Prof. John Mearsheimer on Israel's Destruction of Gaza, Trump Admin Attacks on Universities & Speech, Yemen Bombings, Tariffs & Competition with China; Plus: Q&A with Glenn
Prof. John Mearsheimer discusses Trump's bombing of Yemen, attacks on free speech at universities, the geopolitical implications of tariffs, and why he believes Israel's destruction of Gaza is a genocide. Plus: Glenn takes questions from our Locals audience.
----------------------------
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET.
Become part of our Locals community
Follow System Update:
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Facebook
LinkedIn
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m. Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight... Whatever else one might want to say about the first two and a half months of the Trump administration, there's no denying that there is essentially no such thing as a slow news day.
Virtually every day brings some major new event, often multiple ones in the realms of foreign policy, wars, economic policy, free speech, and constitutional and civil liberties issues.
Even for a show like ours that is on every night, Or every night-ish, it is impossible to cover everything that deserves coverage.
With that difficulty in mind, we are thrilled to have one of the most knowledgeable and clear-thinking voices anywhere in our political discourse.
He is Professor of International Relations and Political Science at the University of Chicago, John Mearsheimer.
Professor Mearsheimer really doesn't need an introduction, especially for viewers of our show, who have seen him on many times over the past several years, and is always one of our most popular and, I would say, enlightening guests as well.
We have a whole range of topics to cover this evening, including the ongoing Israeli destruction of Gaza, the decision by President Trump to restart President Biden's bombing campaign in Yemen, the broader threats of Middle East war, what is going on in the war in Ukraine, remember that.
As well as the tariff policies that President Trump has announced and what it might mean specifically geopolitically for the U.S.-China relations.
Professor Mearsheimer is also the author of the groundbreaking book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, as well as the highly influential 2014 article.
in the journal foreign affairs entitled the crisis in ukraine is the fault of the west so we are very excited to welcome him we will have him in just a second uh and as i said he's always one of our most popular and enlightening guests and he will Be here very shortly.
Before we get to all that, we have a few programming notes.
First of all, we are encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app.
If you do so, it works both on your smart TV and your telephone.
If you download it and you activate notifications, which we hope you will, it means you can follow all the programs you most like to watch on this platform.
And once they begin live on Rumble, they'll be notified by link or by text, however you want.
You just click on the link, begin watching.
It really helps the live viewing numbers of every program and therefore the free speech cause of Rumble.
As another reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms where if you rate, review, and follow our show, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update starting right after this break.
Music you If your dog is constantly itching, scratching, or dealing with hot spots, you've got to check out Coat Defense.
It's an all-natural solution that's been helping so many dogs.
And here's why this product caught my attention.
I've seen firsthand, both with all the dogs we have at home, above 25, as well as the dog shelter we created and continue to operate, how often dogs develop things like yeast infections, especially in their paws and ears and skin fold.
It's really more common than people realize.
The usual treatments, though, like steroids and antibiotics and Cytopoint and Apoquel, they might cover up the symptoms for a while, but they don't actually fix the root cause.
And in some cases, they actually make things worse over time.
Cotophen is different.
Their daily preventative powder works as a dry shampoo, odor eliminator, and anti-itch powder.
But what makes it special is that it eliminates yeast naturally by changing the terrain on your dog's skin so that yeast and bacteria can't survive.
No toxic chemicals, no synthetic junk.
I would never.
Recommend, especially a dog product, unless I know that it's safe and effective.
I've been really surprised reading all the testimonials about how it works and then also seeing it firsthand with our dogs at the shelter.
I've heard from so many people that this is the only thing that has actually worked after years of frustration with dogs finally itch-free and healthy again.
And that's why I'm happy to partner with Coat Defense.
So if your dog has been struggling and nothing else has helped, go to Codefense.com and use the promo code Glenn for 15% off your first order.
That's Codefense.com, promo code Glenn.
Codefense.com.
All right, we previewed the discussion that we're about to have with Professor John Mearsheimer, so I just want to get right into that.
Professor Mearsheimer, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us.
It's always great to see you.
Great to be here, Glenn.
You know I actually thought about this morning and this afternoon starting by talking to you about the free speech crisis and the kind of assaults on academic freedom taking place in America academia and I of course want to get to that with you but I realized afterwards it's almost impossible not to begin with the ongoing atrocities in Gaza because the scale of it the horror of it the fact that the United States is directly responsible for it I think really requires that it be the first topic that we talk about so I guess my question is to you,
and we've talked about before what you think the Israeli motives might be in essentially destroying all of Gaza, destroying civilian life in all of Gaza.
To me, it seems like there's no doubt any longer what their intentions are.
They're saying it.
There's really only really one possibility.
I'm just interested in your view of what that is.
Yeah, I think there is only one possible goal here, given what they're doing, and that is to ethically cleanse Gaza.
And what they're trying to do is make Gaza unlivable.
And that, in their story, will force the Palestinians to leave.
But other than that, I can't see what possible motive they would have for continuing this offensive.
You know, I've seen the sentiment around a lot.
I heard it from people I like and trust and I'm colleagues with.
And friends, and I certainly feel it the same way.
It's like at some point you just almost feel like you're out of words, out of horror and disgust and rage to express the more you see.
And I do think it's gotten worse in terms of the resumption.
You could probably compare it to the early couple months where there was just indiscriminate bombing and huge numbers of people killed.
We're kind of back to that.
But on some level, even worse when you add in the purposeful blockading of any food getting in, the use of mass starvation as a form of collective punishment and driving people out, forcing them to sigh between starving to death or leaving and giving that land of theirs How do you compare what we're seeing in Gaza to other atrocities and war crimes and the like that we've seen over the last several decades?
Well, I think this is a genocide, and I would put it in the same category as what happened in Rwanda, what happened in Cambodia, and what happened in World War II with the Nazi Holocaust.
I mean, the basic goal here is to kill a huge number of people in the Palestinian population.
And that, I think, easily qualifies as a genocide.
And in fact, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both done lengthy reports that lay out the case for genocide.
And I find those cases compelling.
So I think this is a lot like those other cases.
I know a lot of people, even people who might be uneasy or even critical of what the Israelis are doing in Gaza, none the less have a very kind of visceral, almost primal opposition to applying the word genocide to what the Israelis are doing in Gaza.
And they may say things like, oh, look, if their goal were to just wipe them all out and eradicate them, they have the weaponry to do so.
And they have not done that yet.
And I guess some people at the same time say, Does it really matter if this is called a genocide?
I know you've used that word before.
You just used it again.
What is your understanding of exactly what a genocide is?
How do we recognize that?
And why does it apply?
I guess why is it important to use that term for this case?
Well, there's a clear-cut definition in international law.
Which was by and large established as a result of the Nazi genocide in World War II.
And it involves focusing on killing a large portion of a particular population.
That population could be based on ethnicity or religion or what have you.
But the point is that what you're aiming to do is kill a huge chunk of a particular population.
Now, that can happen rapidly.
It can happen slowly.
But does that really matter?
If you were to kill 3 million people in a particular group over five years, would that be any different than killing those people over five months?
I think the answer is no.
Over the years, many Israelis have argued to me.
That Israel is not an apartheid state because it's different than South Africa.
But the point is, comparing Israel to South Africa doesn't deal with the question of whether or not Israel is an apartheid state.
You have a general definition of what an apartheid state is, and then you have to ask yourself the question, does South Africa and does Israel fit with that category of apartheid?
And the same thing is true with the genocide.
There's no question that there are fundamental differences.
And I would note fundamental similarities between the Nazi Holocaust and what's going on in Gaza.
But the fact is that there are also fundamental differences.
But if you look at the definition of genocide, you can categorize what's happening in Gaza as a genocide.
And as I said, if you look at what Human Rights Watch and what Amnesty International have done on this count, they lay it out that this is a genocide.
Ironic, I guess, you can use a sort of lighter word than is merited, about what is happening is that so much of the international law and the conventions that emerge, including the Geneva Conventions, the new Geneva Conventions that emerged after World War II, were specifically designed to prevent Things like the Holocaust from happening again.
And one of the prohibitions that the world agreed to was a prohibition on collective punishment.
The Nazis would go to France, and if there was somebody in the resistance in a certain town, they would say, turn them all over.
We're going to kill 20,000 of the people in the town without respect to whether they actually did anything.
It's collective punishment.
We're going to punish this town if it produces somebody who is working against us or has in some way taken up arms against us.
And there's a war crime prohibition on...
Collective punishment among a whole using food as a weapon of war and masturbation and the like, all the things the Israelis are doing.
And I kind of get the sense, and maybe this is actually a pervasive propagandistic success, is that when people talk about, say, the Nuremberg trials or war crimes or even the phrase never again, they seem to think that what it means is these are principles to protect.
AND ONLY JEWS AND NOT THE REST OF HUMANITY AND THEREFORE YOU CANNOT HAVE A GENOCIDE PERPETRATED BY JEWS ONLY AGAINST THEM OR YOU CAN'T HAVE COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT AND WAR CRIMES PERPETRATED BY JEWS ONLY AGAINST THEM.
DO YOU THINK THAT IS A KIND OF COMMON ETHOS IN THE WEST?
I think deep down inside, most Jews do believe that.
That the word genocide cannot be applied to anyone other than the Nazis.
What happened between 1941 and 1945.
But Glenn, let me say a word about collective punishment and use my discussion of that term to distinguish between how I think the genocide against the Jews evolved and how this genocide in Gaza evolved.
I don't think collective punishment...
Just to be clear, when I was talking about collective punishment, I wasn't necessarily using it as how the Holocaust evolved, although there was a lot of collective punishment there, but even, like I said, in places like Nazi-occupied France, against the French resistance and the like, it was used there, but I'm definitely interested, I just wanted to be clear about what I was saying, but definitely I'd like to hear what you have to say with this distinction.
Okay, but I think with regard to the Nazi Holocaust...
From the get-go, the aim of collective punishment was not at play.
The aim was to annihilate all of European Jewry, or at least that portion of European Jewry that the Nazis could capture.
So it wasn't collective punishment at all.
I think the way the genocide in Gaza has evolved is different.
I think after October 7th, the Israelis concluded that if they really punished the civilian population in Gaza, that that would cause that population to leave.
So I don't think the initial goal was to murder huge numbers of Palestinians.
Palestinian population and to make the place unlivable.
But what happened is that the Palestinians didn't leave.
And the Israelis, therefore, had to constantly up the ante, which is another way of saying they had to constantly up the bombing campaign.
And the end result is that over time, I believed it morphed into a genocide.
As I said at the time, I didn't think in the fall of 2023 that it was a genocide.
But by late 2023, given that the Israelis had been unable to drive the Palestinians out and were continuing to punish the population and were increasingly frustrated and therefore increasing And of course, it's just gotten worse and worse over time.
One would have thought that once the ceasefire was in place, this was the day before President Trump was inaugurated, January 19th of this year, that we had put an end to the genocide.
We would then just have to deal with the suffering in Gaza and hopefully ameliorate that to the point where fewer people would die than we...
I thought would happen if the genocide continued.
But then Trump began to talk about what his view was of Gaza.
And he basically gave the Israelis the green light to start the campaign of genocide all over again.
And that, of course, is what's happened.
And the Trump administration has said hardly anything about what the Israelis are doing.
And the media and leading politicians in the West have said hardly anything.
So the Israelis are pretty much free to do anything they want to the Palestinians, and hardly anyone except for a handful of people like you and I will stand up and say that this is fundamentally wrong and has to stop.
One of the things I had discussed with you several times that I think we haven't had you on since the November election, although...
If we did, we certainly haven't had you on since the inauguration, since the Trump presidency began.
We talked several times during 2024 about what you thought might be the likely impact of Trump's election on these wars in the Middle East.
And I think there was a sense that we know for sure what will happen if Joe Biden wins or Kamala Harris wins, which is a continuation of the status quo.
They made no efforts for a ceasefire, you know, occasionally.
Made some noises about concerns for humanitarian ends, but really never used their leverage in any real way to back that up.
But the issue of Trump was always, well, you really don't know what you're going to get.
I mean, he talks a lot about how he prides himself on being the first American president not to involve the US in a new war.
He obviously was the one who facilitated that ceasefire and seemed to take a lot of pride in it.
And yet now he's in office and he restarts.
Joe Biden's bombing campaign in Yemen, which I want to talk about, which you could count as a new war, a continued and escalated war.
And then clearly he gave the green light to the Israelis, not just to unravel his ceasefire, but to go all in on whatever they wanted to do.
What do you make of the expectations that you had of the Trump administration throughout 2024 versus the reality that we're now seeing?
I thought there was some chance that he would try to shut down the war.
This is before he came into office.
And I thought that in large part because he made much of the fact that he intended to be the president for peace, that he was not a warmonger.
And that he was going to shut down the war in Europe, shut down the war in the Middle East.
And then, of course, he forced Netanyahu to accept the ceasefire, which was initiated the day before Trump was inaugurated, January 20th of this year.
And that gave one hope, because the ceasefire had— Three stages.
But the second stage looked like it would really put an end to the conflict, that the Israelis would leave Gaza and you'd have a ceasefire that would last for a long time.
But of course, the Israelis refused to go to the second stage of the ceasefire.
The Trump administration put no pressure on the Israelis.
And indeed, the Trump administration blamed Hamas for the fact that you had not gone into the second stage.
And that, of course, was not true.
But anyway, Trump has disappointed us.
and he's no different than Genocide Joe was.
You know, I think that...
And again, we saw this several times in the first term starting in 2017.
Obviously, Trump's not a pacifist.
I mean, he escalated bombing campaigns he inherited from Obama in the way he said he would against ISIS and Syria and Iraq, etc.
But, you know, you really didn't see this kind of militarism expressed.
Now he's back in.
He's utterly unconstrained, at least in his mind.
I was just reading today, in fact, some Republicans in the White House saying basically in response to all this uproar about the collapsing stock market or the declining stock market that he just doesn't care he doesn't care about negative reactions from the public doesn't care about negative reactions in the media he feels like he got a mandate he's going to do what he wants and that's what he's setting out to do and so i guess on one level you know he he he seems to be in charge it seems like he he is determined to make sure that his will is carried
out a lot more so than in the first term where i think there was a lot of sabotage kind of undermining around him.
This time he seems to really have had a plan or people with him did to make sure that everything that happens is because he wants it to happen.
So what do you think accounts for that change?
Why did he get into office right away and start bombing Yemen and giving the Israelis the green light to go wild, even wilder than they were before and now threatening Iran with some sort of annihilation if they don't give the kind of deal that he wants on nuclear weapons?
Let me answer that, Glenn, by making a general point about Trump and then specifically answering your question.
I think that in his first term, he was not a radical president.
I think that he pursued one radical And that was that he drastically altered our policy toward China.
He abandoned engagement with China, and he pursued containment.
That was the one, I think, radical shift in policy, both foreign and domestic, that took place in his first term.
And as many people have said, and as Trump himself has acknowledged, the deep state basically boxed him in, much the way it boxed Obama in.
When he came into office this time, I think because he had had four years to really think about it and think about how to deal with this issue, he came in with the thought in mind that he was going to get his way.
And I think you see this, by the way, in the people that he has relied on to execute his policies.
Elon Musk, for example, and Steve Witkoff.
I think Musk is the key person.
The key right-hand person for Trump on domestic policy and Witkoff is the key right-hand person on foreign policy.
Neither one of these individuals is part of the deep state.
Neither one of these individuals is part of the Washington establishment.
They're outsiders.
They're Trump's buddies.
They're the kind of people he can trust.
He doesn't trust Marco Rubio and people of that sort.
So what he did was he brought in his own team.
And he set out to pursue a radical policy, both at the foreign level, foreign policy level, and at the domestic level.
And if you just laundry list a lot of the policies, it becomes manifestly clear that that's the case.
First of all, with regard to tariffs.
Secondly, with regard to the whole notion of conquering territory like Greenland, the Panama Canal.
Third, with regard to transatlantic relations.
Fourth, with regard to relations with Russia.
Then if you switch down to the domestic level, his approach towards dealing with the judiciary, his approach towards dealing with the deep state, his approach toward dealing with immigration, and his interest in wrecking universities.
These are truly radical policies across the board.
You didn't see this the first time around, but this time he's unleashed the dogs, and he has And given that he's just in the beginning of a four-year term,
one can only wonder what this is all going to look like four years from now.
So that's my general point.
My specific point is, I don't understand what he's doing in the Middle East.
I understand what he's doing with regard to Ukraine.
I don't understand what he's doing with regard to the genocide.
I don't understand what he's doing with regard to the Houthis.
And I don't understand what he's doing with regard to Iran, because these are all losing policies.
He would have been much smarter to force Netanyahu to stick to the ceasefire.
Well, I suppose one might say that in order for it to make sense, one might go and read your 2007 book called The Israel Lobby, because I do think, at least for me, my big concern I think?
campaign and then the election was, and I had a very similar idea as you did, which is I thought the ceiling for Trump could be higher, but the kind of floor could be lower, whereas I just thought Kamala was gonna be a disastrous continuation of how things were.
And my concern was that, you know, one of his biggest donors was Miriam Adelson, and he, Said openly in the campaign, you know, Sheldon and Miriam Edelson, Sheldon when he was alive, they were the people who came most to the White House other than people who worked there.
They were there the most.
And every time they were there, they would ask for things for Israel, and I would always give it to them.
And he kind of joked and said, they would come back two weeks later and ask for more.
And I would say, come on, guys, give me like a few weeks of breathing room.
And he boasted that he gave them the goal on heights, which is more than they even asked for.
So, you know, and he said during the campaign, we're going to make Israel great again and we're going to make America great again.
And then he also, you know, as diverse as the cabinet is in many respects, the one litmus test that everybody had to pass in order to be appointed to any kind of significant position was kind of.
indisputable, unbreakable support for Israel.
And I'm just wondering whether you think this is coming from him himself or the kind of influences around him.
Well, I think obviously the influences around him matter.
You and I both know how powerful the lobby is, so there's no question that he's getting pressure there.
I don't think Trump cares very much about the future of Israel.
I think Trump is an America first president.
I personally think what's going on here, I can't prove this, but my sense is that Trump is pursuing a radical agenda, as I described.
And there are a lot of very controversial issues at play on that agenda.
And it does not make sense, given that agenda, for him to pick a fight with the lobby over Israel.
It's just much easier to let the Israelis do what they want, make the lobby happy, don't get any flack from people in the lobby.
And, if anything, Yeah, and it was interesting, the dynamic in the Republican primary.
There were a lot of the hardcore people in the Israeli lobby, the sort of neocons who never trusted Trump, who didn't think he was reliable, and they were almost entirely aligned behind Ron DeSantis.
I mean, you can go back and just look at who those people are, and you'll see.
But they really thought Ron DeSantis does care about Israel a lot more than Trump does.
And then it was only once it became apparent that DeSantis had no chance of winning did they kind of start, you know, squirming their way into Trump world in order to make sure that he was on their side with those things.
And I guess that is the calculation.
Maybe this is a little naive, but...
You know, everyone sees what we're seeing.
Everyone sees the same videos we're seeing.
Everyone understands exactly what the Israelis are doing in Gaza.
It's not just the United States that's been paying for and arming that war.
There's also a lot of countries in Europe doing the same, providing logistical support as well, in the case of the UK.
Throughout the EU, lots of countries are giving money and military aid to Israel.
Is there any prospect at all that whatever you might call the international community outside of the United States, Well, I don't think you're going to see that in the West.
If you look at the situation in Europe, it's...
Every bit as depressing as the situation here in the United States.
Everybody talks about Western values and we often get up on our moral high horse and talk about how wonderful we are in the West compared to everybody else.
If anything, this support of the genocide across the West shows that that claim is a bankrupt one.
I think there's much more criticism … of Israel outside of the West.
But that really doesn't resonate in any meaningful way.
I think the one country that has gone to the greatest lengths to try and rein Israel in is South Africa.
And South Africa has paid a price for that.
The United States has been giving South Africa, especially since Trump came to office, all sorts of problems because the lobby and Israel have been putting pressure on Trump to make it clear to South Africa that it made a fundamental mistake pushing the case of genocide in Gaza in the International Court of Justice.
And I think other countries look at what's happened to South Africa, and it has a deterrent effect.
They just say to themselves, do I really want to get out front on this issue and criticize Israel?
And here we're talking about countries outside the West, because as I said, countries inside the West are a hopeless cause.
So you have this situation where the only people who are today helping the Palestinians in Gaza are the Houthis.
The only reason the Houthis are attacking shipping in the Red Sea is because the Israelis have started the genocide up again.
So if there is anybody who deserves credit for helping the Palestinians in Gaza, it's the Houthis.
And look what they're getting as well, a massive bombing campaign aimed at them precisely for that reason.
Let me just say, on that question of South Africa, I meant to say this earlier when you were talking about...
The differences with South Africa apartheid, but the similarities as well.
I took my kids to South Africa last year.
We spent a couple weeks there.
We met with some officials.
look, there's a lot of amazing museums with all this residual signage and mementos of apartheid.
And you go and you look at it, and you immediately recognize a lot of similarities between how apartheid was carried out in South Africa and how it's being carried out in the West Bank.
Not even, and by the way, there are a lot of senior Israeli officials who have long said it's apartheid, including the former head of the Mossad just a month before October 7th, and lots of other Israeli officials too.
And it's interesting because South Africa, even going back to Mandela and Bishop Tutu, were among the most vocal supporters of Palestinians and critics of Israel because they identify so much with that cause.
And of course, that is the reason why they've taken the lead in filing these war crimes charges against Israel.
Let me ask you about the Houthis.
I don't know.
Did you want to say something about that?
Yeah. I just want to say that it's very important to understand that a number of South African Jews who were involved in the anti-apartheid movement before apartheid collapsed have said that the apartheid system in Israel is worse than the apartheid system in South Africa was.
Second, and this is a very important point, it's important to emphasize that Jews in the West, and this includes the United States, of course, have been incredibly vocal in their opposition to the genocide.
And that's true in Europe as well.
So it's important that we don't come away from this discussion thinking that it's Jews who are supporting the genocide.
Because many Jews are opposed to the genocide.
And of course, the point I'm making here is if you go back to South Africa, many Jews were opposed to apartheid in South Africa.
If you look at police arrests of Pro-Palestinian protesters in Germany or protesters against the Israeli destruction of Gaza, so often they're German Jews.
And you see the police coming and arresting German Jews because of their protesting against Israel, dragging them away all in the name of fighting anti-Semitism or protecting the Jews.
It's incredibly perverse.
All right, let me ask you about—when we get to the academia discussion, we're going to talk about that a little more, and I obviously— Always emphasize how many Jewish students participated in these protests because that's deliberately obscured.
Let me ask you, though, before we get to that, about Yemen and the bombing campaign there.
You know, the United States has been bombing Yemen pretty much for 20 years now, without stopping.
The Obama administration worked with the Saudis for an all-out war against the Houthis.
And then Trump, in his first term, bombed the Houthis.
Biden bombed them all throughout 2024.
They seem to be very resilient.
It's amazing how you can watch a political movement like Trump supporters say, no more wars in the Middle East.
And the minute, you know, he posted a video today of about 20 people in Yemen standing around and a huge bomb went off and they were all killed.
And there were all these Trump supporters saying, yeah, get the terrorists, get the terrorists.
It's amazing how you can get people to sign on to a war instantly just by saying we're killing the terrorists.
What do you think are the dangers and geopolitical implications of what?
The Trump administration says it's going to be a sustained, ongoing bombing campaign.
It's very important to emphasize, Glenn, that there was a big piece in the New York Times today that said that individuals from the Pentagon have been briefing Congress that the policy against the Houthis has not been succeeding.
And we have been eating up huge amounts of ammunition.
And this is undermining our position in East Asia, where we're determined to contain the Chinese.
So Trump can say that we're on the verge of winning a decisive victory against The Houthis.
He can say that in public, and he'll convince his supporters of that, I'm sure.
But the fact is, that's not what's happening.
And that's what people in the Pentagon are telling people in Congress behind closed doors.
So we in the past were unable to defeat the Houthis.
We are unable to defeat them now.
And Trump can bomb them from now till kingdom come.
And the end result is going to be the same.
The Houthis are going to remain standing.
All right, before we get to some of the domestic issues, I want to ask you about what you alluded to just a minute ago, which is the transatlantic relationship, NATO, the way in which the Trump officials are being quite open about their contempt for the Europeans.
And even when we got a glimpse of what they were saying in private with that signal chat, J.D. Vance in particular, but a lot of other people as well, were just spewing.
Overt contempt at the Europeans.
Trump has obviously harbored that for quite a long time, not just because he perceives, I think, justly that they don't pay their share of share and the United States fights their wars and protects them while they have a healthy welfare state, but also because the people in the European capitals tend to look down on Trump, look down on the people around him, and I think that's part of it.
Do you think the last couple of months have ushered in a lasting, permanent, And fundamental transformation of the relationship between the US and Europe?
Yes. I think that Trump is determined to significantly reduce the American commitment to NATO or the American commitment to Europe.
I don't think he's going to eliminate it completely, but he wants to greatly reduce our presence in Europe.
And he wants to let the Europeans take care of their own security or be principally responsible for taking care of their own security.
And he wants the Europeans to deal with the Ukraine problem.
And there are a variety of reasons for this, one of which he wants to pivot to Asia, as do most people in the national security establishment, because they understand China is a bigger threat than Russia is.
In fact, Russia is not much of a threat at all.
So when you marry that strategic logic with the fact that Trump and his vice president, J.D.
Vance, have contempt for the Europeans, and then you marry that with the tariffs that we've now put on the Europeans, it's hard to see how the NATO alliance is going to be anything more than a hollow shell.
But do you think that is a valid premise, namely that NATO was important when it was necessary to contain the Soviet Union to protect Western Europe against incursions by Moscow?
Obviously the Soviet Union has been around for several decades now and therefore the rationale for NATO and especially the need for the United States to pay far more than the Europeans do for their defense, that is essentially the moment has come to stop these kind of handouts to the Europeans and force them to defend themselves.
I mean, do you find that convincing or valid?
Yes. The fact is, Glenn, I was in favor of pulling out of NATO and pulling out of Europe after the Cold War ended, and certainly after the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991.
The purpose of the NATO alliance was to contain the Soviet Union.
I thought that made eminently good sense.
During the Cold War, I fully supported it.
But once the Soviet Union went away, what was the purpose of staying in Europe?
I would have brought the forces home and I would have concentrated on what Barack Obama called nation building at home.
I think that was much more important.
I think presidents have principal responsibility to the American people.
And the idea that American leadership involves us policing the entire world, having forces in every nook and cranny of the planet and trying to run everybody's politics, I think is a prescription for disaster.
So I would have gotten out of Europe.
Yeah, it is ironic, too, that the national security establishment has been saying we need to pivot away from the Middle East to Europe.
That goes all the way back to Obama and even before.
That was Obama's foreign policy.
We need to get out of the Middle East so we can focus on Asia.
And obviously, the more wars you finance in the Middle East and the more wars you start in the Middle East, the more that goal is going to get impeded.
And it was true for Obama as well.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
And I don't know if I already said this to you, Glenn, but if you look at the piece in the New York Times today that talks about the bombing campaign against the Houthis and how much ammunition that we're expending against the Houthis, the point was made in the article that it is hindering our efforts.
In the Pacific, it's hindering our efforts to deal with China.
And this just tells you that from an American point of view, if you think that containing China is important, and the Biden administration and now the Trump administration both believe that is the case, then what you want to do is you want to reduce your footprint in the Middle East.
You want to greatly reduce your footprint in Ukraine so that you can pivot fully to Asia.
But in fact, What's happened is we've gotten deeper and deeper into the Middle East.
Go back to our earlier conversation about starting a war with the Houthis and thinking about starting a war with Iran and backing the Israelis to the hill.
That's not getting out and diminishing our footprint in that region.
In fact, if anything, it's just the opposite.
And in Europe, I mean, Trump does want to get out, but he's not been very successful so far.
And there's not a lot of evidence he's going to be successful anytime soon.
And all of this is making it more difficult to deal with the Chinese.
I just have a couple more topics that I want to just cover with you in the time we have left.
You mentioned earlier this kind of massive attack by the Trump administration on Colleges and universities, you obviously care a great deal about academia.
You work in academia.
You have pretty much your adult life.
It's something that I know you value.
You've spent a lot of time here before talking about your ardent belief in free speech and how the attacks on protest are eroding it on campus.
But now we have something in a different universe than what we saw in 2024.
Not only these deportations of law-abiding Legal immigrants in the United States for the crime of criticizing or protesting Israel, but also, you know, demands now that colleges and universities adopt this radically expansive definition of hate speech and anti-Semitism to include all sorts of criticisms of Israel,
including... Now outlawing something you said earlier, which was comparing and contrasting Israeli actions with the acts of the Nazis, that is something that wherever this expanded definition of anti-Semitism is adopted, would essentially get you expelled if you're a student, potentially fired if you're an academic.
But then on top of that, you have this whole kind of climate where speakers are being Disinvited if they're going to talk about Gaza.
You have Middle East studies programs at Columbia being put under receivership at the demands of the Trump administration.
At Harvard, you have the Middle East studies director and associate director forced out because they're not pro-Israel enough.
What do you make of all of this in terms of the future of free speech and academic freedom in America academia?
Well, it's a disaster.
There's just no question about it.
Not only is free speech being attacked here, but I think that the Trump administration is bent on badly damaging universities.
It's bent on wrecking them.
I mean, when you come into a university from the outside the way the administration is doing, and you dictate how that university is run in all sorts of ways that are completely antithetical to the way our great universities have been run for a long, long time, you are threatening the existence of some of the most important institutions, not only in the United States, but on the planet.
I have a number of friends who are not Americans, who come from foreign countries, who can't believe what we're doing because they think that American universities are the most wonderful institutions in the world.
This is not to say that our universities don't have problems.
They do have problems, and those problems need to be addressed.
But nevertheless, to bring a wrecking ball in and take places like Harvard and Columbia and Princeton and Penn, and now they've added Brown to the list, and take the wrecking ball to them, in my mind, is really...
Just crazy.
Why would anybody do this?
But again, as I said to you before, Glenn, you do not want to underestimate how radical Trump is.
Yeah, well, I mean, just to make the argument that I hear often from Trump supporters and defenders of all this, which is, yeah, universities used to be...
An epicenter of innovation and research and produced cures, created the internet.
Mark Andreessen, a prominent Trump supporter, who obviously was instrumental in the creation of the internet with Netscape, told the New York Times that it was basically Al Gore, despite all the mockery he got, who really did lead the way in getting funding for key institutions to do the research that ultimately led to browsers and to the internet.
That's been the history of America Academia.
The argument now is, look, now they're just hotbeds of left-wing ideology and gender studies and sociology.
And beyond that, they can do whatever they want, but not if they're getting federal funding.
If they're getting federal funding, they have to kind of align themselves with the ideology of the federal government, or they don't have to get federal funding and they can do what they want.
What do you make of those?
Look, I think there's no question that the political center of gravity in universities is too far to the left and needs to be pushed back towards the center.
It's not as dire a situation by any means as critics on the right make out.
But I would come at this whole issue from a different perspective.
I wouldn't focus simply on the inventions that come out of universities.
I would focus on the phenomenon of critical thinking.
What universities do is they teach young people to think critically.
Most young people have not figured out by the time they graduate from high school how to think critically, how to read a book and pick it apart and figure out what the author's argument is.
is and how to counter that argument.
And what universities are really good at is teaching young people, whether you're in the hard sciences, the humanities, or in the social sciences, to think critically.
And free speech, of course, is inextricably bound up with critical thinking.
You want people to be free to ask any questions that pop into their mind.
You want them to be free to make arguments that disagree with arguments that you, the professor, are making.
This is what the enterprise is all about.
It's what makes it such a wonderful enterprise.
It's why people from all around the world are so interested in coming to universities.
And what the Trump administration is doing—and of course, the Israel lobby is playing a key role here—is undermining this process by undermining critical thinking, by making it impossible to state your views on particular issues for fear that you'll be thrown in jail or you'll be dismissed from the position that you're in.
They should absolutely not be doing this.
It is not in the interest of Israel's supporters to pursue these kind of policies on university and college campuses.
You know, I still remember the excitement I felt when I got to college and started exploring things and getting exposed to ideas that I had never previously known how to get.
existed, and not only that, but being encouraged, not just like allowed, but encouraged to question every piety, every orthodoxy.
I got in a lot of debates with professors who had been studying these issues for a long time, and they encouraged that.
You challenge them, and you have these exchange of ideas.
And what amazed me about it is you have all these people who talk about-- you know, preserving our nation and its kind of founding values.
And you go back to the Enlightenment, which is, you know, essentially what gave birth to the American founding, the Enlightenment ideals and values, there was all this kind of Not just discussion about the supreme importance of free speech and free discourse, but also having a place where all taboos and all pieties get picked at in question, which is academia.
And this has been central to the American founding and the American way of life for centuries.
And it's amazing to me to watch people who say that they are I agree with you.
Just to come in from another perspective, Glenn, the fact is that we live in a remarkably complicated world, and it's hard to figure out what's going on.
As you pointed out at the top of the show, it's hard to keep up with the news because there's a new issue every day on a new subject.
And so we...
We collectively are having lots of trouble just trying to make sense of the world that we operate in.
What I think we do at universities is we teach critical thinking, which is what allows students who then become adults, young adults and older adults, we teach them to think critically about the world.
We teach them how to try to make sense of the world so that they can navigate the world.
Make them better citizens.
And I think this is just a very important function that we serve.
And I think it, again, just is foolish in the extreme for the Trump administration and the Israel lobby to take the wrecking ball to that enterprise.
Just a couple of last questions before I let you go.
Obviously, what's on everybody's mind are these quite What do
you think are the implications?
Not necessarily economically, if you don't want to talk about that, but more geopolitically in terms of the U.S.-China relationship.
Yeah, I don't know what the economic implications are, to be honest.
I'm not an economist.
Right, that's why I brought that out.
Yeah, I really don't know what to make of it.
I think geopolitically, it will exacerbate tensions with China.
I think we have a security competition here, and we have a competition that involves Sophisticated or cutting edge technologies.
So there's this military competition that's been set in play and this sophisticated technology competition that's been set in play.
And then you add to that the tariff war, the trade war, and it's just going to make relations worse.
I think with regard to the Europeans, it's going to make our relations with the Europeans worse.
I think there's no question about that.
And I think from Trump's point of view, that's not a bad thing because it will help him to work out a divorce with the Europeans, which I think he's interested in facilitating.
But I don't think these tariffs are going to improve.
I think the most interesting question from my point of view, and here we're talking about the geopolitical dimension, is what effect these tariffs have on the countries in East Asia that we would like to be on our side against China.
And if you look at the tariffs on Vietnam, for example, one would think that Vietnam is a country that the United States would want to move away from China and have good relations with.
But I think the tariffs are up around the 45 percent level with Vietnam.
And there are all sorts of other countries, of course, in Asia, like the South Koreans, the Japanese and the Taiwanese, who are going to field these tariffs as well.
So I worry that relations with our East Asian allies will be negatively affected by the tariffs.
Our last question.
I think every time you've been on the last three years, this is the word Ukraine has taken up.
Certainly a good part of our discussion, if not the bulk of it.
Now it's kind of reduced to a footnote at the very end.
I almost thought about letting you leave without asking you, but I would feel bad if we didn't talk about Ukraine at all because it is, despite people not paying attention to it, an ongoing major war still.
President Trump has seemed to take in some meaningful steps to try to forge a kind of framework for a deal that could wind down that war.
But so far, there's not really much evidence that it's happening.
I think he made some progress, but obviously the war is still ongoing.
The Russians just had a new conscription order to, I think, call up another 130,000 or 140,000, something like that, new troops.
Where do you think things are with Ukraine and the possibility of Trump being able to facilitate an end to it?
Doesn't look good.
I mean, it may be the case that There's movement behind closed doors, and we just don't know about it.
But out in public, it does not look hopeful.
The real problem here is that the Trump administration desperately wants a comprehensive ceasefire.
We want to stop the shooting right now.
And then we tell the Russians what we will do once we get the ceasefire.
As we will begin negotiations on the final peace settlement.
The Russians have exactly the opposite view.
Their view is we don't want a ceasefire now because we're in the driver's seat on the battlefield.
And indeed, we expect to win big victories in the spring and in the summer and further improve our situation on the battlefield.
So a ceasefire now makes no sense for us.
What we want is we want negotiations on what the final settlement looks like.
And once you, the Americans, sign on to what the final settlement looks like, that's another way of saying once you, the Americans, agree to our principal demands, Moscow's principal demands, we will then agree to a ceasefire.
So you have two fundamentally different approaches to how to move forward.
And the question you have to ask yourself is, who's going to win in this tug of war?
And the answer is, the Russians are going to win because they're in the driver's seat.
They're simply not going to agree to a comprehensive ceasefire.
And they're going to continue militarily fighting on the battlefield.
And they're going to continue marching forward.
And I believe, Glenn, that at some point, the Ukrainians and the Europeans, who are a huge obstacle,...to getting any kind of a peace agreement, at this point, will come to their senses and realize that prolonging this war makes no sense from Ukraine's point of view, because they're just going to lose more territory and more Ukrainians are going to die.
And hopefully then Trump will be able to move in and get some sort of negotiations going where we can finally put an end to this war, either through a final peace agreement or by...
causing a frozen conflict.
All right, Professor Meir-Shimer, for those of you listening, by the way, we're going to do a segment taking questions that we've gotten throughout the week from our local members.
So stay tuned for that.
It was great to see you.
I really appreciate talking to you.
And it's always good to be able to cover so many topics like we did tonight.
And I hope to see you again shortly.
I Likewise. And thank you for having me on, Glenn.
I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Have a great evening.
Have a great evening.
All right, as I said, we're going to do a few questions, the Q&A that we normally do on Friday night that we take from our locals members right after this word, which is that 1775 Coffee and Rumble just unleashed the first anti-aging coffee and an insane longevity bundle at half price.
This limited edition bundle is a powerhouse collection designed to energize your day, sharpen your mind, and help you feel younger than the current administration wishes it was.
Inside, you're getting their top-selling anti-aging coffee, the ultra-rare Peaberry blend, an exclusive 1775 branded tumbler, plus more premium coffee and limited edition merch that you can't find anywhere else at the $200 value for just $100.
Here's the catch.
Only 1,000 bundles are being released.
Once they're gone, they're gone for good, and if that's not enough, every dollar you spend gets you an entry to win the Cybertruck and $30,000 in cash, but you've only got one month left to enter.
You can go to 1775coffee.com slash Glenn right now to secure your longevity pack.
Drink coffee that fuels your freedom, your values, and your life.
Music. Music.
Music.
All right, every Friday night we have a Q&A session where we take...
Questions exclusively from our locals members.
And we have a Q&A on here.
We weren't sure if we were going to be able to get to it tonight.
I usually like to talk to Professor Mearsheimer for as long as possible.
We started about seven minutes late, eight minutes late because of technical issues we had.
But I think we have time for a couple of questions.
We'll get to as many as we can.
And then if not, we might even do it someday earlier than Friday next week just to kind of get as many questions as we can.
The first one is from...
Iculus333, and he writes, quote, or they write, quote, Glenn, you've suggested that during the early years of the 2000s, you generally identified as a liberal or even a Democrat.
You outlined ad nauseum why you no longer do.
I know you have a deep respect for civil liberties, which was allegedly how liberals and Democrats practice to greater and lesser extents.
How do you see yourself, given that the two parties are codifying in some treacherous spaces?
How important are these identity associations in constructing political Yeah, so I'm not sure I identified as a Democrat or a liberal in the early 2000s.
I talked about before how I used to pay a lot of attention to politics in the 80s when I was going to college and then into the 90s going to law school.
And then once I got out of law school, I started working at a big law firm, a big Wall Street firm for a couple years, started my own firm, and I was really focused on my work and my...
My law firm trying to build a practice of constitutional law.
And I really kind of stayed out of partisan politics, especially in the 90s.
It was very small issue stuff with the Clinton administration, dominated by things like the Lewinsky scandal, school uniforms.
I mean, there was a war, of course, in Yugoslavia and bombing Serbia, advocating for the independence of Kosovo, which we're now saying is outrageous when the Russians want to do that.
So, I mean...
There were some things going on, I don't mean to completely diminish it, but it was the fall of the Soviet Union, the peace dividend, etc.
There was a lot of focus on domestic issues.
I really didn't care much about partisan politics, and it was really only after 9 /11 when I started getting very interested, primarily because of this radical change in the climate, where I thought there was an attack on dissent, institutions had been capitulating, but More so, it was this idea that we were imprisoning people without any due process in Guantanamo, but also American citizens.
There was a U.S. citizen named Jose Padilla who was arrested at the Chicago International Airport when he arrived in January of 2022.
They accused him, January 2002, they accused him of being the dirty bomber.
And... Didn't charge him with any crime.
They just arrested him, put him in a military brig for South Carolina.
No charges.
No access to lawyers.
No access to the outside world for the next three and a half years.
Until the case made it to the Supreme Court.
They were worried the Supreme Court was going to say he's an American citizen.
You have to give him charges in a trial.
And they kind of then brought charges finally and argued to the Supreme Court that that question was moot.
But all those civil liberties, there's obviously NSA spying on American citizens, were the...
Motivations that I had to start writing and paying a lot more attention to politics than doing journalism.
And I never considered those values left or right.
I really didn't.
I really didn't.
Obviously, I was criticizing sharply the Bush and Cheney administration and the neocons that surrounded them.
And so because that was the first thing I did in my journalism career, that's the way people got to know me.
They assumed I must be a liberal or a Democrat or whatever since I was constantly condemning the Bush-Cheney administration.
But I never perceived values like due process or the rights of citizens and the Fourth Amendment.
I never considered those to be particularly left-wing or Democratic Party values.
And I was often criticizing the Democrats because people don't remember, but the Democrats endorsed most of what Bush and Cheney were doing.
Half of the Democratic Senate caucus voted to invade Iraq.
Nancy Pelosi was, at the time, the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee.
In the House of Representatives.
And she was briefed on all this stuff, on torture in Guantanamo, on warrantless NSA spying, and she endorsed it all.
And every time there was a vote to try and roll it back or they would just get enough Democrats to ensure it would pass.
And then once President Obama got in and began applying the same exact policies and even expanding a lot of the ones that he had vowed to uproot, I continued those criticisms that people think lost a sense of.
Democrat or Republican.
And I think in the age of, you know, I would say I was like raised as a Democrat.
You know, I like my political influences or my grandparents.
They were just very standard kind of pro-FDR, post-Depression Jewish Americans who identify with the Democratic Party, with American liberalism.
I remember my earliest memory was them cheering for George McGovern against Richard Nixon.
So it was kind of the ethos that I absorbed and like the big, you know.
Debates in the 80s were often around social issues and identified more with the Democratic view on those, like the idea that people should be free to do what they want.
But all that has changed.
It constantly changes.
And I think particularly once Trump emerged, so much of partisan politics or left versus right radically changed how they manifest.
And so I just don't think it's remotely helpful.
I honestly never think about Oh, what is the position that I should take if I want to be on the left?
Or what is the position I want to take if I want to be on the right?
When I did a lot of investigative reporting in Brazil in 2019 and 2020 that dominated the headlines about the corruption probe that led to the former president Lula da Silva being arrested and our reporting led to him being released from jail, obviously...
the brazilian left loved me and assumed i was a leftist the brazilian right hated me and assumed i was a leftist and i kept saying i really left wing ideology this is not my cause here my cause is journalism and having a uncorrupted and unpoliticized legal process especially when talking about putting people in jail and nobody believed me when i was saying it has nothing to do with left-wing ideology for me the right Hated me because they thought I was on the left and the left loved me because they thought I was one of them too.
And now I've done a lot of reporting that Bolsonaro supporters like a lot and the left is enraged by.
So it always shifts, especially if you don't...
Look at things through that metric, and I really try not to.
I'm not saying I'm perfect, I'm as subjective as anybody else is, where all the byproducts are experiences and beliefs, but I honestly don't look at politics that way.
And that's why, from the beginning, I've always had a readership that couldn't be defined ideologically as left versus right.
I always had a lot of libertarians, a lot of kind of partisan Democrats, people on the left.
And it changed over the years.
I have a lot of Trump supporters now as well, but it's a very diverse audience.
It always has been.
That's the way I want it.
When I released my first book in 2006 about the Bush-Cheney attack on civil liberties called How is a Patriot Act, the first place that I spoke about my book was the ACLU, and the second place was the Cato Institute.
And even though I was perceived as a liberal, the first magazine that ever hired me to write an article to pay me was the American Conservative, founded by Pat Buchanan, kind of paleo-conservatives who very much were in accord with me when it came to the Bush-Cheney powers they were claiming and contempt for neocons and the like.
So it has always had this kind of mixed political and I still think that's the way I see things.
I really don't, especially now with Trump, It just obfuscates things more than it eliminates.
All right, next question from Ado.
Could you please tell me how non-Americans got our rights because they were in our territory?
It does not seem that that would be something we would do.
How does this come from the Constitution in the first place?
I know they have due process, but I would like to know how it came about, oh esteemed constitutional scholar.
I don't know if that's some ironic mockery, but anyway, and it ends with thank you.
So I'll assume it's intended in the nicest way possible.
I think this is the important thing to think about.
I know instinctively, intuitively, you would think, oh, it's the American Constitution that's for citizens.
It's the Bill of Rights.
It's only for citizens.
But just imagine what it would mean.
If non-citizens had no constitutional rights.
It would have meant that during the Biden administration, Joe Biden could have ordered, let's say, Jordan Peterson, who's not an American citizen but is in the U.S. legally.
He could have just said, I want him in prison for life because he's been criticizing my policies.
I think he's too disruptive.
He's disrupting and destabilizing America.
I don't want to give him a trial.
I don't want to charge him with anything.
I don't want to have to convince a court that he's done anything wrong.
Just throw him into prison.
Or let's send him to El Salvador.
Let them put him in prison and we'll pay El Salvador to do it.
Would anybody having trouble understanding why that's tyrannical?
Why that's completely contrary to the letter in spirit of the Constitution?
It's a lot harder to think about that if you're demonizing somebody.
Oh, this is some Islamic radical who loves Hamas, is a terrorist, and then people are like, yeah, throw them into prison, get them out of here, I don't really care.
But a lot of times, most of the time, that's a lie.
That's not true of any of those students being deported, but the bigger issue is the Bill of Rights is conceived of not as a...
Christmas tree of presents and rights and benefits that are assigned only to a certain select group of people called American citizens.
The Bill of Rights is a constraint on what the U.S. government can do to anyone under their power, including people who are in the country on a legal visa or green card or even people in the U.S. illegally.
That's why the government can't just order the execution of, say, a green card holder because he criticizes the government.
It's why they can't order the life in prison of someone whose only crime was crossing the border illegally and especially not without a trial.
And it's not hard to understand why that's important to make sure the government can.
Even in 2008, Guantanamo detainees who were effectively in prison for life indefinitely with no charges, no trial, nothing.
They weren't even allowed to go into a court hearing to argue that they had been wrongfully detained.
It got up to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court said in Budimini that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, applies to anyone, non-citizen or citizen, under the control on sovereign territory of the United States.
And all nine justices of the Supreme Court agreed with that principle that non-citizens have constitutional rights.
The only thing at question in that case was whether Guantanamo counted as sovereign American territory.
And because the Americans had taken over Guantanamo, the Supreme Court by a 5-4 decision said Guantanamo is also American land.
And it was never a dispute that non-citizens have the protection of the Bill of Rights.
So that's one way of looking at it.
Just imagine what would be possible if they didn't.
But the reason, textually, constitutionally, courts have said this for 150 years.
The first case I'm aware of, and I think there are ones before this, is in the 1880s, just so you don't think this is some invention of the Warren Court or some left-wing judges or whatever.
It was back in the 1880s.
A Chinese national who was working inside the United States was suspected in California of having committed a crime, and they basically just arrested him and put him in prison with almost no due process rights that citizens would get.
And he appealed his conviction to the US Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court ruled, I think we've read this case to you before, the passage from it, that the right of due process applies to everyone in the United States, not just citizens.
And their reason is, if you look at the wording that the founders purposely chose, or even the framers of the 14th Amendment purposely chose, it does not say that the government shall not have the right to deprive citizens of...
property or rights or life without the due process of law.
It says all persons.
And the 14th Amendment says all persons in the United States shall be guaranteed the right of equal protection.
And it's not like they didn't understand the word citizen because there are a few constitutional provisions that apply only to citizens, including the right to vote.
They know how to say citizens if that's what they meant.
They didn't.
They purposely said persons.
It's a universal protection for anyone under the control of the United States.
You see it textually if you go read the 14th Amendment or the 5th Amendment.
And if you just think about what would be the consequences, the very perverse consequences of allowing the U.S. government to do anything.
To non-citizens, including people here legally.
You could have a green card holder who's married to an American citizen and has three American kids and is here for 30 years, and the government could just come to your house one day and say, we don't like what you say, so we're putting you in prison for the rest of your life with no trial.
If you believe the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-citizens, you have no objections to that.
You have no constitutional objections to that.
But of course that would be unconstitutional for the textual end.
Prudential reasons I just said.
You just can read the Constitution.
You can read these cases, and it'll become very clear why.
All right.
Next question.
We'll make it the last one.
Brian R. Duffy, who says, "I don't get the feeling "Glenn is very interested in discussing "the tariff situation.
"I don't know if he thinks it's really not a subject "he has a lot to offer on or what, "but I'm curious if there is anyone out there "who thinks the tariffs can't be Now, obviously, this is something we've been thinking about and have been discussing.
Because the terror policies that President Trump unveiled are indescribably consequential.
They're causing consequences all throughout the world.
Not just economically, but geopolitically.
And they're affecting every country in transformative ways.
And one of the things I think I hope you listened to when I...
I asked Professor Mearsheimer about tariffs.
I specifically said, look, I'm not really asking you to describe what you think the economic outcome will be.
Will it bring back manufacturing base?
Is it just a negotiating ploy?
Will it drive up inflation or unemployment?
Is it a tax?
And the reason I didn't ask him that is because I know that he's not an economist.
He didn't study economics.
He's not an expert on tariffs or economic policy.
And so I just wanted to give him that out to say, look, I'm not asking you to comment on the tariffs themselves, just how they affect the relationship between U.S. and China.
And I expected and I really appreciated the fact that he said, look, I can't talk about the economics of tariffs because I'm not an expert in this.
I really don't know.
And so one of the things that I've always tried hard to do since the beginning of my journalism career, since I had that blog back in 2005 and 2006, even when I was writing every day, You can go back and see.
I don't write about topics where I don't feel like I have any specialized knowledge or expertise or particularly valuable insight.
I just don't, I'm also, I don't know much about economic theory.
I don't, I cannot, I don't have the credibility or the competence in my view to sit here and opine on what the outcome of tariffs.
Would be.
I could if I wanted to.
I've been reading all the things that you've been reading.
I've been listening to all the people debate tariffs.
Not just now, but back in the first Trump administration.
That was something he was advocating back then and did to some extent.
Nowhere near the extent to now.
But I really talk about economic policy because I feel like I have a decent understanding of it.
The kind of understanding that you get if you read and listen to the news or to experts.
I talk to people.
Who's views I respect on this issue, but I would be a fraud, I feel like, if I sat here and said, okay, I'm going to explain to you now the implications economically of tariffs.
Because I don't know.
I don't know.
And I just don't want to talk about it.
Now, the one thing I do know about that I think is interesting and that I can talk about is the political evolution of this issue, by which I mean specifically that for as long as I've been watching the American left, They have hated free trade.
Hated it.
One of the biggest criticisms on the left of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and one of the things that people hate about the Clintons, is NAFTA.
And those other free trade agreements that ended up, I think in the view of a lot of people, certainly a lot of people on the left, hauling out the manufacturing base, de-industrializing the middle of the country, causing massive unemployment and the shuttering of factories, the downward mobility of the middle class.
And the shipping of jobs overseas.
I remember watching the 1992 presidential debate where Ross Perot said, do you hear that sucking sound?
That's the sound of jobs being sucked out of the United States immediately heading to Mexico.
And he proved to be totally prescient on this.
There's a really interesting video that we'll put in the show notes next week.
I actually promoted it on X when I saw it earlier and watched it.
It was when Pat Buchanan wrote his 2011 book, I think it's called The Death of a Superpower.
He went on a C-SPAN show that was hosted by Ralph Nader.
So you had Ralph Nader, well on the left, in fact, so on the left that he ran to the Democratic Party's left in 2000.
A lot of people think he cost Al Gore the election.
I don't, but that...
So you have Pat Buchanan, you have Ralph Nader on the left here, you have Pat Buchanan, obviously, on the right, the populist right.
And they both completely agreed on...
The evils of free trade.
In fact, both of them were at the 1999 very famous, notorious protest outside the World Trade Organization in Seattle that turned violent because a lot of kind of antifa types.
I mean, there was no antifa then, but same kind of strain.
But there were huge numbers of people there from the left and the right who didn't engage in violence, but were there to protest world trade, global trade, free trade.
And I think the idea that Free trade and globalism are evils socially, economically, politically.
It's as close to a consensus on the American left, maybe even the Western left, as I think you can get.
So I have to say it's a little odd now to watch finally a politician who promised this during the election.
It's not like he unveiled this out of nowhere.
He promised he was going to do this during the election.
Most of what Trump's doing is stuff he talked about in the election, not...
Trying to get Greenland under the Panama Canal, not bombing Yemen.
But a lot of the most controversial stuff, including invoking the LA and Enemies Act to have full discretion to deport not just illegal people here illegally, but also legally, all the stuff he talked about on the campaign trail.
And terrorists was one of them, and people voted for them.
They got convinced that that would help.
So it's very odd for me to see...
People on the left, I'm not saying they have to support exactly how Trump is doing the tariffs.
They do seem a bit haphazard to me.
But again, I'm not going to opine on that.
But it seems odd for people on the left to reflexively say, oh my God, these tariffs are terrible.
And to even cite the fact that Wall Street is angry about them, that the stock market is declining because of it, as though that's some terrible thing.
Now the left is afraid of alienating Wall Street.
I thought the whole point was that we're tired of policies that only benefit a tiny sliver of the country.
This concentrated corporate power that's global as to nature.
Wall Street barons, tycoons and the like.
So because it's Trump, now a lot of people are saying, wait a minute, we don't want tariffs.
We want to keep the regime of global trade, of free trade.
Really? That's not what I've ever heard previously.
And then there are a lot of people, I think the smarter, more thoughtful people who don't have this reflexive reaction to Trump, who are saying tariffs can actually do important and beneficial things.
We need them.
We have to start undermining the regime of free trade.
It's just not this way that he's doing it is not the correct way, which seems to me to be a middle ground.
But it's kind of like immigration where opposition to open borders.
When I started writing about politics, it was a very left-wing position.
Bernie Sanders, in 2016, when he ran, was asked by his recline about open borders, and he was horrified.
Bernie Sanders said, open borders?
That's what you favor?
That's a Koch brothers proposal.
And back then, it was George Bush and Dick Cheney and the Chamber of Commerce and John McCain, people who were very corporatist in their interests and orientations, who wanted immigration reform, wanted to open up the borders much more.
Because that's beneficial to large American corporations.
If you flood the labor market with cheap labor, you drive down the cost of doing business, you increase the bottom line, you gut out the unions and the protections that American labor has, which is exactly what happened.
And that's why the left was opposed to it.
Cesar Chavez, the Mexican-American union leader, hated immigration.
There was an article in 2011 by Jamil Bowie in the American Prospect, who's now like the supposed left-wing columnist for the New York Times.
He's really just a partisan Democrat, but he wrote, when he was at the American Prospect, an article, I think it was in 2010, warning Democrats not to be too...
Aggressive about or permissive about immigration because he said the people who will lose their jobs and suffer the most are black and Latino Americans.
Those are the ones who lose their job first, who will have to compete with undocumented immigrants.
This was, really it was a left-wing view opposing immigration and the establishment Republican Party.
You had those populists, but the establishment Republican Party wanted open borders.
And so now you just have this complete mix now.
And it's in a lot of ways the same with tariffs.
I'm just amazed at how many people are so horrified that Wall Street doesn't like Trump's plan, that they're throwing a tantrum that they, I guess, want to preserve now the system of free trade.
So again, I'm not commenting on because I can't the merits of the tariffs and how they're done.
I just see that.
political aspect to it and we might have somebody on we talked about somebody having somebody on this week the problem is that if I just have an economist on who's like vehemently opposed to or vocally in support of Trump's tariff regime I really won't be able to push back on it the way I need to and they'll just be here to state one opinion I won't really have the chops especially if they're...experts in tariffs and trade to be able to push back.
We talked about maybe having two people on who have some different views that I could kind of mediate so you can hear the clash of ideas, which I think is probably the best way to do it.
But it is true that in general I've often not covered very important topics simply if I think I lack the expertise or the competence to do so.
You cannot be an expert in everything.
I think one of the downfalls, in fact, of American journalism and American punditry is that people feel compelled to just...
pontificate on everything, including things they know virtually nothing about.
And that's something I really try and avoid.
I was glad that Professor Mearsheimer obviously abstained as well from talking about a topic in which he wasn't an expert either.
Alright, so we did have some more excellent questions that I wanted to get to, but we're sort of out of time in order to do that.
We'll try and get to some questions next week, not just on our Friday show.
And continue to submit your questions.
If you're members of our works community, we really enjoy doing these Friday night Q&As.
So that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after their first broadcast live here on Rumble, on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms where if you rate, review, and follow our program, it really does help spread the visibility of the show.
Finally, because we are independent journalists, independent media, we really do rely on the support of our viewers and members.
In order to be a supporter of the show, you can join our Locals community, and if you do so, you get access to a wide variety of features, including interactive features that allow you to communicate with us and us to you throughout the week.
It's a place we put a lot of original, exclusive video interviews and video segments.
We don't have time to broadcast here.
Often when we have a third segment on the show, we run out of time and so we stream exclusively for our members.
On Locals, it's a place we put the transcripts, the written professionalized transcripts of every show we broadcast here.
We publish them.
On that platform, and also every time we do a Friday night Q&A, or maybe next week, Tuesday or Wednesday, we take questions exclusively from what we get throughout the week from our local members, but most of all, it is the community on which we really do rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
All you have to do is click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
For those who have been watching this show, we are, needless to say, very appreciative, and we hope to see you back on Monday night.
And every night at 7pm Eastern Live, exclusively here on Rumble.
