Dec. 6, 2025 - Bannon's War Room
48:56
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| And you don't have the major American newspapers in there. | ||
| And he actually thought he thought he could get away with it. | ||
| He thought he could get away with doing whatever he wanted to do inside the Pentagon because he has a news source run by a Chinese religious cult reporting on him instead of the Wall Street Journal. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Laura Loomer has a desk in the press room at the Pentagon now, not the Washington Post, Washington Post delivering these stories. | |
| I do want to talk about some of the legacy platforms that I've long been a critic of. | ||
| I'll start with the F-35. | ||
| They cost about $100 million a copy. | ||
| What percentage of the F-35 are fully mission capable today? | ||
|
unidentified
|
So that's a great question, Matt, and I appreciate you getting after it because not enough. | |
| Not enough. | ||
| It is the most capable fighter that we have right now. | ||
| When it flies. | ||
|
unidentified
|
When it flies, you're right. | |
| It is the most capable fighter. | ||
| What we have right now, and you saw just last month in the acquisition speech, is a department and leadership that's willing to get after it to challenge industry to produce better. | ||
| Yeah, but what percentage of them can fly? | ||
|
unidentified
|
So not enough. | |
| Not enough. | ||
| Yeah, but you just called it our most capable platform, and less than 40% of them, by my last review of the Air Force's statements, are fully mission capable. | ||
| Why is it not failure for a platform to perform at less than 40% when it costs $100 million? | ||
|
unidentified
|
So Matt, looking at it holistically, sure, you can throw out the number 40%. | |
| But when you look at Operation Midnight Hammer, Operation Rough Rider. | ||
| Those weren't F35. | ||
| F-35 was not delivering the payload on but they were supporting, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
And so those B-2s wouldn't have gotten there without that. | |
| The airplane. | ||
| What would have stopped them? | ||
|
unidentified
|
There are plenty of surface-to-air missile systems that the Iranians have. | |
| We know that. | ||
| Did they shoot any of them? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, they didn't because we were so successful. | |
| And that platform, the F-35, is an amazing platform that can go after these systems. | ||
| It is the most capable platform we have, Matt. | ||
| And what we're doing right now is we have a plan to get to 80% mission-capable rates by 2030. | ||
| And what you know... | ||
| And if you don't, what will be the accountability for Lockheed Martin? | ||
|
unidentified
|
So we are holding Lockheed Martin to task each and every day. | |
| The Deputy Secretary of War and Mike Duffy, the Undersecretary for Acquisitions Statement, is meeting with Lockheed Martin almost weekly. | ||
| Because they have the full system performance contract. | ||
| There's no other contractor that's doing system performance work as a prime on the F-35, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's correct. | |
| And Lockheed built them. | ||
| So Lockheed built them. | ||
| Lockheed maintains them. | ||
| Have they had any consequence for not being able to put more than 40% of them in full mission capability? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Absolutely. | |
| And under this administration, under President Trump's administration, they are being held to task. | ||
| The previous administration, it was a joke. | ||
| So what are the consequences? | ||
|
unidentified
|
So the consequences are they're here. | |
| They're here in the building each and every day. | ||
| Contracts are being evaluated and re-evaluated. | ||
| We are not just looking at how many airplanes are we buying, but we're looking at parts, sustainment, reliability of the aircraft. | ||
| We're picking and choosing. | ||
| We have actually smart people who are getting after it right now to buy the right parts to make sure the aircraft are up and meeting the mission capable ratings that you are asking for. | ||
| You're right. | ||
| You're right. | ||
|
unidentified
|
What you have been pushing is the exact right thing. | |
| What you didn't have was an administration that wanted to get after it. | ||
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
| Pray for our enemies because we're going medieval on these people. | ||
| Here's not got a free shot at all these networks lying about the people. | ||
| The people have had a belly full of it. | ||
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you're trying to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it. | ||
| It's going to happen. | ||
| And where do people like that go to share the big lies? | ||
| MAGA Media. | ||
| I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience. | ||
| Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? | ||
| If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Welcome to the War Room. | ||
| It's Friday, December 5th in the year of our Lord 2025. | ||
| Natalie Winters hosting today. | ||
| We've got a packed show for you. | ||
| Don't go anywhere. | ||
| We got Mike Davis, Joe Allen, Bradley Thayer. | ||
| But we're going to start, frankly, where I think most shows, if you look where they are really talking about the issues that they're really getting into, it's where we always do. | ||
| It's the Pentagon, some wonderful accountability, or I guess at least attempted accountability there coming from, of course, War Room favorite, former Congressman Matt Gates. | ||
| I wanted to invite a member, I'm sure you guys have seen by now, the new Pentagon Press Corps. | ||
| I'm obviously part of the White House one, but now the Pentagon has its own. | ||
| I guess after they kicked out everyone from the mainstream press, they replaced them with people who I think are doing a much fairer job, or at least asking the questions that you guys probably care more about, like we saw in that exchange. | ||
| Breanna Morello, the intrepid Breanna Morello, you have so much going on. | ||
| You got so many shows. | ||
| You got so many websites that you're always contributing to. | ||
| You're always breaking stories. | ||
| It's an honor to have you on with us. | ||
| I don't know how you have the time to also be at the Pentagon, but I know you've been there. | ||
| You've been to the briefings. | ||
| You've been interviewing some officials yourself. | ||
| Before we get into your experience there, there's some interesting lawsuits being filed by the New York Times. | ||
| Obviously, you guys are getting criticized as being sycophants. | ||
| I'm curious your thoughts on that exchange that we just witnessed. | ||
| Who exactly was Congressman Gates interviewing? | ||
| And I don't know if that's necessarily accountability, but what exactly did we witness? | ||
| Matt Gates was trying to grill an individual who I believe was involved in the Lloyd Austin Pentagon himself. | ||
| It was quite interesting. | ||
| I was actually off to the side for a little bit trying to eavesdrop into that conversation. | ||
| And it did get very heated. | ||
| But the reality of it is Matt Gates seems to know what he's talking about. | ||
| And although the media was very critical of Gates being there, he knows the questions. | ||
| He knows how to ask these questions and he knows how to grill him on all things related to that. | ||
| So when it comes to equipment and government spending, I think that's really core to Matt Gates' understanding and his core mission. | ||
| And it was interesting to sit back and watch because he was making arguments that I think I was very unaware of. | ||
| And I think that the American people want to learn more about. | ||
| So it was interesting to see. | ||
| Now, that individual, too, keep in mind, is someone who was called into question during that leaking story where there was three leakers who were apparently tossed out of the Pentagon who were, I think, conservative. | ||
| And so this individual's name was kind of floated around and as possibly a person who was pushing for that, pushing these three individuals out of the Pentagon. | ||
| So it was interesting to sit back and kind of watch Gates go to work there. | ||
| Not much to say, though. | ||
| I couldn't really tell. | ||
| There was a bit of a stumble. | ||
| Maybe he caught him off guard, though, because Gates seems to be really informed on the matter. | ||
| Help me bridge the gap there. | ||
| You started by saying that that was a Lloyd Austin, i.e. Biden regime, as we call it here, holdover, who's also responsible for making personnel decisions. | ||
| I'm curious, using him maybe as an emblematic example of your first-hand experience there, do you feel like everybody who is part of the Secretary's team working, that it's working there, is truly part of the America First agenda? | ||
| Or, how do we still have Biden? | ||
| All right, I think we've lost Brianna. | ||
| We're going to try to reestablish a connection with her. | ||
| If we have Mike Davis, we'll go to Mike Davis. | ||
| We got Mike. | ||
| All right, we're going to go to Dr. Thayer. | ||
| Dr. Thayer, I was about to actually just invoke the new national security strategy of the Trump administration, which I guess is a perfect segue for what I wanted to have you on to talk about. | ||
| It's quite interesting in that you see a very different presentation of China in terms of the ordered threat, how it's described, more as an economic partner as opposed to the existential threat to the United States of America. | ||
| I'm curious to get your sort of top-line assessment of this document. | ||
| Hi, Natalie. | ||
| It's great to see you again. | ||
| My thoughts are these. | ||
| First, all of these documents, national security strategies, are very important because of what they convey. | ||
| They're signaling the priorities and the principles of the Trump administration, of course, to the American people, to Congress, to all of the Department of Agencies and the U.S. government, as well as our friends and partners around the world and our enemies as well. | ||
| Secondly, it's significant because of its content, what's new about it. | ||
| You referenced, of course, the changes really in the treatment of China, which I think are very significant, as well as the emphasis that the document places on the economic tool. | ||
| Really, the Trump administration, since it's come into office, has favored economics and employing economic strategy to advance its interests. | ||
| And so you see that with China, you see that with tariffs, you see that with investment in the United States. | ||
| And then, additionally, the emphasis on the Western Hemisphere, on reindustrialization and the American worker. | ||
| And to my mind, the most significant element, even more so than the piece on the references to China, were the references to Europe's path. | ||
| The fact that Europe cannot go on the way it is and it needs to change course. | ||
| It needs to regain its civilizational confidence if it's going to be a valuable ally to the United States, but more so if the U.S. is going to be able to save Western civilization in conjunction with the Europeans themselves. | ||
| And that was a shot across the bow to the European elite. | ||
| And Natalie, as you know, who are hell-bent on doing everything they can do to weaken Western civilization and to weaken their societies. | ||
| So there's a lot in that document. | ||
| It's again very significant. | ||
| It conveys a lot of the principles and messages that the Trump administration seeks to. | ||
| The warning to Europe, the emphasis on the economics, on trade with China, of course, all are very important. | ||
| Some of it, nobody's going to be satisfied with everything, of course, in that document, but Leibniz is right, right? | ||
| This is the best of all possible worlds. | ||
| So, you know, we're going to deal with the document as it is. | ||
| So, a very important document. | ||
| Dr. Thayer, that was a perfect tease because I want to hold you through a little bit and I really want to drill down. | ||
| I have some quotes I'm curious to get your assessment on specifically with regards to Islam and jihad, those words not being in there, but also the Taiwan situation. | ||
| I think we re-established a connection with Breanna Morello. | ||
| No conspiracies, no coincidences. | ||
| I don't know, Brianna, if you heard my question, but I was essentially getting at, you know, you articulated that this individual who seems to be involved with some shenanigans that may have led to the ousting of certain conservatives was also a Lloyd Austin, therefore, Biden regime holdover. | ||
| Do you get the sense that there are a lot of issues like that plaguing, or can you just sort of walk our audience through your first-hand experience with this sort of personnel issue there? | ||
| Well, that you saw Mac Gates communicating with was Ricky Burra. | ||
| Now, this is an individual who I've done reporting on previously about there were several people over at the Pentagon that were deeply concerned because this was a Lloyd Austin hangover. | ||
| This individual, when the leaker story came out, this individual was someone who was then being moved up and apparently, according to reports, was being looked at to possibly be Pete Hegseth's chief of staff. | ||
| Now, this was a move that the White House actually rejected and stepped in on and said that they would not allow that to happen. | ||
| But the Secretary of War obviously wanted to make that happen and it was rejected. | ||
| Now, internally, there were people who are deeply concerned about him. | ||
| Personally, there were a lot of issues. | ||
| They believed that the leakers, the three leakers that were named, were individuals who were just being pushed out based on their stance of the Ukrainian war and that they truly. | ||
| I know Dan Caldwell has come on and spoken to Steve directly about the allegations of facing, but people that I've spoken to really believe that Ricky was key in all of this. | ||
| So although Ricky's not the chief of staff, that was because of the White House rejecting it completely. | ||
| It was interesting to sit back and see that exchange with Mac Gates again. | ||
| It was quite odd. | ||
| Definitely. | ||
| Well, we've got about a minute and a half before we have to jump to break, but just talk a little bit about what exactly it is that you're doing at the Pentagon right now. | ||
| Gone, we're just asking simple questions. | ||
| I know that the corporate media was very upset that they got kicked, didn't even get kicked out. | ||
| I mean, they self-deported and they refused to just acknowledge the rules of the press room, which are basic rules, Natalie, rules that you have to apply and abide by over at the White House as well. | ||
| You know, they were hiding their credentials, according to those who worked at the Pentagon. | ||
| And so employees of the Pentagon had no idea they were talking to media. | ||
| And so now you have to clearly display who you are exactly by showing your press passes on you at all times. | ||
| So my goal is to cover the Pentagon, to cover what's going on internally over at the Pentagon. | ||
| You know, I've been critical of my current reports. | ||
| I've done about four stories, kind of being a little harsh on the current leadership there. | ||
| And they still allowed me in. | ||
| So although the mainstream media likes to say that we're an echo chamber for MAGA, it's completely false. | ||
| We do challenge this current administration, the leadership at the Pentagon. | ||
| They just don't like that. | ||
| So it'll be exciting to sit back and remotely go to some of these briefings to actually physically go into the Pentagon for some of these briefings. | ||
| But again, this team, this comms team, I have to say, is probably one of the best so far in the administration. | ||
| They're highly responsive. | ||
| I reached out earlier in the day for comment and at deadline, they responded. | ||
| That's something that other departments truly struggle with. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So it'll be exciting to continue to cover. | |
| Brianna, we are lucky to have you there. | ||
| If you can hang with us through the break, I want to ask you a little bit more about what's going on there. | ||
| If the mainstream media is in meltdown about it, then I think that's a telltale sign that it's probably good for the country. | ||
| We'll be right back. | ||
| Dr. Thayer, Joe Allen, and Mike Davis after this short break. | ||
| Hell America's Voice family. | ||
| Are you on Getter yet? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| What are you waiting for? | ||
| It's free. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's uncensored, and it's where all the biggest voices in conservative media are speaking out. | |
| Download the Getter app right now. | ||
| It's totally free. | ||
| It's where I put up exclusively all of my content 24 hours a day. | ||
| You want to know what Steve Bannon's thinking goes to get her? | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's right. | |
| You can follow all of your favorites. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, Jack the Soviet, and so many more. | |
| Download the Getter app now. | ||
| Sign up for free and be part of the movement. | ||
| There's a lot of politicians that should be getting coal in their stocking for Christmas, but Birch Gold thinks as a smart planner, you deserve silver. | ||
| That's why for every $5,000 you purchase between now and December 22nd, Birch Gold will send you an ounce of silver. | ||
| See, smart people diversify and have a hedge. | ||
| That's why I encourage you to buy gold from Birch Gold. | ||
| With the rate cuts from the Fed in 2026, the dollar will be worth less. | ||
| And what happens if the AI bubble bursts? | ||
| Diversify. | ||
| Let Birch Gold Group help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical gold. | ||
| For every $5,000 you buy, you'll get an ounce of silver for your stocking or for your kids. | ||
| Just text Bannon to 989898 to claim your eligibility for this offer. | ||
| Again, Bannon to 98-9898 today because Birch Gold's free silver with qualifying purchase promotion ends on December 22nd. | ||
| Bannon to 989898. | ||
| You are back in the war room. | ||
| We're going to hit Mike Davis real quick, but then we're going to go back to Brianna. | ||
| Mike Davis, there's some movement on all things SCODIS and birthright citizenship. | ||
| You had a great piece in Fox a few months back, and it seems like that might be coming to fruition or at least the chance for it to be coming to fruition. | ||
| Can you walk us through the latest? | ||
| Yeah, this is one of the most crucial decisions that the Supreme Court will decide this upcoming term. | ||
| And it's the issue of birthright citizenship. | ||
| On January 20th of this year, President Trump's first day in office, he signed an executive order ordering his government to not automatically grant birthright citizenship to people who are born in the United States. | ||
| That is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. | ||
| After the Civil War, we had the Civil War amendments, the 13th Amendment to free the slaves, the 14th Amendment to provide equal protection and due process to the freed slaves, and the 15th Amendment to provide voting rights to the freed black male slaves. | ||
| That was extended to women with the 19th Amendment. | ||
| But as part of the 14th Amendment, the ratifiers wanted to guarantee birthright citizenship to the children of the freed slave. | ||
| So there's the birthright citizenship provision in the 14th Amendment, which says that the children born to people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States have birthright citizenship. | ||
| And there is a clear legal meaning. | ||
| If you looked at the text and the original public meaning of subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, that means people who are loyal to the United States. | ||
| So people, for example, foreign ambassadors' kids do not get birthright citizenship. | ||
| Foreign army's kids would not get birthright citizenship. | ||
| Do we think that foreign terrorist kids would get birthright citizenship? | ||
| Birthright citizenship did not even apply to the children of American Indians under the 14th Amendment. | ||
| There is a Supreme Court ruling on that from over 100 years ago. | ||
| So Congress extended birthright citizenship to the children of American Indians by statute. | ||
| So you have to answer this dispositive question for the Supreme Court. | ||
| If American Indians' children did not have birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, why the hell would the children of illegal aliens? | ||
| They just don't. | ||
| If Congress wants to extend birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, Congress can do that through statute, like Congress did for American Indians. | ||
| And so that's going to be the key issue for the Supreme Court to decide if they decide to actually decide the merits of this case. | ||
| And the Constitution is clear. | ||
| The text is clear on subject to the jurisdiction. | ||
| The original public meaning is clear. | ||
| And I guess it comes down to whether the Supreme Court has the courage to follow the text and the public meaning, original public meaning of the 14th Amendment. | ||
| Mike Davis, thank you for breaking that down for us. | ||
| We know you got a bounce, but in the meantime, before we have you back on, where can people go to stay up to date with everything you're working on? | ||
| Thank you, Natalie. | ||
| It's article3project.org, article number3project.org. | ||
| Follow us on social media, donate, and then take action, action, action, action. | ||
| And thank you. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| We've still got Breanna Morello with us. | ||
| Brianna, before I let you go, I just wanted to have you kind of pick up where you left off. | ||
| The New York Times that I gather is suing to sort of get their access back or at least say that everybody who's there are just a bunch of Trump sycophants. | ||
| I always call it kind of the horseshoe theory of opposition. | ||
| You view yourself probably in the same way that I view myself of being at the White House to hold them account to the promises that they made. | ||
| The media just wants to point out that they're not following through all those promises, so they hemorrhage voters and support and lied to the American people. | ||
| But how do you sort of push back on that idea? | ||
| And what do you think about that lawsuit? | ||
| New York Times actually did reach out to me, Natalie, prior to publishing or I guess filing that lawsuit. | ||
| They reached out to me back in October and specifically were asking me questions that I had a feeling were slanted in one direction. | ||
| They want to justify why the rest of us are being let in while they all opted out. | ||
| I mean, they literally decided not to abide and to acknowledge the rules that were given to them. | ||
| It's not an agreement. | ||
| It doesn't waive your First Amendment rights. | ||
| All it says is that you have read this and that you understand what the rules are of the Pentagon and what's expected of you as a member of the media covering the Pentagon. | ||
| They're not going to ask you to only abide by the information that's handed down by the press secretary, Kinsley Wilson, or Sean Parnell, the spokesman. | ||
| That's not what was asked of them. | ||
| And it's really interesting because I read it. | ||
| I know others have published the agreement that they just asked us to sign. | ||
| Again, it doesn't waive your First Amendment rights. | ||
| Now, here's the message that they asked me. | ||
| They emailed me directly asking me questions that I thought were angled. | ||
| And I specifically outlined that there have been several instances in my coverage because they asked for all my previous coverage of the Pentagon. | ||
| I said in previous coverage under this leadership, I have been critical of Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of War. | ||
| And in fact, they have still granted me access in to the Pentagon to cover them. | ||
| There's several stories that I've covered. | ||
| You know, we opened up talking about the official who was working under Lloyd Austin's administration, obviously. | ||
| That was the big one. | ||
| I know that ticked off a lot of leadership as well, but it was truthful. | ||
| I've criticized them on their business dealings with Qatar and meeting with the Qatar leadership. | ||
| And I've criticized them over classifying the Vegas cyber truck explosion that took place outside of the Trump Hotel. | ||
| I think it was January 1st. | ||
| They classified the manifesto. | ||
| So I have been outspoken more than they all were under the Biden regime. | ||
| If you remember, Lloyd Austin went missing. | ||
| And the corporate media didn't hold any of them accountable, part of that administration. | ||
| So, you know, they're going to sit here and push back. | ||
| Like you saw in that lawsuit, they dropped names. | ||
| They went after Laura Loomer. | ||
| They went after James O'Keefe. | ||
| They went after even Raheem Kassam, who wasn't even there that day for the media that we were doing. | ||
| They went after him. | ||
| So they've gone after a lot of people, but they particularly didn't put my name in there because they reached out to me in October and I completely debunked their entire argument. | ||
| And because they didn't have a rebuttal for it, they left me out. | ||
| So I think that there's going to be massive victory for the Pentagon when they go to court over this. | ||
| I know I asked specifically the spokesman, Sean Parnell, his reaction to the lawsuit. | ||
| And he's looking forward to fighting this in court, he told me. | ||
| But I have handed over that email that was sent over to the New York Times prior to filing that lawsuit. | ||
| So I don't think it's going to go over well for them when they sit there and pretend like this is exclusively towards MAGA talking heads. | ||
| We aren't. | ||
| Even Laura Loomer has actually grilled a lot of the officials at the Pentagon. | ||
| And when I was there, she was grilling them as well, right in front of all of us. | ||
| So we're not MAGA absolutists, like cultists, like they were trying to make it sound like your individuals were going to go there and ask questions that they didn't have the guts to ask. | ||
| Yeah, I mean, I feel like that's the first time I've ever seen a Pentagon official actually be held to task on the delays of these defense primes that seem to have no ramifications or repercussions for their actions that gravely endanger national security. | ||
| So I think that's pretty good. | ||
| Good reporting, if you ask me, off to a good start. | ||
| Brianna, we're very glad that you are there. | ||
| If people want to follow you, stay up to date with everything you're working on, not just at the Pentagon, but elsewhere. | ||
| Where can they go to do that? | ||
| Of the American Journal over on Infowars every single morning, so you could find me there. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You could also find me on X at Breanna Morello. | |
| Thank you, ma'am, for joining us. | ||
| And good luck, toughen it out at the Pentagon. | ||
| We'll have you back on soon. | ||
| And we've got a quick message from one of our lovely sponsors, of course, Tax Network USA. | ||
| Do you owe back taxes or haven't filed in years? | ||
| Now is the time to resolve your tax matters. | ||
| With a national conversation around abolishing the income system, income tax system, the IRS is fighting back and proving it's here to stay by becoming more aggressive than ever before. | ||
| They're sending out more collection notices, filling more tax liens, and collecting billions more than in recent years. | ||
| If you owe, the IRS can garnish your wages, lever your bank accounts, seize your retirement, and even your home. | ||
| If you owe or haven't filed, it's not a question of if the IRS will act, it's when. | ||
| Right now, Tax Network USA is offering a completely free IRS research and discovery call to show you exactly where you stand and what they can stop before it's too late. | ||
| Their powerful programs and strategies can save you thousands or even eliminate your debt entirely if you qualify. | ||
| Don't make a costly mistake representing yourself or calling the IRS on your own waves, your rights and costs you more money. | ||
| They are not on your side. | ||
| Get protected the right way with Tax Network USA and start the process on settling your tax matters once and for all today. | ||
| Call 1-800-958-1000. | ||
| That's 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com/slash bannon for your free discovery call with Tax Network USA. | ||
| Don't let the IRS be the first to act. | ||
| We've still got a lot to get through. | ||
| We're going to go through the latest on the AI front with Joe Allen and, of course, continue drilling down with Dr. Thayer on the national security strategy, which, you know, to be very blunt, I think describing China solely through the lens of an economic, potentially collaborator, partner at best, is not really what the Chinese Communist Party is to the United States of America. | ||
| The term Chinese Communist Party is not actually even mentioned in there. | ||
| There's also a, I think, quite noticeable shift. | ||
| There's no mention of the ideological differences or at least framing it through a battle between democracy and autocracy. | ||
| The only country or kind of continent that is criticized for their human rights abuses is Europe. | ||
| They actually go so far as describing China as having the potential to be a, quote, mutually advantageous economic relationship. | ||
| I'm going to go with no. | ||
| I'm actually going to go with a hard no on that one. | ||
| I would say just ask the American workers who've lost their jobs and everyone whose IP's been stolen. | ||
| We're going to get more into that right after this break. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Vance. | |
| Welcome back to The War Room. | ||
| Dr. Thayer, thank you for waiting patiently. | ||
| I want to kind of reopen the discussion we were having, even if you strawman, or rather steel man, the argument that the NSS makes with regard to China being an economic partner, which I struggle to see. | ||
| I mean, is it even possible? | ||
| What do you take of that lens of analyzing China? | ||
| Well, as we were saying, the document reaches a lot of different audiences, and it's quite explicit about Europe, the economic, the Western Hemisphere. | ||
| The document also, as you were alluding to, Natalie, just misses the target on the People's Republic of China and the threat from the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| The document there is really threat-deflating still. | ||
| It's not calling attention to the hyper-aggression of the CCP. | ||
| It does have good things to say about Taiwan and deterrence. | ||
| It does have good things to say about Japan and South Korea and the roles that they can play. | ||
| But it's really missing the target here on the threat from the 21st century, which is the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| So there's a lot that's good in the document. | ||
| Again, particularly calling out the Europeans for their censorship, their demography, and their immigration. | ||
| But on the People's Republic of China, there's a lot that should have been added into the document. | ||
| And of course, we appreciate that you can't put everything into the document that you want to, but this is a big one when it comes to this issue. | ||
| This is the threat of the 21st century. | ||
| It's the threat that really is interwoven with the emphasis on the homeland, the emphasis on the Western Hemisphere and the Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which is in essence that we're not going to allow external powers, that is China, the People's Republic, to use the Western Hemisphere to hurt Americans and to hurt our interests in the Western Hemisphere. | ||
| Well, all roads go back to Beijing on that. | ||
| And to my mind, in my opinion, it should have been drawn out in the document so that when we reflect on the national security strategy of the U.S. and the audiences that we want to reach with that, it would be quite clear that Washington sees Beijing, really to borrow from Reagan, right, in 1983 as the center of evil in the modern world. | ||
| So that was, I think, a very important point, as you're suggesting. | ||
| On the Taiwan front, I think there's some interesting quotes, what is both there and omitted. | ||
| One saying that the U.S. does not support Taiwan independence. | ||
| That is not in there. | ||
| Usually that's rhetoric that you'll typically see, but there's not an explicit disclaimer, which I think is a good thing to see. | ||
| But also in talking about the military aspect there, it's written, quote, deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch is a priority. | ||
| I think the use of ideally there as opposed to necessarily or that it's a given, there's an interesting kind of wide aperture there to understand what exactly that means. | ||
| Can you drill down a bit on what this means for Taiwan, both juxtaposing it historically, but also if you this seems to be like maybe the most we've really gotten from the Trump administration in a concrete form on Taiwan, but what you think this bodes looking into the future And again, it's important because it is the national security strategy of the U.S. | ||
| So the language is not the way you would write it or the way I would write it, certainly. | ||
| And it does seem to really elide into a calculated the ambiguity that previous administrations have emphasized. | ||
| Taiwan's important for the U.S., of course, for economic reasons. | ||
| The chip producers, of course, and if we were to lose that in the short term, that would be disastrous for the economy. | ||
| It's also important in military terms because it's, in essence, the cork in the bottle on the first island chain, occupies key geostrategic space. | ||
| And then, thirdly, it's important in political warfare context because it shows what China could be if it were democratic, right? | ||
| If the communists hadn't come to power in 1949, the people of China could be living as freely as the people of Taiwan do. | ||
| So, it's important for all of those reasons. | ||
| And it would have been, I think it would have been quite useful. | ||
| It would have been strategically helpful for all audiences globally for those points to be in that document. | ||
| So, but nonetheless, it does make the remarks, as you suggested, as you called out, regarding deterrence in Taiwan. | ||
| So, the document, again, really gets back to it's written through an economic lens. | ||
| And when you see the world the way economists and the way financiers do it, you miss a lot of the strategy. | ||
| And you miss a lot of important points that are relevant to geostrategy, the geostrategic position of the U.S. | ||
| And so those elements, I think, were there. | ||
| At the same time, of course, with the emphasis on Western Hemisphere and the emphasis, of course, on the other points that we've talked about, those, of course, are to the great credit of the document. | ||
| I'm curious, I want to sort of play devil's advocate, and by that I mean what the mainstream media and their think tank counterparts will say. | ||
| I want to read what is a quote that I think has gotten a lot of positive traction from the MAGA side of the fence, which is, quote, our elites badly miscalculated America's willingness to shoulder forever global burdens to which the American people saw no connection to the national interest. | ||
| It goes on. | ||
| There's a lot of rhetoric like this. | ||
| To the critics who would say that this is essentially the United States abdicating its role, its footing in the world stage and frankly letting China almost supplant them or replace them, or saying that at least you're going to have some sort of bipolar. | ||
| If not, I saw an article today talking about a trilateral world order. | ||
| What would you say to people who are saying that this is the United States abandoning its role in the world? | ||
| Well, it's not. | ||
| And clearly, the document doesn't say that, and the sky isn't falling in that respect. | ||
| I think the document is quite clear. | ||
| Under the Trump administration, the direction of U.S. strategy, how the U.S. defines strategy, how it defines its national interest, as the document is clear in stating, is changing. | ||
| And as a result of that, other countries are going to have to adjust to it. | ||
| But the document is quite clear regarding the importance of the U.S. nuclear deterrent and the role that that plays. | ||
| It's quite clear on the role of military power, the U.S. military power, and the need for the U.S. to maintain its dominance in the conventional realm, as well as in the cyber realm and other realms as well. | ||
| So it's not essentially abandoning the rest of the world to retreat back to the Western Hemisphere. | ||
| It's doing its utmost to say we need to recalculate. | ||
| We had spent too much blood and treasure in CENTCOM. | ||
| We'd spent too much blood and treasure in the Middle East, if you will, larger Middle East, Southwest Asia. | ||
| That has to change. | ||
| There has to be an emphasis on the Indo-Pacific. | ||
| There has to be an emphasis on the Western Hemisphere. | ||
| And there has to be an emphasis in Europe. | ||
| The problem in Europe is not just Ukraine. | ||
| It's not Russia and Ukraine. | ||
| The problem in Europe is demographic change, immigration, and censorship, right? | ||
| Increasing totalitarianism in Europe, driven largely by the EU. | ||
| And so when you're changing the rudder, when you're changing course, I think it's important to recognize the new direction, that that new direction does not come at the cost really of other existing commitments that the United States has. | ||
| Again, as the document is clear in its section on the Middle East, right, it's saying that we're moving away in terms of emphasis from the Middle East, but there's still, the U.S. still has many interests in the Middle East that the United States will defend, as well as in Africa, too. | ||
| So it's always best to consult the document itself rather than relying on what the media are saying about it. | ||
| And when you do so, I think you can see those differences. | ||
| And that's quite clear in the front matter in the document when they're talking about strategy, what the Trump administration means by strategy and what the Trump administration means by national interests. | ||
| And then thirdly, and the document says, again, quite explicitly that we're not de-emphasizing areas of the world. | ||
| What we're doing is we're just in this document calling attention to areas that have been neglected, like the homeland, like the Western Hemisphere, and threats that have been building for decades. | ||
| Obviously, China in that respect, but how Europe has gone down the wrong course, is taking the wrong path and is at risk of, as the document says, civilizational erasure, which would be incredibly damaging, of course, for Western Hemisphere and for the United States itself and how the United States defines itself. | ||
| Dr. Thayer, as always, thank you for joining us. | ||
| I really appreciate you breaking this down and indulging. | ||
| I got all over the place questions. | ||
| If people want to follow you and stay up to date with everything you're writing, posting on Getter, all of that, where can they go to do that? | ||
| Well, Natalie, great to see you again. | ||
| I'm at Brad Theron X and Bradley Thayer on Getter and on Truth. | ||
| Thanks very much. | ||
| Thank you, sir. | ||
| I appreciate it. | ||
| And I think we got Joe Allen. | ||
| I had to have Joe Allen back on after Wednesday's show. | ||
| I think we made some news in our crusade against the big tech bros. | ||
| You've got a few minutes, Joe. | ||
| I want to hold you through the break. | ||
| But just give me the latest on everything you're talking about Wednesday, where we stand on the sort of AI regulation tussle. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, Natalie, the tussle continues. | |
| David Sachs and company are still pushing for the executive order that would preempt state laws on artificial intelligence. | ||
| There is quite a bit of a struggle at the White House at the moment. | ||
| I am at least reasonably confident that we have a fighting chance to ensure that President Trump gets the message and does not side with Sachs. | ||
| There are a lot of different voices in the White House pushing the president to make a decision one way or the other. | ||
| I've heard, and it's fairly reliable, that everyone from Marco Rubio to DNI Tulsi Gabbard to the UN Ambassador Mike Waltz are voicing real caution and urging the president to leave AI legislation up to the states or at the very least to allow states to pass laws to regulate AI, | ||
| to mitigate the damage, and to ensure that they have the right to chart their own course into this bizarre future that we're entering into. | ||
| And of course, you have on the other side of that, David Sachs and company. | ||
| JD Vance has yet to speak out on this. | ||
| As far as I know, it seems with all of his connections to the tech industry, he should have a very strong opinion on this. | ||
| One would hope that Vance would come out against an EO that would restrict states from legislating on AI. | ||
| So the War Room posse actually can let their voices be heard. | ||
| You know, I'm not much of a political activist, Natalie, but on this, I think it's really important that the posse is able to flood the zone and, of course, flood the phones. | ||
| So I urge you to call the White House and respectfully state your support for states' rights in artificial intelligence. | ||
| Just tell them you want your state to have the right to determine its own future as AI becomes more and more ubiquitous. | ||
| The posse can call 2020 456-1414. | ||
| Be as polite and respectful as possible. | ||
| And I'll repeat this again after the break. | ||
| As Steve would say, give him the old what-for in a polite and respectful way. | ||
| We will be right back after this short break. | ||
| more joe allen here's your host stephen k van there are a lot of politicians that should be getting coal in their stocking for christmas but birch gold thinks as a smart planner you deserve | ||
| That's why for every $5,000 you purchase between now and December 22nd, Birch Gold will send you an ounce of silver, which is up over 60% this year. | ||
| See, smart people diversify and have a hedge. | ||
| That's why I encourage you to buy gold from Birch Gold. | ||
| With the rate cuts from the Fed in 2026, a dollar will be worth less. | ||
| And what happens if the AI bubble bursts? | ||
| Diversify. | ||
| Let Birch Gold Group help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical gold. | ||
| And for every $5,000 you buy, you'll get an ounce of silver for your stocking or for your kids. | ||
| What a great way to teach them about saving smartly. | ||
| Just text Bannon to 98-9898 to claim your eligibility for this offer. | ||
| Again, Bannon to 98-9898 today, because Birch Gold's free silver with qualifying purchase promotion ends on December 22nd. | ||
| Text Bannon to 98-9898. | ||
| You're back in the war room. | ||
| We've got more Joe Allen for you. | ||
| Joe, I'm curious, feel free to pick up where you left off if there's anything else that you think this audience needs to know that can better inform the phone calls, the emails, whatever they're going to do to get the message out there. | ||
| But was this an executive order that you think was just supposed to sort of be done? | ||
| Maybe we'll call it in the style of Biden, but done in the dead of night at midnight. | ||
| There really wasn't ever supposed to be a stink about it. | ||
| No one was ever supposed to really catch on. | ||
| It was just supposed to sort of euphemistically be passed. | ||
| People are too bored to look at the intricacies of regulations. | ||
| And is it really just up to War Room to stop that from happening? | ||
| You know, that's a really good question, Natalie, because, you know, the EO leak, the draft, came out right when the moratorium language was pulled from the NDAA. | ||
| So you had that fight going on, and it's unclear. | ||
| I don't know why it got leaked. | ||
| It's quite possible that it got leaked intentionally in order to gauge public sentiment around this. | ||
| And should President Trump have an executive order presented to him on federal preemption, it's possible, and I hope that this is the case, that the language is softened tremendously because the draft of the EO would empower, if signed, would empower the Department of Justice to sue, to file suit against any state whose AI laws ran afoul of the national AI agenda. | ||
| Now, in my opinion, I can completely understand why, from a national security perspective or from even a medical perspective, possibly an economic perspective, why you would want to have one policy, one framework to allow AI companies to operate without interference from states. | ||
| But that's not the primary thrust of AI as we see it right now. | ||
| The primary thrust, we see the four frontier companies deploying their models completely recklessly. | ||
| We see it's very obvious, kids and even adults' brains being completely fried by large language models, endless generation of AI-produced slop flooding the internet. | ||
| You have the specter of deep fakes creeping up on our heels. | ||
| And that's why you have people like Ron DeSantis coming out with the AI Bill of Rights in Florida. | ||
| Now, from, say, a Trump perspective, from President Trump's perspective, Ron DeSantis came against the president in the primaries. | ||
| You don't want Ron DeSantis to have the reins on MAGA if you want to put your stamp on the future because without a doubt, the sentiment of the country is not in favor of federal preemption. | ||
| The sentiment of the country is to give each state their freedom to determine the path forward into an artificial intelligence-saturated future. | ||
| So, the real key message here, if you're going to call the White House, if you're going to call your senator, if you're going to call your representatives, you need to give a positive statement. | ||
| We want states to have the right to pass laws regarding artificial intelligence. | ||
| We do not want federal preemption. | ||
| We do not want a moratorium on states' rights. | ||
| So, that number again, Natalie, for the posse, call the White House as politely and respectfully as you possibly can. | ||
| And I know some of y'all are wild. | ||
| As politely as you can, just tell them we want states to have the right to pass laws regulating and legislating AI. | ||
| The number is 202456-1414. | ||
| If you get an answering machine, again, as respectfully as you can, and I only say this because I know how wild you are when you come out to my talks, just state we want the right, our state, to have the right to determine our own future. | ||
| We do not want an AI moratorium. | ||
| We want the right to legislate and mitigate the damage of artificial intelligence. | ||
| Joellen, if people want to follow you, keep up to date with everything you've got going on, where can they go to do that? | ||
| You can find me on social media at J-O-E-B-O-T-X-Y-Z, or my website, joebot.xyz. | ||
| Thank you very much, Natalie. | ||
| Thank you, Joe, for coming back on. | ||
| I appreciate it. | ||
| More posse, I'm trying to track down Mike Lindell, but I think that means you got two more minutes of me. | ||
| I think it's really important for this audience to get the signal and not the noise on all things related to this national security strategy twofold. | ||
| One, obviously, we are here in the war room. | ||
| We're the heart, the tip of the spear when it comes to prioritizing the homeland and homeland defense and securing the border. | ||
| But I think if the Trump administration wants to say that that is their priority, then they really need to not double, triple, but quadruple down on actually making sure these mass deportations are that, are mass, are massive, and are actually deportations. | ||
| Not just tweeting that we're going to end migration from third world countries, but actually do it in a codified legal way. | ||
| And it's not just about stopping, turning off the water, turning off the tap. | ||
| It's also about retroactively going back and rooting out all of these third world migrants who are destroying this country. | ||
| That's obviously the largest threat to this country. | ||
| But you can also, I think, walk and chew gum at the same time, which is realizing the existential threat that is the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| And it's quite interesting. | ||
| There's a section there where they enumerate bullet point after bullet point after bullet point basically all the egregious acts, frankly, of war, certainly unrestricted war, that China has engaged in against the United States. | ||
| But instead of calling out the Chinese Communist Party by name, they just hypothetically say, well, any country that has engaged in this, whether it's propaganda, IP theft, you know, robbing workers of their wages, take your pick. | ||
| I think the Trump administration should have the courage to call out the Chinese Communist Party, to call out China by name and not treat them like the Bill Clintons and the Democrats and the established Republicans of the world have for decades, which is an economic partner. | ||
| Because you guys, this audience, you don't get to see the upside of that. | ||
| It's the 1% that does. | ||
| More on that. | ||
| We've got a PAC show this weekend, of course, next week. | ||
| Thank you for hanging with me. |
Export Selection