Preet Bharara:

From CAFE and The Vox Media Podcast Network, welcome to Stay Tuned. I’m Preet Bharara.

Ian Bremmer:

The argument is that when the United States does this, it becomes massively less reliable for allies around the world in its backyard in Europe and the rest, and that that long-term undermines America’s influence and helps China. Helps China a lot.

Preet Bharara:

That’s Ian Bremmer. He’s the Founder and President of Eurasia Group, one of the world’s leading political risk firms and the creator of GZERO Media. He’s also my good friend. Each year, Ian puts out his annual top risks report, a roadmap of geopolitical and economic shocks that could shape the year ahead. I’ve been looking forward to this conversation as a way to kick off the new year, and this one is especially timely because Ian’s report was already in motion when major events unfolded over the weekend in Venezuela.

Preet Bharara:

In fact, Ian had predicted in a draft of his report that Nicolás Maduro was unlikely to survive the year in power. We talk about what the US action in Venezuela is actually meant to achieve and Trump’s so called Donroe Doctrine. We also dig into Ian’s number one risk for 2026, what he describes as a political revolution in the United States and why he’s more alarmed than he’s been in the past.

Preet Bharara:

Then I’ll answer your questions about why Nicolás Maduro is being prosecuted in New York and I’ll have a word or two about schoolhouse rock. That’s coming up. Stay tuned. Founder and President of the Eurasia Group, Ian Bremmer, discusses the top 10 risks of 2026 from his annual risk report. Ian Bremmer, welcome as they say back to the show.

Ian Bremmer:

My favorite Preet.

Preet Bharara:

What?

Ian Bremmer:

You’re the only one I know it’s true, but you are my favorite.

Preet Bharara:

First among equals or among none others. So usually we chitchat for a little bit. We have a lot of stuff going on in the world, so we should go right to it.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay.

Preet Bharara:

Can you explain to everybody what this thing is you put out every year? Because I think you’re our first guest. First or second guest every year in January, because you put out in big capital letters, top risks for people who may be uninitiated and unfamiliar, risks to whom, risks about what? Tell us quickly and then we’ll go through them.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. And especially because for people unfamiliar, I never use capital letters. So the fact that top risk is in capital letters.

Preet Bharara:

I was going to say your report-

Ian Bremmer:

… Is unusual.

Preet Bharara:

Is full of capital letters.

Ian Bremmer:

Full capital letters. It unnerves me in that way, but it’s meant to be professional. So we’ve done this now for 20 years and what we do with the entire research … It used to be just me writing it. And now of course it’s a big company and so the whole research platform participates, but I still have the pen. And at the end of the process, we are looking for the 10 risks that we believe are the most important over the coming year that will come to rise.

Ian Bremmer:

Ranked in terms of impact, likelihood and imminence, weighting those three together. And then at the end, we have some red herrings that are things that we think won’t happen and also a little bit of good news. And then you put it all together and it becomes this monstrous report. And just trying to be honest with people about where we think the world is going. And then at the end of the year, go back and see how you did, which I think is really valuable thing to do.

Preet Bharara:

Can I just say so you don’t dissuade people from going on your website and reading it? It’s not monstrous. It’s like 45 pages.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

It’s a good read, as I was telling you earlier, is well written. So you must have shared the pen with others. Last question about the-

Ian Bremmer:

I’m a sharer. I’m very much a sharer.

Preet Bharara:

I know you are.

Ian Bremmer:

As are you.

Preet Bharara:

You’re a giver, not a taker.

Ian Bremmer:

You’re great sharer Preet. I’ve always said that about you.

Preet Bharara:

Adam Grant always talks about the takers and givers. I’d like to think I’m a giver. I believe you are a giver.

Ian Bremmer:

That’s true.

Preet Bharara:

Impact on whom? So if there’s a big risk to Asia, is that included or is it North American centric?

Ian Bremmer:

We do a bunch of pieces that I haven’t sent you that are you take the top risk report and then you look at what are the implications of all of this for Canada, for Japan, for Europe, for Brazil, all the markets that we’re in. And because the sun never sets on the Eurasia Group empire, but it’s really meant to be a global report. And the media coverage, the people that receive and read it, that we talk to are really are all over the map.

Preet Bharara:

So obviously we need to spend a lot of time talking about Venezuela. You and I have been texting about it a little bit. But before we do that, I got a significant pointed criticism of last year’s interview.

Ian Bremmer:

Really?

Preet Bharara:

Came from an astute, but tough listener, also known as my wife.

Ian Bremmer:

Dalia?

Preet Bharara:

Yes.

Ian Bremmer:

What’d she say?

Preet Bharara:

She said-

Ian Bremmer:

You talk too much.

Preet Bharara:

No. She said, “I love what you guys talk about, but I never heard what the 10 risks were because we started to go through them and then we get, not bogged down, but we get sort of deep in the weeds on some of them.” She’s like, “I just wanted to know what all the freaking risks were.” But she didn’t say freaking. So can we just go through these quickly?

Ian Bremmer:

Oh yeah, sure.

Preet Bharara:

Number one, US political revolution. That is about the kinds of things that are happening. We want to spend some time on that because I think that’s interesting that you use the word revolution. Number two, overpowered. That’s about energy and energy risk.

Ian Bremmer:

Specifically about China becoming an electro state while the United States is relying on 20th century oil.

Preet Bharara:

We’ll talk about the energy stack if we have time.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

The Donroe Doctrine after the Monroe Doctrine and Don, the president. We’ll talk about that foreign policy, that’s where we’ll talk about Venezuela. Europe under siege because lots of crazy is going on in Europe.

Ian Bremmer:

Internally and externally.

Preet Bharara:

Lots of crazy stuff is going on in Europe.

Ian Bremmer:

Pressured by the Russians, pressured by the Americans and pressured from within. Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Number five, Russia’s second front. What’s the second front quickly in one sense?

Ian Bremmer:

It is the fact that increasingly the Russia fight asymmetric warfare with frontline NATO states is becoming a bigger risk.

Preet Bharara:

Number six, very interesting to me. State capitalism with American characteristics, right?

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

There you talk about various weird things like state ownership of stock and private companies and other such sundry things. Seven, China’s deflation trap, more China.

Ian Bremmer:

10 quarters now of Chinese deflation.

Preet Bharara:

I have some questions about that.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay.

Preet Bharara:

Eight. We don’t get to AI until number eight.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

AI eats its users. I presume that’s a metaphor. I miss that news report. Sort of in a similar vein, zombie USMCA. That’s our agreement such as it is.

Ian Bremmer:

More brains for the Western hemisphere. Yeah, yeah.

Preet Bharara:

But number 10, I think provides a solution to use against both AI and the zombie USMCA, the water weapon.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, there you go.

Preet Bharara:

The titles of these 10 risks, they kind of tell a story.

Ian Bremmer:

They do. They do.

Preet Bharara:

It’s a little bit of poetry. So the water weapon, I don’t think we’re going to get to that, so why don’t you tell us what that is?

Ian Bremmer:

The fact that you have growing water scarcity that is being used to advantage sides in fighting in geopolitical conflicts. India-Pakistan is probably the most important, but it’s in the Sahel and it’s helping the lead to radicalization there. You’ve got two billion people living under water stress for at least a month a year, and it is starting to cause geopolitical frictions, but it’s only number 10. It barely made it, kind of dripped its way into the report.

Preet Bharara:

Is it kind of like you needed a 10?

Ian Bremmer:

No, Iran would’ve been number 10. We thought about putting Iran there. There’s always a fight. You could do 15 if you wanted to.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. Can we go to number three?

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, you want to go three?

Preet Bharara:

And my first question is-

Ian Bremmer:

Julie?

Preet Bharara:

Not of substance.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay.

Preet Bharara:

And I told you I was going to ask you this.

Ian Bremmer:

You don’t know why you told me, because it was really funny. Why did you ruin it? Why’d you step on your own jokes?

Preet Bharara:

So the Donroe Doctrine, we’ll talk about that is in a moment, but that’s sort of the foreign policy philosophy such as there is one, if there is one, of one, Donald Trump. And he has a particular approach to dictators of one stripe versus dictators of another stripe. And that’s where you had already written, it seems to me, before the morning of January 3rd, about what might happen to Venezuela, given the missile strikes on those boats and everything else. And then the world changed

Ian Bremmer:

On Saturday. Saturday morning.

Preet Bharara:

On Saturday.

Ian Bremmer:

Wake up. Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Which is why I didn’t get your freaking report in until Sunday at 10:00 PM.

Ian Bremmer:

And I told you this.

Preet Bharara:

Which-

Ian Bremmer:

You write me from Tanzania, right? You are-

Preet Bharara:

I did. It’s not to panic.

Ian Bremmer:

Deep in the bush.

Preet Bharara:

I’m deep in the bush.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. And I mean that literally, right?

Preet Bharara:

I was. I was. I was surrounded by lions and leopards.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. And you’re like, “Can you please send me an advance of the report in the Serengeti? Can you do that?”

Preet Bharara:

That makes me sound so pathetic, but I had this moment, you have now revealed something that no other guest has revealed.

Ian Bremmer:

What?

Preet Bharara:

Just like how I operate. I’m a cool cucumber. You don’t have to tell people that with my family in the Serengeti, I suddenly was like, “I need that report so I can prep.”

Ian Bremmer:

Because I’m going to be so exhausted.

Preet Bharara:

It’s true. I don’t have this relationship with other guests. You’re the special one.

Ian Bremmer:

It’s mutual.

Preet Bharara:

And yeah, I was literally in an open air jeep in Africa, I think looking at a cheetah, and that reminded me of your report.

Ian Bremmer:

And you’re like, “I can only look at so many cheetahs, but Ian, this report, I don’t have it.”

Preet Bharara:

I just wanted to make sure that someone was thinking of me and I was going to get the thing so I wasn’t pretending to have read it because I did read it. And what did I read on page 13? A quote from the draft later after we went into Venezuela. And then I open up your report and on page 13, you have, what do you call that when you have a pullout quote?

Ian Bremmer:

It’s like a pull quote.

Preet Bharara:

A pull quote which says the world moves fast. And then literally it’s like, here’s what our draft said on Friday, 2 January and you bold face in case you have some of your readers are imbeciles, you bold face the following. After you write that Trump is hoping an oppression or force and negotiated exit, you then write, “Washington is weighing options ranging from a decapitation strike to an Osama bin Laden style raid.”

Preet Bharara:

And then in boldface, you have, “The latter is favored if the opportunity arises, the goal being to bring Maduro to the United States to face justice.” And you also boldface the following sentence after you write, “President Trump wants to go in hard, declare a victory quickly and get out.” Maduro is unlikely to survive the year in power. And my first thought was that is a great insight into the ego of Ian Bremmer because I know you, I know you.

Ian Bremmer:

You know me well. You know me too well.

Preet Bharara:

You were like, you were in your home and this important event happens and you’re like, “God damn it, I predicted this. I knew this was how it was going to play out. And now I can’t show the world that I knew.”

Ian Bremmer:

You can. It turns out you can if you just show your work.

Preet Bharara:

And then you’re like, “I am going to do an unprecedented thing which is provide an excerpt from the prior draft of the report because this actually serves no value. There’s no educational value in this other than to broadcast to everyone Ian. I got it right.” Am I correct? Am I correct in this assessment of your ego?

Ian Bremmer:

So the thing is, of course, we had sent this report, the draft report went around to the entire firm. So everyone had read it, everyone had seen it. And then literally everyone wakes up at Saturday morning, including my top Venezuela analyst who’s in Mexico at the time. And for her, it’s like 2:30 in the morning. It’s all playing out.

Preet Bharara:

Boss, you were right.

Ian Bremmer:

Well, it’s more like, what are we going to do and how do we respond to it and everything else? But I mean, the fact that we already had the Donroe Doctrine already was the risk was all set up, you kind of feel like, “Oh, we got to share that with the readers. That’s kind of fun.” Now, on the other side of this, you’re completely right, Preet, because you know me well and absolutely.

Preet Bharara:

You wanted credit.

Ian Bremmer:

I wanted credit and I appreciate you giving it to me. One thing I haven’t yet taken credit for, but I’m now going to, but I’m now going to.

Preet Bharara:

This is not the portion of the podcast where you take credit.

Ian Bremmer:

It is. It is. So at the beginning of 2025, we had a risk that talked about Iran’s 1989 moment. And at the end of the year, I always go back and I say, “How have we done? And what have we gotten right? What have we gotten wrong?” And I talked to him, so one of the things that we got, I thought last year we’d actually, the report held up really well, but one of the things we got wrong was the 1989 moment.

Ian Bremmer:

And we had said in the report that we thought that no, the Iran regime was not going to collapse, but they were under massive pressure. We’re not seeing much from the Supreme leaders like ’86, he’s ailing, they’re underwater stress in Tehran, the economy is falling apart, the sanctions are really biting, and Israel is showing they can hit them hard, their foreign policy is completely fallen apart.

Ian Bremmer:

We’re going to start to see big demonstrations in Iran, and two weeks ago when I did my look back, there hadn’t been any. And I was like, “You know what? Just despite all of this, the repression just is too great. We haven’t seen any.” And of course, literally right after we put it out, the demonstrations in Iran started and now it’s a fairly big deal. So we said we got that wrong. It turned out we actually got it right. And now I can share that with all of our listeners.

Preet Bharara:

One time you were wrong.

Ian Bremmer:

Turned out.

Preet Bharara:

I’m going to give you a third one, just to round it out with three.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay.

Preet Bharara:

If I remember correctly, you and I had a very depressing conversation on a stage.

Ian Bremmer:

Oh, in Florida.

Preet Bharara:

In Florida at the code conference.

Ian Bremmer:

And you thought that I had a fantastic shirt, by the way.

Preet Bharara:

Okay.

Ian Bremmer:

Do you remember that?

Preet Bharara:

Stay focused.

Ian Bremmer:

You loved that shirt.

Preet Bharara:

Stay focused.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay, fine. But it was floral. It was floral.

Preet Bharara:

And it was like the second week of February.

Ian Bremmer:

And you were wearing a suit.

Preet Bharara:

It was the second week of February.

Ian Bremmer:

And we looked like mutton jet.

Preet Bharara:

How do you make so much money?

Ian Bremmer:

We looked your day-

Preet Bharara:

When you have this kind of distractibility, I don’t even understand in your posh office. It’s a very lovely office. And some event had happened that caused generally the public to think that Russia was not going to invade Ukraine, and people were in a good mood that morning. I forgot what had happened, but something signaled to folks that maybe Putin wasn’t going to do it. And you said, “Oh yeah, he’s going to do it.” And I think it was six days later or seven days later that he did. So that’s your three.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay.

Preet Bharara:

Okay.

Ian Bremmer:

There you go.

Preet Bharara:

Can you explain to us and remind people who have forgotten from history what the Monroe Doctrine is and why we have coined something? Did you coin this?

Ian Bremmer:

We came up with Donroe Doctrine, but I think there were others that were also talking about it, but for the more importantly, Trump has now decided that that is actually the thing. First of all, the reason we came up with it was because in the national security strategy document that came out a little over a month ago, which Trump didn’t write and surely didn’t read, but nonetheless does reflect broadly what the Trump administration is saying about America’s foreign policy strategy.

Ian Bremmer:

They actively talked about the Monroe Doctrine and that there should be a Trump corollary to the Monroe doctrine, which is that in America’s backyard, other countries do not have a principle say that it is America’s priority and that the United States gets to determine what the key outcomes are going to be. And historically, that was basically saying to colonial powers from Europe, “You stay out of this area.”

Ian Bremmer:

Today, of course, it’s much more about American military power and preferences being able to determine sway. And it’s also not just about the Western hemisphere. It clearly applies to Greenland, which is not a part of the Western hemisphere, but is absolutely a part of the Donroe Doctrine.

Preet Bharara:

So I’m glad we’re talking because I’ve had a lot of questions about what happened at Venezuela. And you have the usual thing that happens with Trump and the regime, our regime, when they take some action and the question arises, well, what’s the point? What’s the purpose? What’s the mission? What triggered it? And then there’s a party line.

Preet Bharara:

The professionals say, “Well, it’s for these reasons.” And then Trump says the truth and it’s some other reason. Did the United States of America go and forcibly take the leader of another country, whether you consider him to have been legitimate or not, recognized or not?

Ian Bremmer:

For oil.

Preet Bharara:

… for oil, for ego, for democracy, for the Venezuelans, or because there’s a pending case out of the Southern District of New York, some combination of those or one of those?

Ian Bremmer:

So I think that this is a place where people are overthinking it. There was a time about two months ago when Stephen Miller, who is one of the architects of this policy, right? It’s Ratcliffe, CIA, it’s Miller, and it’s Marco Rubio all reporting into Trump. They’re driving it, where Miller is of the view that there is no outcome that could be worse than Maduro.

Ian Bremmer:

We have to take this guy out, and Trump increasingly was as this view as they’re giving him ultimatums and as Maduro is taunting Trump and is doing the little Trump dance with all these civilians around and you can’t do anything to me. And obviously, this is a red rag to a bull. And so I think we should not underestimate because this is not regime change, right?

Preet Bharara:

Well, that was going to be my next question, so don’t jump ahead.

Ian Bremmer:

It’s regime roulette. All you’ve done is spin the wheel, and you’ve got the same basic people that are there, but we should not underestimate the fact that the intention of the policy was to remove Maduro, and that is what he has done, that is what he’s done. So that’s a big part of it is not the oil. It’s not the drugs. It’s not democracy. And a big part of it is removing Maduro.

Preet Bharara:

But why?

Ian Bremmer:

Well, yes, because there are lots of bad things that he’s done, but I mean, if we say it’s about the drug.

Preet Bharara:

Why do we care about that? Why do we care about the bad things that he’s done? Why does Trump care about the bad things that he’s done?

Ian Bremmer:

So the initial policy was not being driven by Trump. The initial policy was being driven by Marco Rubio and others. And certainly, so there was that focus. And as they started talking about it and as pressure was being applied, and remember there were others in the administration that said, “We can find a deal with this guy. We can work with them. You had Rick Grenell that was the special envoy that was trying to get the oil companies to find ways to do more business there and was trying to make sure that they would accept planes of illegal immigrants that would be shipped down to Venezuela, and they did accept some of those.”

Ian Bremmer:

So this is all kind of cohering, but the Maduro response at every moment is aggressively anti-Trump. And so as Trump is seeing more of this guy, Trump is getting angrier. Trump is saying, “I want to do something about this.” And then Trump is escalating. And before you know it, that escalation is itself becoming a policy of he’s got to go. Trump didn’t come into office in January last year saying Maduro has to go. This wasn’t part of what Trump was campaigning on like he did with ending the war in Ukraine.

Preet Bharara:

He was persuaded.

Ian Bremmer:

He was persuaded. Now, absolutely there are a bunch of reasons that Marco Rubio and others, and Trump himself wanted Maduro out. And the fact that a lot of drugs were being trafficked through Venezuela, not fentanyl, but cocaine, but the cocaine is mixed with fentanyl and is part of what’s causing so many of these addictions and deaths in the United States, that is an issue that has concerned Trump. And it’s also an issue that he’s taken up with the Mexicans and the Mexicans have responded pretty effectively, I think, over the past year on that. So that is an issue.

Preet Bharara:

He’s very good.

Ian Bremmer:

The oil does not strike me as relevant, as very relevant, as much as people think because you’re not actually going to be able to get that oil anytime soon, and we can talk about why.

Preet Bharara:

Why does he keep talking about the oil?

Ian Bremmer:

He’s talking about it because he wants to tell the American taxpayers that it’s not going to cost us any money. And then the same way that he’s talking about the critical minerals deal with Ukraine. He was so angry about the billions and billions of dollars that the US was spending under Biden on Ukraine.

Ian Bremmer:

So he forced Bessent to go to Kyiv and said, “You’re going to do this critical minerals deal or else I’m cutting off your intelligence and I’m cutting off your defense support.” And you tell me, how many years is it going to take before the Americans ever see a dollar for critical minerals out of Ukraine? But that wasn’t the point. The point was Trump wanted to say that I’ve got the measure of this guy and I’ve got a better deal.

Preet Bharara:

Well, I think Mexico is almost done paying for the wall.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, I’m sure that’s true.

Preet Bharara:

Underreported.

Ian Bremmer:

I’m sure it’s underreported. Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

I’ll ask another snide question.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

What’s the likelihood that in two years Trump will have forgotten all this and pardons the Venezuelan president?

Ian Bremmer:

Well, I don’t know. I mean, if he gets a Mar-a-Lago membership and he starts supporting Trump, that’s the funny thing. So I’m going to be cute about this. Did you see Rand Paul in the last day make his little funny statement? He made a funny statement.

Preet Bharara:

I did not.

Ian Bremmer:

You’ve got Lindsey Graham and Lindsey Graham is in the White House and he’s talking to Trump and he’s all supportive of Venezuela and everything. And Rand Paul is like, “They should only allow Lindsey Graham in the White House no more than once every two weeks and never to talk to the president, only to talk to lower level officials. He is not MAGA.” I’m like, “What? What? He’s not MAGA?”

Preet Bharara:

He’s on board.

Ian Bremmer:

Rand Paul, what are you talking about? There is not an ideology test for MAGA. MAGA is whatever Trump says and wants and you support that. And Lindsey Graham is 105% MAGA and you ran Paul are not. And so Milei in Argentina is a libertarian. He’s a free trader, but he’s fully MAGA. Why? Because he loves Trump.

Ian Bremmer:

And more importantly, Trump loves him, right? That’s MAGA. And so, Honduras, you got the former president of Honduras who was actively trafficking huge amounts of drugs to the United States and Trump pardons him. Why? Because he’s MAGA. It makes sense to me. Ultimately, it’s about loyalty to the president and whether he likes you.

Preet Bharara:

I’ll be back with Ian Bremmer after this. So before I ask you some more questions, I do want to just state that I’m kind of grumpy about all our leaders, many of whom I respect and I used to work in the Congress, but I’ve become more and more sick of the mealy mouth, non-committal, repetitive, nonsensical, pretextual. I’ve got other adjectives to use.

Ian Bremmer:

Pretextual is good for a lawyer, by the way. I love that.

Preet Bharara:

The rhetoric.

Ian Bremmer:

Good for a lawyer. Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

So regime change.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. Can we talk about that for a second?

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

What does it mean? Who cares? Why is it important? Which is a subset of who cares, and-

Ian Bremmer:

Why are you asking that on the back of being annoyed by Democrats and leaders on this?

Preet Bharara:

And when Democrats say it was a lie, because they’re trying to make some hay about the fact that people in the Trump administration said, “They are not seeking regime change. They’re not seeking regime change.” Democrats are now saying, “Well, that was a lie because they just did this thing, which clearly is regime change.”

Ian Bremmer:

Yes, no, it’s not.

Preet Bharara:

Are the Democrats full of nonsense on that or what?

Ian Bremmer:

Yes. Yes, they are. Now, when Susie Wiles says to Vanity Fair that if there were going to be any strikes on Venezuelan territory, then we need to go to Congress. Well, you got to speak to that because obviously there are strikes on Venezuelan territory and they didn’t go to Congress, but though it’s not the first time that Americans have engaged in strikes on other territory and knock on Congress and Congress isn’t really interested in having the authority of a lot of these decisions. So there is a lot of guilt and blame to go around, but this is not regime change. This is you took out Maduro, everyone else in that place is still there.

Preet Bharara:

Is still there. Can you explain the significance of this term? It seems like a hot button term, regime change.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. And you’re talking about the Democratic. You’re about to ask about the Democratic opposition.

Preet Bharara:

No, I’m sorry. The Democratic opposition has not been endorsed by, or even I think spoken to by the Trump administration because she, according to some people who speculate, I want to know what your view is because he’s annoyed with her because she won the-

Ian Bremmer:

Nobel Peace Prize. No, that’s not why.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. So why is it?

Ian Bremmer:

First of all, if you wanted a successful transition to a Democratically elected government in Venezuela, you would still keep the military and work with Delcy Rodriguez right now as the acting president because they have-

Preet Bharara:

And she is the?

Ian Bremmer:

She is the acting president. She was the vice president. She is the acting president. Her brother runs Congress. That is the legislature. That’s who’s running the country right now. And they have the guns, they have the power. And unless you’re going to go in and blow up everything, which leaves a power vacuum while half of the country is run by gangs and criminals in the West, that is a bad idea.

Ian Bremmer:

And the US is not interested in sending lots of troops on the ground to do that. And that is correct in my view. So if Trump wanted a Democratic transition, he wouldn’t throw Maria Machado under the bus the way he just did, but he would continue to work with this group. Now, Trump doesn’t care who runs the country. He actually doesn’t. As long as they do what he wants, and he has a list of things he wants.

Ian Bremmer:

He wants the relations cut with Russia and Hezbollah and Iran, and he wants them to stop exporting drugs, and he wants preferential access for US corporations for oil and other resource development. And he also wants them to take Venezuelan illegals back to Venezuela. Those are the top priorities. Marco also wants a transition to a democratically elected government with some power-sharing over a period of time, let’s say 12, 18 months.

Ian Bremmer:

Trump doesn’t care about that, but if Marco pushes for it, maybe that’ll be part of the give. I don’t know, but their presumption is that they get to run that. They get to determine those outcomes because they have just shown that they’ve got a military and they’re willing to use it.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. I want to move on to other risks in a moment, but one last point on this.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, sure.

Preet Bharara:

So what’s the consequence of this action in terms of risk? And the particular example I want to ask you about that I hear people talking about, and I want to know from you, Ian Bremmer, is this BS or not? Like some of the other things that you have called BS. Now it is easier for China to take action with respect to Taiwan because of this action that the US has taken against the president of Venezuela.

Ian Bremmer:

Not true.

Preet Bharara:

BS or not?

Ian Bremmer:

No.

Preet Bharara:

Wait, no what? It is BS or it’s not BS?

Ian Bremmer:

It is BS. No, it is not easier.

Preet Bharara:

So why are people saying that? They’re getting it wrong or there’s political gain to be gotten by-

Ian Bremmer:

Well, look, if you’re critical of whatever Trump has done, then that must mean it is as bad as humanly possible. So it helps Russia and it helps China and it helps everybody else.

Preet Bharara:

And I tend to agree with you, but I don’t know anything. It just seems to me that countries don’t need … Countries of the size and power of China and also the US for that matter, who want to do a thing, are not particularly helped by some incremental, additional, rhetorical, tertiary argument they can make in the future about it, correct?

Ian Bremmer:

The Russians invaded Ukraine without any help from American internationally.

Preet Bharara:

Which has criticized the imperialism of the United States. I like that.

Ian Bremmer:

Well, yes, because he has a lot of expertise on the topic, so there’s no surprise there. But on China, Taiwan. China considers Taiwan a domestic internal affair. And the reason that China’s not making a move on Taiwan has nothing to do with American legitimacy, it has everything to do with the fact that the US is defending, along with allies, a very heavily fortified island that is hard to take and would cause economic disaster for China if they were to try.

Ian Bremmer:

So for all of those reasons, no, it doesn’t impact that, but there is an argument. It’s not as sexy. It’s not as headline making. The argument is that when the United States does this, it becomes massively less reliable for allies around the world in its backyard in Europe and the rest. And that that long-term undermines America’s influence and helps China. Helps China a lot.

Ian Bremmer:

Long-term, you are giving away the store to countries that operate more effectively in the law of the jungle in a GZERO world. That’s not a representative democracy of the United States that has regular elections. That is a country like China that has Xi Jinping thought, absolute control of the Communist Party and a leader for life.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, so am I correct generally speaking, analogizing from and extrapolating from this incident that I’m right to be skeptical or are you also skeptical of grand arguments that people make about how if we do or do not do something that lessens our moral standing and gives grist to some other bad actor to do a similar thing because people can just do what they want if they have the authority might and will to do it?

Ian Bremmer:

I think that most … No, bad actors usually are bad actors because they are prepared to take bad actions. That’s why we call them bad actors.

Preet Bharara:

And take the heat for them?

Ian Bremmer:

Yes. I think that what it does is it undermines America’s credibility and influence with good actors. It’s a very different thing. It’s that the United States can no longer rely as much on goodwill and anything but transactionalism from countries that historically have trusted the United States.

Preet Bharara:

What’s interesting is that that point is made less often when I watch television than the first point, or am I wrong about that?

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, you’re right, because it is not dramatic, but it matters. It’s incremental. It’s long-term. It’s, well, we have these allies with the Europeans for decades and decades in Canada, and the Canadians now never will trust us the way they have trusted us. That’s going to cost us a lot. It’s really stupid.

Preet Bharara:

I want to get to the first one, the first risk.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

I’m going to read the first paragraph because I think it’s actually very pointed.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay.

Preet Bharara:

Number one, US political revolution. I don’t believe you’ve used that word before, but you can tell us if you have. First paragraph of the full report reads under this section, “The United States is experiencing a political revolution. President Donald Trump’s attempt to systematically dismantle the checks on his power, capture the machinery of government, and weaponize it against his enemies.

Preet Bharara:

Last year we warned about the rule of Don. What began as tactical norm breaking has become a system level transformation beyond partisan hardball or executive overreach. Qualitatively different from what even the most ambitious American presidents have attempted. With many of the guardrails that are held in Trump’s first term now buckling, we can no longer …” This is the part. “We can no longer say with confidence what kind of political system the United States will be when this revolution is over.” So you and I talk a lot and we’re going to-

Ian Bremmer:

That’s the part you would bold if you were trying to show off what we were writing about it a week ago. You would bold that.

Preet Bharara:

Well, that’s good thing. Just so folks appreciate, if the political system had collapsed on Saturday-

Ian Bremmer:

I would have pulled that out and said, “Hey.”

Preet Bharara:

Would have made it this pull quote. Said, “I predicted that.”

Ian Bremmer:

Absolutely. Yeah, I have to, right?

Preet Bharara:

The ego of Ian Brammer. I actually haven’t heard you or hadn’t heard you express the sentiment in quite that dire away until I read this paragraph. Am I not right about that?

Ian Bremmer:

That’s probably correct.

Preet Bharara:

So did something happen? Are you looking for clicks Ian? What happened?

Ian Bremmer:

I think that one of the things that I really value about putting this report out every year is it forces me to take a step back and hone my thinking and it forces me to do that with my entire research platform together. And in a way that when you’re in the headlines every day, everything feels like a frog and a boiling pot. When you’re doing a report that comes out for a year and you’re making a statement, you have to think about, “Okay, where are we?”

Ian Bremmer:

And what I realized as I was thinking about the United States is so many of the conversations that I had with political leaders, with CEOs, with bankers, with opinion leaders a year ago, number one, they were telling me that a lot of the stuff that has happened wouldn’t happen. So a lot of the measures that Trump took in the last year are well beyond what any observers had expected they would be in 2025 as we show on that two by two plot of all the things he’s done that are revolutionary.

Ian Bremmer:

And furthermore, the institutional responses to those actions have been considerably more inconsistent and weaker than any observers had expected that they would be. And when you put those two things together, you have to call a spade a spade. And in my lifetime, I’ve witnessed a couple of revolutions, one from afar, which is the Deng Xiaoping revolution, economic revolution in China, very successful, led to the extraordinary rise of China and their integration into the global economy.

Ian Bremmer:

One I witnessed very up close, which was Gorbachev’s political and economic revolution that failed dramatically and led to the collapse of Soviet Empire, the fall of the wall and the end of the Soviet Union. And now I’m like, “Wait a second, this is obviously a third revolution. It’s a political revolution. It’s not an economic revolution, but it’s an attempt to dramatically transform the political system of the United States, and it might fail.”

Ian Bremmer:

By the way, I think it will fail and we can talk about that and why I think it’ll fail. But the point is that if you had asked me in 1989 when I was in the Soviet Union, what kind of a system is the Soviet Union going to have? I would say, “I don’t know because it’s now being challenged. It’s being transformed.”

Ian Bremmer:

And I think that’s the way we are right now in the United States. It’s impossible to say with conviction that we know what the end state political system for the US will be. And for all of your and my lives, Preet, we have had confidence and conviction about the nature of the US political system. Now we don’t. So that’s the difference.

Preet Bharara:

Would you agree with me that-

Ian Bremmer:

Is that fair, by the way? Do you think that’s fair? Is that-

Preet Bharara:

I think it’s generally fair. Do you agree with me that the most important, concrete, measurable thing that would help to be a bulwark against this bad outcome of a dramatically and adversely changed system, political system in the US is for the Democrats to win back the House?

Ian Bremmer:

No.

Preet Bharara:

Then what would it be? And remember my qualifiers, metric, measurable, clear.

Ian Bremmer:

I think there’s several areas of restraint on Trump. One is the existing institutions that are able to stop some of the things he’s doing. The court system is clear there. The federal system, the fact that there are states that are in charge of elections.

Preet Bharara:

What’s a particular ruling or controversy that needs to get decided in a particular way that’s more important than the winning back of the House?

Ian Bremmer:

I’m not sure that winning back the House by itself does that much to really constrain Trump’s ability to continue with all of these things. Yes, they can open investigations, but he’s going to resist a subpoena and the DOJ is not going to tell him that he has to comply with it. What else can it do?

Preet Bharara:

Well, if you get a shellacking, I’m just spitting this out because I don’t know, because I’m not an expert.

Ian Bremmer:

And he keeps the Senate, and he keeps the senate.

Preet Bharara:

Look, the biggest, most profound constraint on Trump that has not been seen in action would be members of his own party telling him to go F himself on, not generally or on all things, but on certain issues.

Ian Bremmer:

Yes, publicly, which they’re not willing to do at all.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. And I guess I’m saying that my hope would be, and this is maybe fully aspirational, not realistic given that he devises laws of political gravity, that by the time you get to January of 2027, he’s already a lame duck. He’ll be more concretely a lame duck because the last two years, more members leave the house. It’s a demoralized group as opposed to a stalwart group who are MAGA Trump supporters in the house.

Preet Bharara:

You have Marjorie Taylor Greene as the tip of the spear on claiming that there’s a real MAGA and he’s not real MAGA, even though he’s the MAGA president. You get more defections. You get people starting to think about their own future. Trump fails at other things and some districts that were read go a little purple. And so people start to think it’s in their own interest. This is my fantasy.

Ian Bremmer:

I’m deeply impressed that you’re basing this argument like on MTG is flipping. This is impressive. Six months ago, this wouldn’t have happened.

Preet Bharara:

I’m not basing it on her flipping.

Ian Bremmer:

I know. I’m giving you shit, but that’s okay.

Preet Bharara:

But I think what she’s doing is actually … I think it’s more significant than a lot of people do because she articulates a theory.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Did I just say Marjorie Taylor Greene articulates a theory?

Ian Bremmer:

You did. I know again. Another thing that is hard to imagine that you said that. Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

She articulates a theory.

Ian Bremmer:

Maybe articulate is the wrong word.

Preet Bharara:

Those Gazpacho. Gazpacho police.

Ian Bremmer:

Yes, exactly.

Preet Bharara:

She has a theory of Gazpacho police also. But look, it’s like anything else. I learned this a long time ago and it comes up all the time. And I learned this when I worked for Senator Schumer and somebody, forgetting who wrote this piece because he thought Chuck had a good idea and people were being critical of it. And he said, just because Chuck Schumer said it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. It’s probably wrong, but pure Republican.

Ian Bremmer:

I know, just because it’s a good point.

Preet Bharara:

And it’s the same thing with Trump. You take out the president of Venezuela and I found myself doing it. I found myself and my immediate reaction is like, “You can’t do that. What?” And we don’t pause for a moment. And the same is through with MTG. And if she can cause some people to defect and say, “Look, she has a level of prominence and a level of continued following, I think.” She hasn’t been fired by it yet.

Ian Bremmer:

I think you have a theory of the case.

Preet Bharara:

There’s a path there.

Ian Bremmer:

You have a theory of the case.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah.

Ian Bremmer:

I actually agree with the outcome. I think that Trump is going to fail. I don’t have high confidence, but I-

Preet Bharara:

Fail at what? Fail at what?

Ian Bremmer:

The political revolution will not succeed. He will not be able to-

Preet Bharara:

But will it be televised?

Ian Bremmer:

It will be televised. Oh yeah. Yeah. Oh, there’s no question about that. Why is Maduro in New York? It’s where all the media is. That’s a big deal. This can be bigger than OJ, this trial, right?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, because there’s no cameras allowed in court.

Ian Bremmer:

Cover this over months. Yeah. But there’s going to be all sorts of … We’ll have court sketches and it’s exciting stuff. Show him off the perp walk.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. So my listeners really want to know your theory of the case as to why Trump will fail. Go.

Ian Bremmer:

My theory of the case is policy and competence. I bet a lot more on Trump having no impulse control and therefore not being willing to devote support for the people that can help him bring about an actual strategy to overturn the system and instead being distracted by stuff that massages his ego at the moment. He goes down rabbit holes. Today it’s Venezuela, tomorrow it’s Greenland. If you really wanted to install a political revolution, you should be focused on the things that most matter and you need to destroy your political enemies. Your time-

Preet Bharara:

Well, he’s licked inflation. He’s licked inflation. Eggs are free now.

Ian Bremmer:

I know.

Preet Bharara:

Do you know that?

Ian Bremmer:

He does all those things.

Preet Bharara:

I went to this court.

Ian Bremmer:

The code blue, the Act Blue investigation, that’s where he should be spending his time.

Preet Bharara:

They paid me to take the eggs.

Ian Bremmer:

They paid you to … The pharmaceuticals are down 1,200%.

Preet Bharara:

Can we jump in?

Ian Bremmer:

They’re paying you for pharmaceuticals now.

Preet Bharara:

Can I ask you about inflation for a moment? Because we’re going to run out of time and my wife’s going to be annoyed again that we didn’t do all the risks.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay. We haven’t done all the risks.

Preet Bharara:

And this is a dumb question.

Ian Bremmer:

We’ve done the most important risks though.

Preet Bharara:

So you’re talking about number seven, China’s deflation track?

Ian Bremmer:

China deflation. Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

So if I understand correctly, deflation is bad, right? Yes or no?

Ian Bremmer:

Deflation is usually bad, yes.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. And inflation also bad.

Ian Bremmer:

Also bad.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. So what’s the goal? Is it the 2% that the Fed says?

Ian Bremmer:

Is that the Goldilocks number? It’s an expectation of relatively low questions.

Preet Bharara:

But do you know what I mean? I’m not articulating a question that MTG and I have that same common problem of articulation.

Ian Bremmer:

You generally like geopolitics, you want your economy in balance. You don’t want it running too hot. You don’t want it running too cold. That is, I’m not an economist.

Preet Bharara:

Hard to do.

Ian Bremmer:

It is hard to do. I don’t know. The Americans have done it well for a while.

Preet Bharara:

So here’s the other bone I want to pick about economists. In 2020, every economist in the fricking world and periodicals and the place, the thing called the economist. I think Bloomberg also said the likelihood of a recession, I think it was 2022, right? Was what? 100%. 100%. And that shit did not happen. Okay? That’s point one. Point two. And I believe these people.

Ian Bremmer:

It’s generally like 15% in a year.

Preet Bharara:

Just wait. I’m trying to articulate. I’m trying to think how the people who are not like me and don’t vote like me and are MAGA folks. And I begin to see from time to time in various beats of expertise that are broadcast the elements of exasperation and frustration because they get a lot of stuff like really wrong. I was told, as were you, and it seemed to make sense to me that these crazy tariffs were going to destroy the economy.

Preet Bharara:

We should be in a recession right now. And I saw everyone on television talk about how these tariffs, and I think they are crazy. And I know there are articles trying to explain now, well, the impact of these tariffs was not as big as … And here’s our other explanations so we can save face. And again, I’m not denigrating the economists to say these things.

Preet Bharara:

I think they have their hearts in the right place, but I understand a little bit more today than a few years ago why it is that people think, and I think it’s important to understand, why it is that people think the fancy people with the Stanford degrees, I don’t mean to pick on Stanford, are just … They don’t know anything. It’s like the best and brightest again and again and again.

Ian Bremmer:

We want accountability. We want accountability.

Preet Bharara:

And I feel a little bit. So why haven’t these maniacal, insane, ludicrous tariffs had that much of an impact?

Ian Bremmer:

What we need is just for people to admit when they were wrong. They need to be transparent.

Preet Bharara:

But it’s like everybody, it’s like everybody.

Ian Bremmer:

It’s like the same way at the beginning that you said, “I’m like a little kid that I wanted to show everyone I got this right.” Yeah, because I also feel like every year you have to go back publicly and say when you go to … I remember when I thought that Milei, this was one of the biggest economic calls I made, but it was a political call at the end of the day, which is why I was opining on it.

Ian Bremmer:

I thought Milei was going to fail. Not because I thought the economy was too bad for him to fix, not because I thought his solutions were so horrible. I thought that the Peróns were so powerful that they would not allow him to do the things that he said he was going to do. And I also thought that he was, because he was really outside the political spectrum, that he was very unlikely to moderate because he didn’t seem to have any useful advisors among the technocrats and the rest that would’ve given him good things to do.

Ian Bremmer:

And I said that and I was wrong and I was wrong. And I didn’t wait for people to tell me I was wrong. As the Argentine economy started actually doing much better and inflation was coming down and affordability of houses was becoming real and people were being very supportive of all the pain that they had to take because they knew this was the right thing to do. I came out and I said, “Here’s what I wrote three months ago. This hasn’t happened. Why not?” And it was a learning moment.

Ian Bremmer:

It was a learning moment for me. It was a learning moment for everybody that follows me. The response I got from people from that was overwhelming because it was like, “Yeah, I appreciate that.” Not only that, the other response I got was from President Milei who said he really appreciated that I did that and he asked, “Let’s have a conversation. He ended up coming on my show.” He was on Tucker Carlson’s show and then mine. I was the second American he talked to, but that’s what we need.

Preet Bharara:

I like that story. It’s a great story.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

But nobody cares. I care, Ian, if you get something wrong and that you own up to it, but when an entire class of professionals get something that’s gigantic, 100% wrong, more than once, the question is, I’m just asking you to commiserate with the people who have-

Ian Bremmer:

Class of media professionals doesn’t actually provide a story.

Preet Bharara:

The deplorables, as someone once called them. I’ve come to the view that there is a reason why people have lost faith. And these are a couple of examples of those reasons. Do you agree with that?

Ian Bremmer:

Completely.

Preet Bharara:

So next time you’re having cocktails with your economist friends, what are you going to tell them? Be less certain about your predictions? What’s the solution for this in the future?

Ian Bremmer:

This is not the economist. This is like almost everyone in the West, all the globalists.

Preet Bharara:

Well, that’s why the war on against the globalists is so effective.

Ian Bremmer:

Of course, of course. Because the thing is that when you have elites that say they’re right about everything, but the reality is they’re right about things for themselves because they have access to power, they’ve guilded their environments and by G-U-I-L-D-E-D, and have, as a consequence, can rig the system in their favor.

Ian Bremmer:

This is why my mother reminds me of MTG. I tell you, MTG, she doesn’t speak very well. She screwed up Gazpacho, but my mother wasn’t very educated either, but the reason that MTG actually, I think, resonates with people is because she’s very plain-spoken in resonating why folks are angry with elites.

Preet Bharara:

And when you do what many people have not done and take on the Teflon coated President of the United States who has a track record of not just trying, but succeeding and destroying you politically and otherwise if you defy him and you were once his ally and you do this thing, I don’t know. It’s like anything else, right?

Preet Bharara:

When a guy like Donald Trump comes along, he reveals bad things about himself, he reveals courage on the part of some people, right? Liz Cheney among them, but he also reveals depressingly to me that there are oceans of just cowards and unprincipled money loving or job obsessed or status obsessed losers who hurt the country. And many of them are Republican senators and congressmen.

Preet Bharara:

And when I see, I can’t believe this is like an ode to Marjorie Taylor Greene. And when I see someone who, after years of seeing what happens to people who do what she does says, “Yeah, I’m going to take that road also. I feel like I have to respect it.” More pragmatically, whatever her views are, because I think that you’re right about the number one risk, the US political revolution, every ally, whether it’s my friend or the enemy of my enemy who becomes my friend, I embrace that person.

Ian Bremmer:

Her willingness to lie for personal gain through that process until there was one step apparently that was too far.

Preet Bharara:

In a war, I’ll take it the ally.

Ian Bremmer:

I understand you’ll take it, but yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, I’ll take the ally.

Ian Bremmer:

I get it.

Preet Bharara:

I’m not sending her back across across enemy lions to the other side. We’re running out of time. Talk about one more risk.

Ian Bremmer:

The other risk we should talk about is actually risk number two. If we’re going to be really, really quick, which is the overpowered risk, and it’s because here’s the area where the United States is really making a bad bet against China. Here’s where Trump is building 13.5 million barrels of oil a day, great. He’s taking Venezuela influence over the biggest reserves, oil reserves in the world, and yet he’s absolutely hobbling post-carbon energy investment, which the price of which is coming down wildly and the Chinese are doing it everywhere, and they’re going to export it everywhere. And you can’t do the Donroe Doctrine when all those countries have bigger trade relationships with China and they’re going to need Chinese tech more and need the energy to power it. The United States is making a massive long-term mistake here and Trump is driving it.

Preet Bharara:

Can that be fixed by the next man or woman in three years?

Ian Bremmer:

It’s going to be late. This stuff is moving fast. Every day that this goes on is a day that we’re falling behind. Why would we do that?

Preet Bharara:

Well, it’s a genuinely held belief on the part of Donald Trump about how you make power, I think. Ian Bremmer Top Risks 2026.

Ian Bremmer:

There you go, buddy.

Preet Bharara:

Always a pleasure.

Ian Bremmer:

Good to see you, my friend.

Preet Bharara:

I’ll see you sometime soon.

Ian Bremmer:

Drink soon. Okay, sounds good. Bye.

Preet Bharara:

My conversation with Ian Bremmer continues for members of the CAFE Insider community. In the bonus for insiders, I answer a question from a listener to try out the membership head to cafe.com/insider. Again, that’s cafe.com/insider. Stay tuned. After the break, I’ll answer your questions about why Nicolás Maduro is being prosecuted in New York and a query about Schoolhouse Rock.

Preet Bharara:

Now let’s get to your questions. This question comes in an email from Eileen who writes, “I’ve seen reporting that prosecutors in the Southern District of New York are pursuing charges against Nicolás Maduro and his wife. If the alleged conduct occurred largely outside the United States and Maduro has limited ties to New York, what gives SDNY venue to prosecute the case?”

Preet Bharara:

Eileen, it’s a great question and one that I got a lot when I led the Southern District of New York because we pursued, prosecuted, arrested, and went to trial against many individuals who were outside of the United States. So in recent days, a lot of people have seen the news that after his capture, Maduro was flown to New York and arraigned in the Southern District of New York.

Preet Bharara:

So that prompts your question, one that other people had as well. Why the Southern District of New York? Well, to answer that, it helps to start by clarifying what lawyers mean when they talk about something called venue. When someone commits a crime, prosecutors actually can’t just bring the charges wherever they like, and it’s the constitution itself that places limits on where criminal cases can be tried.

Preet Bharara:

Article 3, Section 2 says that, “The trial of all crimes shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed.” And in the Sixth Amendment echoes that principle, guaranteeing defendants a trial “by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” In legal terms, that requirement is called venue, the place where a criminal case may be properly brought.

Preet Bharara:

Now, some cases can only be brought in one place because all the actions relating to the crime were begun, done, and concluded in one particular location. Now, some crimes, of course, take place in multiple jurisdictions. If someone is trafficking in narcotics and there’s narcotics across multiple districts or multiple states, then a case per the constitution and relevant case law can be brought in any one of those jurisdictions. But here’s where things get sort of interesting with Maduro.

Preet Bharara:

I’ve got a lot of experience in the Southern District with bringing cases based on fairly narrow venue grounds. So for example, a case that comes to mind sort of famously was a high profile case involving an Iranian assassination plot back in 2011. Two individuals tied to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were charged in connection with a conspiracy to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States in Washington DC.

Preet Bharara:

That was a case I think I can say that was being pursued by another office, a different US Attorney’s office. And one day Robert Mueller, who was the FBI director at the time, called me and said he would like the Southern District to take it over because of our expertise in these kinds of cases. That left the question of venue. Now, the planning for the assassination attempt happened overseas and the intended attack was in Washington. So.

Preet Bharara:

How on earth did we bring the case in the Southern District of New York? I got a question at the press conference in DC when we announced the charges, and I gave the same answer that I’m giving to you now. The answer on the venue question was money. Funds to finance the plot in particular, funds to pay off one of the accomplices of the plot were naturally, partly wired through a bank in Manhattan.

Preet Bharara:

That financial transaction, which constituted an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, was more than enough to establish venue in SDNY, even though most of the other act relating to the crime happened elsewhere. That brings us back to Nicolás Maduro. The indictment points to at least two different ways the government establishes venue. First, the indictment relies heavily on 18 United States Code, Section 3238. That’s an interesting statute.

Preet Bharara:

That governs offenses committed outside the United States, but directed towards the United States. That statute provides that when certain crimes are committed abroad, venue lies in the district where a defendant is first arrested or first brought into the United States, and there’s also a provision in certain circumstances for that case to be brought in the District of Columbia. Now, with the Department of Justice’s intention for the Southern District, my old office to prosecute the case, Maduro was brought to the United States by plane.

Preet Bharara:

He wasn’t flown to JFK. He wasn’t flown to LaGuardia. Those were both in the Eastern District of New York. And so to satisfy the statute, I just quoted, “He was flown to Stewart Air National Guard base in Upstate New York because that air base lies within the Southern District of New York. And that transfer into custody in the United States is what provided a legally sound basis for venue in the Southern District, in particular for the Narcoterrorism charges.” But second, the indictment also alleges New York’s specific conduct.

Preet Bharara:

It claims that members of Maduro’s drug trafficking enterprise shipped cocaine specifically to New York, discussed distributing drugs in New York City and used New York ports as part of the trafficking operation. And under federal law, that again is more than enough. New York would be a place where the crime was continued or completed. So establishing the Southern District of New York as the venue for the Maduro prosecution rests on pretty solid legal footing.

Preet Bharara:

Final question comes in an email from Mary who asked, and I love this. “Hi, Preet. I’ve heard you mention Schoolhouse Rock on your podcast before, and as a fellow Gen Xer, it brought back a lot of good memories for me. My favorite episodes were Interjection and No More Kings. In fact, I recently watched No More Kings again on YouTube and it brought a tear to my eye for several reasons. What are your favorite episodes?”

Preet Bharara:

Mary, you’re absolutely right. I’m a big fan of Schoolhouse Rock. We were a young immigrant family in the United States back in the early and mid ’70s. I watched a lot of TV, some of it educational, namely Schoolhouse Rock. And I do talk about it from time to time on the podcast and made a big impact on me and we’re talking 50 years ago now, so that’s pretty incredible.

Preet Bharara:

Now, most often, I’m talking about America Rock, the third season of the series, which focused on how our government works and key moments in American history. But my favorite episodes don’t all come from that season. As you may know, I’m a bit of a grammar nerd, and I suspect some of that fondness goes back to Grammar Rock, which was the show’s second season.

Preet Bharara:

So to answer your question, one of my all time favorites from that era is Conjunction Junction. You’ll remember the tune, Conjunction Junction, what’s your function? That piece takes place in a rail yard and features a train conductor, explaining how conjunctions work by linking train cars representing words with box cars labeled and but and/or.

MUSIC:

Conjunction junction. What’s your function?

MUSIC:

Hooking up words and phrases and clauses.

MUSIC:

Conjunction junction, how’s that-

Preet Bharara:

Another favorite this time from America Rock is … I always laugh when I hear it, elbow room, which tells the story of America’s westward expansion after Thomas Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana purchase. And elbow room is the answer to the question, why did he negotiate the Louisiana purchase? Because we Americans needed some elbow room.

MUSIC:

Oh, elbow room, elbow room.

MUSIC:

Got to, got to get us some elbow room.

MUSIC:

It’s the west or bust.

MUSIC:

In God we trust.

MUSIC:

There’s a new land out there.

Preet Bharara:

That chorus is hard to beat. But I think my all time favorite might top even that one, and I think it might be a consensus favorite. I’m sure many listeners remember the episode that opens with a weary little bill sitting on the steps of the Capitol, exhausted from trying to become a law.

MUSIC:

I’m just a bill, yes, I’m only a bill.

MUSIC:

And I’m sitting here on Capitol Hill.

MUSIC:

Well, it’s a long, long journey.

Preet Bharara:

But I will tell you, Mary, I think you’re right. At this particular moment, No More Kings carries a special resonance. It might not hurt for a few people in government to give it another watch.

MUSIC:

Rockin’ and a-rollin’, splishin’ and a-splashin’.

MUSIC:

Over the horizon, what can it be?

MUSIC:

Looks like it’s going to be a free country.

Preet Bharara:

Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Ian Bremmer. If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics, and justice.

Preet Bharara:

You can reach me on Twitter or Bluesky @PreetBharara with the hashtag #AskPreet. You can also call and leave me a message at 833-997-7338, that’s 833-99Preet, or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com. Stay Tuned is now on Substack. Head to staytuned.substack.com to watch live streams, get updates about new podcast episodes and more. That’s staytuned.substack.com. Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and The Vox Media Podcast Network.

Preet Bharara:

The Executive Producer is Tamara Sepper. The Technical Director is David Tatasciore. The Deputy Editor is Celine Rohr. The Supervising Producer is Jake Kaplan. The Lead Editorial Producer is Jennifer Indig. The Associate Producer is Claudia Hernandez. The Video Producer is Nat Weiner. The Senior Audio Producer is Matthew Billy, and the Marketing Manager is Liana Greenway. Our music is by Andrew Dost. Special thanks to Torrey Paquette and Adam Harris. I’m your host, Preet Bharara. As always, Stay Tuned.