy,” meaning us, the Cheneys than a Trump-led Republican Party would be. I remember back in the day, too, Nancy Pelosi was a senior Democrat. She was accusing George Bush and Dick Cheney of the most gruesome accusations she could think of. And then it turns out when Nancy Pelosi's daughter creates a documentary they cut, she says that George W. Bush is like a member of the Pelosi family, that the two love each other so much and have for many years, so that it's all sort of this theater. But what do you make of this kind of migration of neocons and Bush-Cheney officials away from the Republican Party very enthusiastically, not begrudgingly supporting the Democrats who, 20 years ago, were calling them Nazis and fascists? 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
9
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted
TONIGHT: Submit Your Questions for the Friday Mailbag!

We look forward to seeing what’s on your mind. Please feel free to submit more than one question.

August 14, 2025

Thank you Glen for your fearless voice on Gaza. My support and respect for you is ongoing.

16 hours ago

Why do you always have this negative obsession with Israel and why do you only have guests that support your distorted opinion. At least get guests that disagree with you like Ben Shapiro. Do you have the same opinion about the killing of Christians, Druse, and Gays in Islamic countries. There are a billion Muslims and a few million Jews in the world, and it take a Gay Jew to add fuel to the hatred of Israel. How sick is that.

post photo preview
Should Obama Admin Officials Be Prosecuted for Russiagate Lies? Major Escalations in Trump/Brazil Conflict
System Update #498

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXeM7_lvrgdg_5Q9HFyUAtiZmWcpNFbv5Y5SlIIi4PzkGFrNyl7a32vxRkND5L9ugAgbJXX9MBL9c3Yac2CNxE5Xv4dDiigLQUx75j4d5gokXZt3PW088MjMKVwVxIcV9pI2Cu4hXz-IRwukRmzz5bU?key=PiLZZVDB8mI7afwDZI6o3g

The Russiagate fraud is receiving all sorts of new attention and scrutiny thanks to documents first declassified and then released by Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. As we reported at length last week, these documents were quite incriminating for various Obama officials, such as former CIA Director James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director Jim Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, as they reveal what was a deliberate attempt to weaponize intelligence findings for purely partisan and political ends in 2016, namely, to manipulate the American electorate into voting for their former Obama administration colleague Hillary Clinton as president, and more importantly, defeating Donald Trump, and then repeatedly lying about it to Congress and the American people. 

Yesterday, it was reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi is not only investigating, which is kind of meaningless, but what's not meaningless is that she's also apparently empaneling a grand jury to investigate whether there was prosecutable criminality at the highest levels of the Obama administration. We'll examine that obviously important question. 

Then, we’ll examine what's driving all his complex escalation of Trump’s decision for 50% tariffs on Brazilian products and what's at stake, and the potential consequences for all sides. 

AD_4nXeM7_lvrgdg_5Q9HFyUAtiZmWcpNFbv5Y5SlIIi4PzkGFrNyl7a32vxRkND5L9ugAgbJXX9MBL9c3Yac2CNxE5Xv4dDiigLQUx75j4d5gokXZt3PW088MjMKVwVxIcV9pI2Cu4hXz-IRwukRmzz5bU?key=PiLZZVDB8mI7afwDZI6o3g

AD_4nXcMLHddBcYrOQkGBrftza6Qmzy1fTdJQYf__iGj6ghLK6A5bXi0gHsAdFB4QQg9QIS86OS8NB9osGCnH9eBJ-eq249C6MDSOU7yW1FeA7Fc3dHzrytPwkzWr928FUUPA3BRlx4Q2CPAJI7vGYnjUtg?key=PiLZZVDB8mI7afwDZI6o3g

I believe it's been obvious, pretty much from the very beginning of the Russiagate hoax, the Russiagate fraud, which I'll remind you, again, was driven by the core conspiracy claim that the Trump campaign officials collaborated and colluded and conspired with the Kremlin to hack into the DNC email server as well as John Podesta's email and disseminate those emails to WikiLeaks and by the broader conspiracy theory that Trump was being blackmailed by Vladimir Putin with sexual material, compromising financial information, personal blackmail as well, and that therefore the Kremlin was basically, once Trump got elected running the country, was a completely unhinged and deranged conspiracy theory from the start for which there was no evidence. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Trump Admin Unleashes More Policies That Prioritize Israel Over American Citizens; The Smear Campaign Against Gaza Aid Whistleblower with Journalist Mel Witte
System Update #497

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXfb6_8u1Lpq1OnbUDY01-uKWOMTGYJr_VpZMwCTb2IniIqJxHTDhet_15t7Rqbxygnw3T8WFswmonhZm8gOvAMEOfIgdgNwYWk7wn8lW2g-pqcGYMzY4I-YMCwjT4_0_UvrAYj-Fai4K0F4nRBO8Q?key=BwcFiBmu5qlNx-80kubn7Q

That the U.S. government and multiple state governments are devoutly loyal to Israel is hardly a secret. Anyone who pays even minimal attention to American politics knows that. The Trump administration has severely escalated this framework. The administration does not just send billions of dollars and massive amounts of arms to Israel, but they go much further: they have been routinely punishing American citizens and jeopardizing American interests to serve and protect Israeli interests. 

Our guest is Melissa Witte. Last week, I praised her work and independent journalism. Mel Witte is a strong believer in the America First ideology that was sold by Donald Trump, whose candidacy and MAGA movement she has supported. But unlike many, if not most, Trump supporters, she actually took seriously the core promises of America First, and she has been scathing in her denunciation of the Trump administration for deviating so brazenly from them, but also quite relentless and meticulous and detail-oriented and evidence-based in her reporting on all of these matters. We have wanted her on our show for some time and she is our guest for this show. 

AD_4nXfb6_8u1Lpq1OnbUDY01-uKWOMTGYJr_VpZMwCTb2IniIqJxHTDhet_15t7Rqbxygnw3T8WFswmonhZm8gOvAMEOfIgdgNwYWk7wn8lW2g-pqcGYMzY4I-YMCwjT4_0_UvrAYj-Fai4K0F4nRBO8Q?key=BwcFiBmu5qlNx-80kubn7Q

Foto editada de homem de terno e gravataO conteúdo gerado por IA pode estar incorreto.

I don't think people realize how many policies there are already in place in the United States that punish American citizens and deprive American citizens of certain benefits and certain rights if they'd refuse to either sign a loyalty oath to Israel, where they agree never to boycott the state of Israel, even though they're allowed to boycott every other country on the planet, even other American states, you just can't boycott Israel. 

There are also many programs that will dismantle crucial programs beneficial to American interests in order to shield Israel from criticism or to claim that, by allowing protest against Israel, an institution is being antisemitic. And it doesn't matter how valuable these programs are, if they're associated with an institution that Israel supporters dislike for having allowed some protests against Israel, they will dismantle and defund the program. Let's start with the second policy that happened on Friday night as an example, just to illustrate how extreme this has become. 

Here's Paul Graham, a very successful investor in Silicon Valley, who has been very supportive of Republican and conservative policies, but also quite outspoken about the Trump administration's financing of Israel. On August 3, 2025, he said this:

AD_4nXd1KxbYwNTldwdVTbxmNs7o6aXiCSWEnfwaYH1L594H51aluoFUZfDOfLGeb3nxVxQShRi2zuz89da_TuPJMaIoHzLtg-i8x7GAQKp1eSzJJA5YEKYZJie0vIfLAXn9Waq9jiaJOXl6FU2_aBUWRp4?key=BwcFiBmu5qlNx-80kubn7Q

 Terrence Tao is probably the most important and accomplished mathematician on the planet. Maybe there are two or three people who compete with him. He's an Australian American citizen. He works inside the United States, on research programs funded by the U.S. government, which the government funds because applied mathematics is one of the most crucial fields to all sorts of programs that the United States needs to compete with China, from AI and cryptography to detecting financial fraud or managing financial transactions. 

The Allies were able to break Nazi codes using cryptography because of mathematicians during World War II. That's the equivalent of who this person is and what this program does. Yet, the Trump administration just announced that they're defunding it, not because they say that it's wasteful or that it's not producing benefits. And it's no part of some broader attempt to defund research programs at universities. The Trump administration is funding all sorts of research. Instituting programs at universities is something the U.S. government has always done for its own benefit. 

The only programs they're defunding are ones that they claim are attached to institutions like UCLA, which they claimed are antisemitic. They claim that about Harvard, filled with Jewish students and Jewish administrators, five of the last seven presidents of Harvard are Jewish, yet somehow the Trump administration decided that's an antisemitic institution because they allowed protests against Israel. Same with UCLA. Anyone who knows UCLA knows how robustly represented Jewish students and Jewish faculty members are. 

Read here what Terence Tao said on his social media account about why this was done. This was on August 1. 

 Again, this is so ironic. The conservative movement spent a full decade mocking claims of racism, mocking claims that people on college campuses need anti-discrimination protection, then the Trump administration gets in and makes it one of their very top priorities to declare that there's a racism epidemic in the United States, but only against one group. There's only one genuinely marginalized, true victim group in the United States, and that's American Jews and the Trump administration has been doing everything, no matter how much it harms American citizens or American interests, to purge the world of this one form of bigotry that it claims has pervaded all American institutions. And it will sacrifice anything to do so. This is not new. This is just how extreme these things can get in the framework of American politics. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Stephen Miller's False Denials About Trump's Campus "Hate Speech" Codes; Sohrab Ahmari on the MAGA Splits Over Antitrust, Foreign Wars, and More
System Update #495

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it as a podcast on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast platform.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXcVfmDdHrQ-Zpha3--J66DT8UosaZB6QyVMRKKiDc8Pc2H964SPdSLx9gna_y2ysGMem-Xi15VbLqaGVV7Maed8gr8ZLSxbMYn8cSuV6G0zDRkpROzpYBVRwH_J8C9Vc2jmBXiAk1Raeq68gE03_xk?key=VHGDu0SWVvqcMVQQb5VmgQ

One of President Trump's most powerful advisers, Stephen Miller, last night claimed that I had posted what he called "patently false" statements about the Trump administration’s policy. Specifically, earlier in the day, I had pointed out – and documented, as I've done many times – that the Trump administration has implemented a radically expanded "hate speech" code that outlawed a wide range of opinions about Israel and Jewish individuals and, even worse, that they have been pressuring American universities to adopt this expanded "hate speech" code on campuses to restrict the free speech rights, not of foreign students, but of American professors, American administrators and American students. It's a direct attack on the free speech rights of Americans on college campuses. 

I also pointed out – as I have covered here many times – that the Trump administration has also adopted a policy of deporting law-abiding citizens, not for criticizing the United States, but for criticizing Israel. All of my claims here are demonstrably and indisputably true. Yet after I pointed them out yesterday, and various MAGA influencers began responding to them and promoting them, White House officials began contacting them to convince them that my claims weren't true. When that didn't work because I was able to provide the evidence, the White House late last night dispatched one of its most popular officials – Stephen Miller – to label my claims “patently false." 

The policies in question, adopted by the Trump administration, especially these attacks on free speech on American college campuses through hate speech codes, are of great importance, precisely, since they do attack the free speech rights of Americans at our universities, and the actual truth of what the Trump administration should be demonstrated. So that's exactly what we're going to do tonight. 

Then: The emergence of Donald Trump and his MAGA ideology in the Republican Party led to the opening of all sorts of new ideas and policies previously anathema in that party. All of that, in turn, led to vibrant debates and competing views within the Trump coalition, as well as to all new voices and perspectives. One of the most interesting thinkers to emerge from that clash is our guest tonight: he's Sohrab Ahmari, one of the founders of Compact Magazine and now the U.S. editor for the online journal UnHerd. We’ll talk about all of that, as well as other MAGA divisions becoming increasingly more visible on economic populism generally, war and foreign policy, and much more. 

AD_4nXcVfmDdHrQ-Zpha3--J66DT8UosaZB6QyVMRKKiDc8Pc2H964SPdSLx9gna_y2ysGMem-Xi15VbLqaGVV7Maed8gr8ZLSxbMYn8cSuV6G0zDRkpROzpYBVRwH_J8C9Vc2jmBXiAk1Raeq68gE03_xk?key=VHGDu0SWVvqcMVQQb5VmgQ

Sometimes, government policy is carried out with very flamboyant and melodramatic announcements that everyone can listen to and understand, but more often it's carried out through a series of documents, very lengthy documents, sometimes legal documents, that have a great deal of complexity to them. 

Oftentimes, when that happens, the government, if it has a policy or is pursuing things that are unpopular, especially among its own voters, can just try to confuse things by claiming that people's descriptions of what they're doing are untrue and false and trying to just confuse people with a bunch of irrelevances or false claims. A lot of people don't know what to make of it. They just throw up their hands because most people don't have the time to sort through all that. Especially if you're a supporter of a political movement and you hear that they're pursuing a policy that you just think is so anathema to their ideology that you don't want to believe that they're doing, you're happy to hear from the government when they say, “Oh, that's a lie. Don't listen to the persons or the people saying that. That's not actually what we're doing.”

Yet when that happens, I think it's very incumbent upon everybody who wants to know what their government is doing to actually understand the truth. And that is what happened last night. 

I've been reporting for several months now on the Trump administration's systematic efforts to force American universities to adopt expanded hate speech codes. Remember, for so long, conservatives hated hate speech codes on college campuses. They condemned it as censorship. They said it's designed to suppress ideas. 

Oftentimes, those hate speech codes were justified on the grounds that it's necessary to protect minority groups or that those ideas are hateful and incite violence. And all of this, we were told by most conservatives that I know, I think, in probably a consensus close to unanimity, we were told that this is just repressive behavior, that faculty and students on campus should have the freedom to express whatever views they want. If they're controversial, if they are offensive, if they are just disliked by others, the solution is not to ban those ideas or punish those people, but to allow open debate to flourish and people to hear those ideas. 

That is a critique I vehemently agree with. And I've long sided with conservatives on this censorship debate as it has formed over the last, say, six, seven, eight years when it comes to online discourse, when it comes to campus discourse, free speech is something that is not just a constitutional guarantee and according to the Declaration of Independence, a right guaranteed by God, but it is also central to the American ethos of how we think debate should unfold. We don't trust the central authority to dictate what ideas are prohibited and which ones aren't. Instead, we believe in the free flow of ideas and the ability of adults to listen and make up their own minds. 

That's the opposite of what the Trump administration has now been doing. What they said they believed in, Donald Trump, in his inauguration and other times, was that he wanted to restore free speech. Early on in the administration, JD Vance went to Europe and chided them for having long lists of prohibited ideas for which their citizens are punished if they express those views. And the reality is that's exactly what the Trump administration has been doing. 

I want to make clear I'm not talking here about the controversies over deporting foreign students for criticizing Israel. That's a separate issue, which is part of this discussion, but that's totally ancillary and secondary. I've covered that many times. That is not what I'm discussing. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals