Preet Bharara:

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

Ian Bremmer:

Carter, he may not have stood up for American power very well, but he did stand for American values. We now have elected a president who will stand for American power to a greater degree than any president in recent memory, but he will not stand for those values.

Preet Bharara:

That’s Ian Bremmer. If you’re a regular listener, you know Ian well. If you’re new, Ian is a political scientist and founder of the Eurasia Group, a political research and consulting firm. Every January they publish a risk report outlining the top 10 global risks for the year ahead. After the report drops, Ian comes on this show to warn us all about what’s to come.

We talk about the failures of globalism, Trump’s consolidation of power, and the ideological split within the Republican Party, also, the impact of Trump’s grand idea to acquire Greenland and the Panama Canal. Just a reminder, I’ll be answering your questions from this week after the interview. That’s all coming up. Stay tuned. What are the biggest risks to the world this year? Let’s find out. Ian Bremmer, welcome back to the show.

THE INTERVIEW

Ian Bremmer:

Preet, good to see you.

Preet Bharara:

You’re actually seeing me.

Ian Bremmer:

I am actually seeing you.

Preet Bharara:

This is on video.

Ian Bremmer:

You always do the video and then you shut off when we start. That doesn’t seem very decent.

Preet Bharara:

No. So, now we’re doing a video. For the people listening on audio, join us on video on YouTube.

Ian Bremmer:

Who’s the first person you did video with? Was it Adam?

Preet Bharara:

Adam Grant, our friend Adam Grant, I think so.

Ian Bremmer:

Was it?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. A lot of people watched, so there’s a lot of pressure for you.

Ian Bremmer:

Did that perform? Did that perform?

Preet Bharara:

It did perform.

Ian Bremmer:

Seeing Adam on video?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, I wouldn’t say it overperformed, but I think it performed.

Ian Bremmer:

Interesting. He’s not your most handsome friend, I mean, when I think about how you want to start video.

Preet Bharara:

I’m going to go right to the substance here, which is always a good place to begin and end with you.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. I missed you though, man. I really missed you, just want to let you know.

Preet Bharara:

I just saw you on Saturday.

Ian Bremmer:

Doesn’t count. It’s 48 hours since we’ve seen each other.

Preet Bharara:

I try not to consort with guests, but you’re an exception.

Ian Bremmer:

I should be an exception.

Preet Bharara:

Otherwise, it looks like the fix is in the softball interview, but I’m going to ask you some hard questions. So, we had you every year for the past several as close to the beginning of the year as possible because your outfit, the Eurasia Group, puts out a list of top risks every year. You spend a lot of time. We’ve talked about the methodology before. There are things that persist as risks from the year before, sometimes from two or three years before. Sometimes there’s new items.

We’re going to get to all that. That was hitting what I said about always beginning with you on substance. I have been watching you talk about the risks, and I will say I caught you. I think it was on MSNBC and you were not your usual dapper self. This has caused some controversy in the political science, consulting, geopolitical world. You’re wearing a hoodie.

Ian Bremmer:

Oh yeah. So, you are talking my outfit, not my geopolitical outfit, but my outfit outfit. It’s a totally different outfit.

Preet Bharara:

Do you understand anything about alliances? You can’t make an alliance between a blazer and a hoodie. Am I right?

Ian Bremmer:

I thought it was a good look. I thought it was a good look.

Preet Bharara:

You, yourself, because you’re a good man this way, you posted some of the Twitter comments. My favorite because it’s heartbreaking for a reason that maybe people will not fully appreciate because we’ll have to explain. Why don’t you dress your age? A hoodie in your 60s? Hey, when did you turn 60, Ian?

Ian Bremmer:

I know. I was hurt. I was hurt. Somebody else called me Ian Federman.

Preet Bharara:

Ian Federman.

Ian Bremmer:

That hurt even more.

Preet Bharara:

Well, you’re wearing a nice blazer and a proper shirt now. Pro tip, ditch the hoodie. It’s funny, some people just presented their critiques in the form of a question. Are you wearing a hoodie with a suit jacket? Some people would ask a question and then comment. A hoodie with a suit jacket. Where is your self-respect, man? All right, so don’t do that again. Please don’t do that again.

Ian Bremmer:

It felt baller to be honest with you. It was a nice hoodie. It wasn’t salmon pink. It was like a really washed out, very light pink, the pink you might see on a Bermuda Beach.

Preet Bharara:

Under a Brooks Brother blazer.

Ian Bremmer:

Under a really rich dapper blazer. It felt a little baller. I thought I could have worn that courtside to a Knicks game personally, but no, no.

Preet Bharara:

You’re not at a Knicks game, sir.

Ian Bremmer:

Apparently, my large network of fans have decided that I have forsaken them with my lack of sartorial capacity seriously.

Preet Bharara:

Can I talk about another thing that’s not the most serious thing-

Ian Bremmer:

Let’s do it.

Preet Bharara:

… in the world? I mentioned to you that I would, and I talked about it with another guest this week. So, last week, we spent a lot of time commemorating the life of, celebrating the life of Jimmy Carter.

Ian Bremmer:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

So first, do you have 30 seconds of an assessment of the Carter presidency?

Ian Bremmer:

Not a great presidency. It was a really difficult time, was a horrible economic time. But he was such an anti-politician in so many ways and in ways that I think we probably appreciate more now that everyone has become a brand and a mechanism of communications and everyone’s responding just to the opinion of the moment. Carter was the opposite of that in ways that I think long-term actually served America quite well.

Preet Bharara:

Do you think he was lionized only for what he accomplished after his presidency? I mean, you and I were both very young because we’re not in our 60s. Was there a worse economic presidency since the Depression than Jimmy Carter’s presidency?

Ian Bremmer:

No, not since the Depression. I mean the major double-digit inflation and the oil crisis. No, he would’ve had the worst since the Depression. I mean, the pandemic was worse than that for a few months. The pandemic was worse than the Great Depression in terms of the actual contraction at the beginning because everything was shut down. We shut down the economy, but it was very brief. It was very brief. So, you wouldn’t call it that.

Preet Bharara:

Right. So, I guess I’m asking the question a little bit to foreshadow how we think about presidents and how we might think about more modern presidents going forward. I mean, my recollection when I was 12 was the country really, really, really rejected Jimmy Carter and that politics because of the economy and because of the Iran hostage crisis. Although he had foreign policy wins and everyone is quick to note that, but then you fast forward 40 years and he’s lionized, I think largely because he did so much good stuff and lived an ascetic life.

He didn’t go around pursuing movie deals and that thing. Does that happen generally with presidents who are not well regarded? In other words, in 45 years, depending on what happens in Trump too, are we going to talk about all the good that Trump did?

Ian Bremmer:

No, because Trump’s already 78. So, I mean the vast majority-

Preet Bharara:

Well, yeah. So, he’s not going to be Habitat for Humanity guy.

Ian Bremmer:

No.

Preet Bharara:

You don’t think he’s going to be making gold-plated toilets with Melania for millionaires?

Ian Bremmer:

I think Trump is really on that. Trump leans more into habitat and less into humanity. I think that if you want to look at his career, it’s mostly been habitat, less humanity. But I also think the fact that Carter lived to 100, most people that are opining on Carter don’t remember his presidency. You and I barely remember it. Yet, I mean, he’s had a full life. He’s had a full career since he’s left office, and he’s been very engaged, very public about it. It’s been overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly in service of the public good. How many other people can say one iota of that?

Preet Bharara:

Almost no one.

Ian Bremmer:

I think it’s an extraordinary thing. That’s right.

Preet Bharara:

I have a substantive question about it. So, when you listen to the remembrances of Jimmy Carter, I’ve heard a number of people say he elevated the issue of human rights abroad to a higher level, not just in the world, but in American politics, in an American diplomacy. How would you assess that legacy at the moment? Does that count for anything anymore? Does it matter?

Ian Bremmer:

Well, it matters on the ground, with those people-

Preet Bharara:

To the people who’d be affected, of course.

Ian Bremmer:

… who are affected.

Preet Bharara:

But how does it play into American diplomacy and foreign policy today?

Ian Bremmer:

I mean, there are still plenty of places where you can look around and see that… I mean, you look at Sudan today, and there are more people that die in Sudan every day than in Ukraine and Gaza combined. The US has no strategic interests at play on the ground in Sudan. The US hasn’t been effective, by the way, at ending the war, but to the extent that any great power has been saying anything, trying to send humanitarian aid, trying to push its allies towards doing the right thing, I mean, America’s engagement insofar as there has been any has been for the common good in Sudan and as opposed to, let’s say, Russia’s interests, which have been to occupy a power vacuum and make money for themselves.

So, I do think that there’s a difference, but I also think that America, to the extent that it ever stood for human rights, it was always conflicted with great power status. Perhaps the peak of America standing for human rights came in 1989. It was very formative for me because I was starting my graduate degree. That’s when the wall came down and that’s when we won the big global war on the basis of having better ideas and caring more about humans than the Soviets did.

Preet Bharara:

But was that about human rights or was that about balance of power and other things?

Ian Bremmer:

No, it was also about human rights. I mean, we supported captive nations, parades for all of those republics that were caught in empire and subjugated for years and years and years. So, I think human rights did play a role in America’s ability to win against the Soviets. It wasn’t just our economy. It wasn’t just the nuclear arms race. It was the fact that we actually cared more about people. It’s the fact that those people wanted liberty and they wanted consumption. They wanted things that Americans had the ability to actually speak openly about their country, but no one would say that we can do that today effectively around the world now.

The reason I mentioned Sudan to start as well is the fact that how much was that actually on the agenda of an American president? If Carter were president, I assure you that would be at the top of his agenda because it’s the worst human rights disaster that the world is experiencing right now and it’s still going on.

Preet Bharara:

Well, if Carter were president today, how would he be thinking about developing strategy regarding the war in Gaza and the plight of Palestinians?

Ian Bremmer:

Well, he referred to Israel in his post-presidency as an apartheid state. So, it’s inconceivable that he would’ve supported the continuing provision of arms by the United States to allow the Israelis to fight the war the way they did. I mean, his position on Israel is more akin to the position of the leader of a developing democracy today than it would be that of the United States. I mean, just completely out of step of the Democrats and Republicans.

Preet Bharara:

He would not have met with electoral success once again, even in our hypothetical.

Ian Bremmer:

Well, no, and yet there are a lot of people in the United States, mostly young people that really do align with Jimmy Carter’s sensibilities on that and many other issues that feel like the United States is no longer the country that is promoting the downtrodden, is no longer a country that reflects the values of the Statue of Liberty, of any of those things. Of course, Carter spent his entire life standing up for that. He may not have stood up for American power very well, but he did stand for American values. We now have elected a president who will stand for American power to a greater degree than any president in recent memory, but he will not stand for those values.

So, it’s a radical difference. To go from Carter to Trump is pretty much a 180. You’ve got the opposite ends of the spectrum of how one would think about the United States in a position of leadership. We should take a beat on that. That was answering your question, right? That was a real answer to your question. Just there, right there. You just went right on. If there were a jury, we would give the jury an opportunity.

Preet Bharara:

Let me ask the team. Do we do pregnant pauses in the podcast?

Ian Bremmer:

Never?

Preet Bharara:

Pregnant pauses? I don’t know. No, I thought it was a very perspicacious point you made.

Ian Bremmer:

I know, I appreciate that. But all I’m saying is I felt like it was lost on the jury.

Preet Bharara:

Do you have a PhD?

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, of course, I do. Yeah, but it’s asinine to refer to me as a doctor. It’s felt pretentious.

Preet Bharara:

Why? So, do you think people who refer to themselves as doctor in your PhDs are asinine?

Ian Bremmer:

I think that some are.

Preet Bharara:

Do you think the first lady of the United States is an ass?

Ian Bremmer:

I did not like the fact that she makes everyone call her doctor. I don’t like that Dr. Sebastian Gorka makes everyone call him doctor. I do know that if you are younger and just starting out, it definitely can give you a leg up. But if you’re established, there’s no reason saying you’ve got to call me doctor. Jesus, no one’s ever called me doctor.

Preet Bharara:

I think I need to call you Dr. Bremmer.

Ian Bremmer:

No, I’m not a medical doctor, like a doctor of philosophy. You don’t call a juris doctor doctor. You’re Dr. Preet, Dr. Preet. Dr. Bharara. Dr. Preet Bharara.

Preet Bharara:

Have you ever prescribed ivermectin?

Ian Bremmer:

I have. I have, of course, on my other podcast which is-

Preet Bharara:

I can definitely call you doctor.

Ian Bremmer:

My other podcast. Does Joe Rogan, by the way, does he actually promote any of those weird drugs?

Preet Bharara:

You mean Dr. Rogan?

Ian Bremmer:

Dr. Rogan. Does he promote those on his actual podcast?

Preet Bharara:

I don’t know. I don’t watch him on a regular.

Ian Bremmer:

You don’t partake of Dr. Rogan.

Preet Bharara:

I see clips because I follow the news.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

We aim to overtake Joe Rogan’s numbers.

Ian Bremmer:

Really? You and me?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. I mean not you, probably a different guest.

Ian Bremmer:

Well, you said we. I thought when you said we, you meant me.

Preet Bharara:

Me and my podcast team.

Ian Bremmer:

You and the rat in your pocket as my mother used to say.

Preet Bharara:

Me and my pocket.

Ian Bremmer:

Who’s we? Do you have a rat in your pocket? No one ever has a rat in their pocket. That was what she always said. Who’s we?

Preet Bharara:

I’m now pausing.

Ian Bremmer:

I noticed that. You paused for that reason.

Preet Bharara:

Because that was very profound. So, I gave you what you wanted. It’s not in the place you wanted. So, Jimmy Carter-

Ian Bremmer:

If you said that at any other time, that would go very badly.

Preet Bharara:

Move along.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay. If that were a pickup line, I’d be like, “That would be horrible. That’d be horrible.” I gave you what you wanted, just not in the place that you wanted it. That doesn’t get you a second date, Preet. It doesn’t.

Preet Bharara:

So, Jimmy Carter, I remember famously I would hear when I was young and very understanding of politics or international relations or any of it, all I know is Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal. I never actually have studied the issue of the Panama Canal. I understand there was a lease and he thought it was right for the Panamanians to have control. The canal is in their country. So, I don’t know really a lot about it except that the incoming president says, “We’re taking the Panama Canal back.” What’s up with the whole Panama Canal thing? Who’s right, and what’s the history that’s relevant today?

Ian Bremmer:

I am not the person to ask about the history of the Panama Canal, so I’m not going to pretend to know that.

Preet Bharara:

Well, let me ask a broader question. I’m definitely not calling you doctor now.

Ian Bremmer:

Good. Doctor of history, I’m not doctor of history, but go ahead.

Preet Bharara:

Some of the things that Trump talks about, whether it’s renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, we’re taking back the Panama Canal, not just talking about negotiating for the purchase of Greenland or is it Greenland? I’m not sure. The Princess Bride is Greenland, where I found you unemployed in Greenland.

Ian Bremmer:

Greenland. Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Maybe this is a point on what you want to opine, refuses to rule out the taking of Greenland by force, which is overseen by and is a territory of a close ally, Denmark. Discuss.

Ian Bremmer:

Come on, Preet. I mean a journalist who they all want to go for the most headline-making possible bit of the one hour.

Preet Bharara:

So, this one’s a journalist’s fault, not Trump’s fault.

Ian Bremmer:

No, it’s both because they’re both playing the same damn game. But the point is-

Preet Bharara:

Trump was asked, “How hard is it? Do you think any other-”

Ian Bremmer:

Will you rule out? You can’t ask, “Will you rule out?”

Preet Bharara:

I totally get it. Okay, now I’m going to disagree with you.

Ian Bremmer:

It doesn’t rule stuff out.

Preet Bharara:

I worked for a senator for four and a half years and we discussed this dilemma. Many times, right?

Ian Bremmer:

I’m not going to comment on that. I’m not going to comment on that.

Preet Bharara:

We would say, but they’re going to write, “Schumer doesn’t rule out the nuclear option,” or “Schumer doesn’t rule out a filibuster.” I get it in those contexts. Some shit you can rule out. I don’t have the transcript of the question.

Ian Bremmer:

You’re asking Trump to rule out military force to take Greenland. You’re asking him to rule it out? He’s like, “I’m not going to rule it out.” You know exactly what the journalist wanted there. He gave the journalist what the journalist wanted.

Preet Bharara:

How would Obama have answered the question?

Ian Bremmer:

Differently, and Obama is not president. I mean look, Obama had his-

Preet Bharara:

Let me ask you a different way.

Ian Bremmer:

What’s Obama’s red line problems? Wait, I’m sorry.

Preet Bharara:

So, when I ask you the question about whether or not it means anything that Trump with respect to an ally, a NATO ally, they’re NATO, right?

Ian Bremmer:

Yes. Yes, they are as part of Denmark. As long as they remain part of Denmark, they’re part of NATO.

Preet Bharara:

Isn’t the proper answer to that question from somebody who’s going to be the commander in chief of our country at a minimum to laugh it off and say, “Don’t be silly. Don’t be ridiculous”? Where’s the got-you on the part of the journalist on a simple question like that?

Ian Bremmer:

We know that Trump, his entire stock-in-trade is wild exaggerations. Wild exaggerations. It’s saying things. It’s P.T. Barnum applied to the presidency. That is his stock-in-trade. That is how he’s become a billionaire. That’s how he’s gotten his name on the most iconic properties in the world.

Preet Bharara:

So, let’s take a different one. I’m going to deport everyone. Does that mean he’s going to deport 100 people?

Ian Bremmer:

Mexico is going to pay for the wall. That was what he ran the first time around. He said-

Preet Bharara:

There are a lot of things that he has said.

Ian Bremmer:

… over and over Mexico was never going to pay for the wall. We knew. Did anyone think that Mexico was actually going to pay for the wall? But it became this incredible self-licking lollipop for the media continually, right? They just kept going with the ice cream cone, whatever you want to have self-licked, Preet.

Preet Bharara:

Here’s what I don’t understand.

Ian Bremmer:

What? You’re not going with any of that. I went with self-licked.

Preet Bharara:

Okay, good. The question is on the spectrum of things that Trump says, and I’m just talking about for us as citizens to assess and to either oppose or opine on or rebut or accept or criticize, but also what the larger world has to think about. So, when he says, “I’m not going to rule out,” when he doesn’t rule out invading Greenland, fine. When he says 10% tariff here, do we take that seriously or not? Do other countries take that seriously or not?

When he says, “I’m going to deport as many of the millions of people as possible,” and his lackeys and others like JD Vance say, “Well, we’re talking about the most dangerous ones,” how are businesses supposed to react to that? How are we supposed to operate? Even granting your assessment of him as a carnival barker who just says this nonsense, aren’t there times when it’s unclear if it’s nonsense or not and doesn’t that matter?

Ian Bremmer:

How are we supposed to respond? I mean, if you are Mark Zuckerberg and you own Metta, you respond by going to Mar-a-Lago, spending millions of dollars from your company and from your personal wallet, appointing the head of UFC who used to be a wife beater to your board that probably didn’t pass their corporate governance six months ago, and change your business model to accept that now it’s censorship as opposed to moderation. That’s how you’re supposed to respond. I think that Mark textbook and how you’re supposed to respond to what Trump is doing, look, I mean Preet, you and I, we just went from a conversation at 50,000 feet talking about Carter and Trump to literally right on the ground, granular. I’m trying to connect these things.

We’re not talking anymore about a president that is in any way sees himself as constrained by American values or rule of law. He’s already made the argument that anything that a president does cannot possibly be held against him to convict him because no rules apply. America’s in a much more powerful position and he’s in a more powerful position in the United States. So, what he’s doing is what he’s always done, and he’s throwing this all out there. Everyone out there is going to find a way to do what Mark Zuckerberg has done. The Danish PM will find a way, and the Canadian-

Preet Bharara:

The kissing of the ring, the kissing of the ring has happened.

Ian Bremmer:

Not just the kissing of the ring because the kissing of the ring is just obeisance and symbolic. It’s also going to be cutting a deal and giving him wins. The question will be what those wins will be because his opening exaggerations are opening positions. That’s not what you’re actually going to pay for his apartment.

Preet Bharara:

So how did he find himself to be in such an enviable spot as compared to the first time around? So, some method to the madness, does he and should he get credit for his style?

Ian Bremmer:

I mean, in terms of how to run for office, he loves it. He loves the rallies. He loves the campaigns. He loves the communications. I don’t know how much he loves actually doing the job of being president. I mean, I would say not as much, but he’s an extraordinary campaigner. I mean not compared to other economies, other countries in the world, the US is much more focused on the campaign than it is the job of the presidency. I mean, our campaigns, they take two years, they cost billions of dollars.

Preet Bharara:

Although now he can’t run again. So, there’s no future campaign unless he’s going to start campaigning for his son.

Ian Bremmer:

I think he’s going to campaign. He’s going to be in campaign mode every day.

Preet Bharara:

Campaign mode is a little bit different when you’re a lame duck, no.

Ian Bremmer:

Is he a lame duck? That’s not clear he is a lame duck.

Preet Bharara:

How is he not a lame duck under our constitution?

Ian Bremmer:

Well, in the sense that usually we don’t describe the entirety of your second term, whether consecutive or not, as a lame duck term. I do think that if the Democrats take the house in midterms, which is quite plausible to me, that’s a different question to ask. But for the next two years, we’re talking about a Trump who has complete consolidation of his own administration under him, very different from 2017 when he felt the need to bring on Republicans who were establishment and respected but didn’t necessarily respect him or were loyal to him. He also has the GOP more broadly in Congress riding his coattails as opposed to the other way around.

So, he’s in an incredibly strong position also compared to allies who are far weaker right now than they were in their position 2017 and adversaries. Look at Russia and severe decline. Iran just lost their empire. China facing the worst economy since the ’90s. I mean, no matter what kind of president you would be, this is an enviable time to be running the United States, economically, technologically, militarily, politically, and particularly if you’re a president that only focuses on power dynamics and transactionalism and doesn’t care about values. So, I mean you couldn’t find the time where the American president on the global stage would be less constrained than this group of factors that have now coalesced around President-elect Trump.

Preet Bharara:

I should relate this back to the risk document that you put out and put together.

Ian Bremmer:

Sure, absolutely.

Preet Bharara:

You have multiple entries that relate to Donald Trump in some way. Number two is the rule of Don. Number four is Trumponomics. Then separately you have a list of red herrings, one of which is a red herring that you identify as Trump fails. The rule of Don, risk number two. Is there more that we haven’t covered about the risk of the rule of Don that you want to elaborate on?

Ian Bremmer:

Well, first, I would say that, and you and I talk about this a lot offline, of course, but I mean all of these things are related insofar as Trump is going to be able to get a lot more done of what he says he’s going to do this time around. It’s quite likely he’s able to get a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine over the course of 2025. It’s quite likely he actually does implement tariffs that he says he’s going to implement, even if not to that degree, and does deport lots of Americans that are here illegally, even if not to the numbers that he has initially allowed. Those things will have impact. They’ll have impact on the economy. They’ll have impact on other countries.

That plays out with the US-Mexico risk. It plays out with the US-China risk. It plays out with Trumponomics and the inflation that will come from implementing those policies. All of it. It also goes to rule of Don, which is all about kissing the ring. The rule of Don is you better be aligned with Trump and with Elon Musk because otherwise it is going to hurt you. That doesn’t just mean using the FBI to investigate people. It means far more people doing what they can to avoid potentially being a target of said power ministries and of Trump.

Preet Bharara:

But this is a dumb question that I think I’ve asked a version of to you and to others, and maybe it’s obvious or maybe it’s elusive. I agree with your assessment. What is the reason why he will have more authority, more power, more influence the second time around? Is it because it turns out that the experience of being president before helps you be president again as he learned some lessons about loyalty and about personnel?

Is it because he’s a bit crazy and he’s a madman and people take him at his word even though we’ve discussed that there are times not to take him at his word? Is it because the world is in a different place? What is it about circumstances or his growth, if I can use growth with respect to Donald Trump, that will make him as effective in his own agenda today in a way that you and others would never have described him as being in 2016?

Ian Bremmer:

Well, he got a bunch of policy wins on the global stage first time around as well. Again, being president, being willing to use that power, a whole bunch of countries are going to jump. I mean, NATO is stronger more because of Russia’s invasion, but they also started spending a lot more money on defense because Trump told them to.

Preet Bharara:

Those threats worked.

Ian Bremmer:

Those threats worked. Mexico did spend more money and tightened up their southern border, which meant fewer people coming to the United States. That threat worked. He got USMCA done. He got the Abraham Accords done, and he got the US-Korea agreement done. He got the first bilateral free trade agreement with an African country done. I got a whole long list of stuff that Trump got done his first term. Got a list for Biden too, but we’re not talking about that today. But why is he stronger this time around?

One reason he’s stronger is because I do think he learned from the fact that a lot of the people that he appointed in his administration the first time around were not loyal to him and undermined him. He is really angry. I mean, I think he’s angrier, far angrier at many of those people, the Kellys and the Mattises, the Boltons. I think he’s madder them than he is about a lot of the Democrats he defeated.

Preet Bharara:

The second tier, the next concentric circle are people who were not his lackeys, but Republicans who oppose him like Cheney.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. So, this time around, I mean those people have largely been primaried and they’re out. The idea that Cheney gets the Presidential Medal of Freedom, I mean it is just an even bigger F-you to Trump from his perspective.

Preet Bharara:

She’s no Rush Limbaugh.

Ian Bremmer:

She’s no Rush Limbaugh, that is true, who also received a Trump Presidential Medal of Freedom. Yeah. But the other thing, which you and I should not forget, is that Trump won the popular vote. As much as at the beginning of 2024, we were facing a US, which was much more divisive, which was in many ways at war with itself in the way that Russia’s at war with Ukraine and the Israel’s at war with Gaza. The Americans are like saying that the enemy is within, but we just had an election and everybody agrees it was free and fair and not rigged. The fact that Trump’s own election is perceived as more legitimate by all of the American people than the last two elections of either Biden or Trump first time around, I think, really does help him consolidate power in the country, especially with his own party.

Preet Bharara:

I’ll be right back with Ian after this. I want to go to your risk number one. We will come back to aspects of the Trump future presidency in a moment. The first one you call the G-0 wins. What do you mean by that?

Ian Bremmer:

So, I’m talking about the law of the jungle internationally, right?

Preet Bharara:

I took that in law school. It’s a required class.

Ian Bremmer:

Everyone should. I mean, I think it helps to explain.

Preet Bharara:

There’s torts, there’s con law, and there’s the law of the jungle.

Ian Bremmer:

I think that we’re in an environment where there’s a complete lack of global leadership. There’s a lot of leadership of different countries at home, but there’s an absolute rejection. So, if you think about the last 35 years, the United States has been not only promoting US-led multilateral institutions in architecture, but has also told the Chinese, “You need to be more like us.” So, we’re going to let you into the WTO, into these global organizations, into the global economy. We’re going to let you get rich, but in return, you have to support our values. You have to become more like us politically, economically, same rules, standards, values, become what we called responsible stakeholders.

Now, not only did that not happen, China became rich but rejected the idea of those political and economic reforms, which makes us angry, but also the United States has essentially embraced the Chinese worldview, which is that we are transactional. We are rejecting the organizations that we actually put together, our own global order. We’re telling the Chinese it’s going to be the law of the jungle. By the way, we are a lot stronger than you are.

We’re going to be better at it than you are because the law of the jungle of… G-0 world is a great place to be the apex predator. It is a very dangerous place for everyone else, everyone else, whether you are outside the position of power inside the United States or whether you are on the wrong side of the Americans globally. That’s what we’re looking at in 2025.

Preet Bharara:

I might not phrase this correctly and this may be totally inapt, but does the law of entropy apply to international relations? Because further to the law of the jungle, which I took that class on, not really, if you’re the strongest in the apex predator, at some point, is it not in your interests and the interests of everyone, but more in your interests, not to just be a predator and scare your prey and take whatever prey you want at any time you want, but also impose some order, have alliances built? Maybe that jungle society turns into an agrarian society. So, that when people become more organized, the apex predator doesn’t just have to rely on predation, but on organization and an order. We have a world order, which it sounds like you’re saying that’s what we used to have and we’ve devolved into a G-0 world.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Does that make any sense?

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. So, clearly what Trump is saying, and I’m not sure he’d articulated in this theoretical way, but it is reflecting in his sensibilities, his instincts, and his policies, is that he doesn’t like a global order even led by the US, which constrains the Americans to engage in rules and provide support that we-

Preet Bharara:

Because once you establish an order, even if you are the most powerful member of that order-

Ian Bremmer:

You got to live by it.

Preet Bharara:

You got to live by it.

Ian Bremmer:

Instead, what he wants is a hub and spoke system where everybody provides their alliances, but basically, these countries are providing fealty to the United States. Those alliances, the US will continue to engage in because they all work individually in any given time for the US. So, he is really reverting to an earlier system of international relations and geopolitics, which is much more realpolitik. It’s much more like, as Thucydides said, where the powerful do what they will and the weak do what they must.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, I definitely read Thucydides in college, not at law school. Putting aside whether or not that’s good for the globe as a notable globalist that you are in, let the record reflect you’re shaking your head on video.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

I’m sorry for that.

Ian Bremmer:

Globalism has failed, but that’s okay.

Preet Bharara:

But first of all, the other reason he’s that way is it suits his personality and it’s aligned with his experience in business.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. I mean, that’s what he’s done his entire life. It’s all transactional. He’s going to sell coalition. He’ll sell whoever, an apartment for more money.

Preet Bharara:

But that model that you’re describing, if you’re thinking only about American interests, is it the better model for America? If so, is that true in the short term, medium term, long term or indefinitely?

Ian Bremmer:

I think it’s clearly going to work for Trump in the short term.

Preet Bharara:

Does it work for America?

Ian Bremmer:

I think it’ll work for America in the short term because the US is in such a strong position of power. It will not work for America and Americans in the long term for a few reasons. First, because Trump is not able to ensure continuity of his policies and ideas beyond four years of Trump, might not even be able to do it beyond two years depending on what happens in the midterms. That will allow other countries to have considerably more flexibility in how they respond to what will then be a weak in global order. So, that’s one point. A second point is that we are increasingly in an environment where our challenges and our opportunities are increasingly global. Climate is a global challenge.

Preet Bharara:

Climate’s not on your list.

Ian Bremmer:

Well, it’s a one-year list. We can get into that why, I mean, it is on the list actually as a herring for 2025. But it’s always a question of what’s the most interesting thing to say about a 50-year problem in a 12-month slice? You want to say something that’s interesting and that reflects the politics and what people are and aren’t thinking that year. So, we can talk about that if you like. But the point is that also disruptive technologies, AI, nuclear weapons, all of these things require a level of international cooperation coordination. We’ve had state governments.

We’ve existed in this global system of individual sovereignties of large territories for over 500 years now, but not forever. Humans lived for a very long time with city states. Before that they lived with feudal societies. Before that they lived with tribal and agrarian societies. The mode of governance expanded over time as technological progress both required it and created opportunity for it. I would argue that we are towards the end of the utility of a purely nation state model because this is a new time for humans where-

Preet Bharara:

But is that an evolution or a devolution?

Ian Bremmer:

It is an evolution, but it is not one that comes easily. When the balance of power outstrips and is no longer aligned with the institutions and the rules of the road that you’ve established for an order, there are three things that can happen. You can either reform your existing institutions to better reflect the world today, and some of that is happening. That’s why NATO’s getting stronger. You can create new institutions that better reflect the challenges and opportunities we have today.

That’s happening to a degree in climate change with the COP summits, for example, and happening outside of just states. You’ve got financial institutions and multinational corporations and civil society engaging in that slowly, too slowly, but it’s happening. Or you can go to war or you can just blow stuff up and all three are happening, but there is a lot more energy in the latter than there is in the first two right now, which makes this an unsustainable geopolitical trajectory.

Preet Bharara:

Long pregnant pause.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, I appreciate. That was where you wanted to have a long pregnant pause, just like that. That was meaningful. You let it land. Just thinking.

Preet Bharara:

You separately have, as I mentioned, as risk number four, Trumponomics. Why is that a separate entry and what’s that about?

Ian Bremmer:

Separate from rule of Don?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. Because rule of Don is more about the nature of political power in the United States and how it will affect societies, how it’ll affect people aligning with it with him, and the comparative lack of checks and balances on the American executive over the course of his presidency. Though I don’t believe the US is on the verge of dictatorship or even about to become Hungary, but nonetheless.

Where Trumponomics is very specifically talking about his economic agenda and the market implications in the US and elsewhere of that. So, here we’re not talking about rule of law. We’re talking about tariffs. We’re talking about illegal immigration. We’re talking about regulatory authority. We’re talking about taxation. In other words, there’s a whole economic plan coming out of Trump.

Preet Bharara:

So, what’s the risk there?

Ian Bremmer:

So last time around when Trump became president, it was broadly very market positive because he brought down corporate taxation very significantly. He made life easier for a lot of private sector corporations and actors. A lot of the tariff stuff he talked about was more bark than bite. This time around, we take the tariffs more seriously, especially on China. We don’t think that the relationship is going to be stabilized.

Preet Bharara:

This one, we take seriously.

Ian Bremmer:

Yes. This one we take more seriously.

Preet Bharara:

Even though some people think it’s crazy talk.

Ian Bremmer:

I don’t think it’s crazy talk at all.

Preet Bharara:

So, let’s define what we’re talking about. What percentage tariff has he suggested on China?

Ian Bremmer:

He said 60 across the board.

Preet Bharara:

Sixty across the board, and then another 10% everywhere else.

Ian Bremmer:

10% everywhere else.

Preet Bharara:

But that doesn’t strike you as crazy.

Ian Bremmer:

Yes. That 60 strikes me as crazy.

Preet Bharara:

When I say crazy, does he mean it or not?

Ian Bremmer:

He doesn’t mean 60, but he does mean he’s going to significantly increase tariffs, especially on China and on certain other countries as well. The post-pandemic environment is not when he was president in 2017. Interest rates are higher. Corporate earnings are trading at much crazier multiples now than they were before. There’s not as much slack in the system. Debt levels are higher. I mean, so other countries are just not in an environment where they can handle this the way they could handle a lot more in 2017.

They are not growing, not rebounding the way the American economy right now is. The hit on the illegal immigrants, which was not a big issue in 2017, but will be this time around. If it’s going to take a million out of the economy in the first year, it’s going to increase inflation from a rate that’s already below it.

Preet Bharara:

So, I want to talk about inflation for a second.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

You talk to a lot of people who are very smart, whether they allow themselves to be called doctors or not.

Ian Bremmer:

They shouldn’t. Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Is there anyone who thinks that significantly increasing tariffs, even though it might not be up to 60%, but in some significant way that Trump is threatening to do, that that would not be inflationary to a significant degree?

Ian Bremmer:

Oh, everyone thinks it’s inflationary, but a lot of people, a lot of economists still think it’s a good idea. I mean, there are plenty of economists on the Trump side that are like, “Yeah, we should put these tariffs in place because other countries have hollowed out American manufacturing.”

Preet Bharara:

It’s good for America.

Ian Bremmer:

It’s good for America long-term.

Preet Bharara:

In the same way or in a different way that people… This is close to me. I talked about this last week, the debate about the H-1B visas.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

America first, America first. I said on the podcast last week, there are flaws, there’s abuse, there’s reform that might be necessary, but you have a lot of people thinking that they should be put into jobs for which they don’t have training. Maybe we should have training. We should think about those things. How do you compare the tariff issue and the skilled labor immigration issue? Are they similar or they’re totally different?

Ian Bremmer:

I think they’re very similar in the eyes and minds of a lot of average Americans, because in both cases, you can make very strong arguments. We want lower tariffs because that will mean higher growth in the United States. We want H-1Bs because I don’t mean better productivity in the United States. But if you are not benefiting from that, if there’s massive inequality in the US, if the economy’s increasingly stratified, so the only way you can get ahead is if your parents are doing well and they’re well-networked, then why am I going to vote for that?

That’s why Americans don’t support free trade right now, and that’s why a lot of Americans don’t support H-1Bs. We will let you have H-1Bs when you take care of us. If you don’t take care of us, we do not believe the fact that you as a corporation are going to do better. That means your shareholders will do better, but you will not do well for us. So, why should we allow you to have that? This is a very interesting debate right now that’s happening inside MAGA land, right?

Preet Bharara:

Is it a debate or is it like a blood fight?

Ian Bremmer:

I mean, I haven’t seen anyone actually get killed on the back of it. Well, I guess no, I guess the CEO of UnitedHealthcare has gotten killed. So, maybe it is, but that guy wasn’t a MAGA guy. It’s the same basic fight, which is that you have all of these people that are in MAGA and you’ve got the dark MAGA Elon who is very much wanting small government that will allow him to grow as strongly as possible. Then you’ve got deep MAGA that believes that these nefarious billionaires with the deep state have taken advantage and taken all the power, and they actually want a large accountable government that takes care of them. That’s a very, very significant rift. I certainly expect dark MAGA will win because he’s more powerful.

Preet Bharara:

Money wins.

Ian Bremmer:

The average leaders are more venal and the American system is pay for play, but Trump has sensibilities that he needs to feed these people. There are a lot of things that he could do that I think would make deep MAGA happier. It’s not just about destroying DEI. It’s not just bread and circuses, because of transgender athletes. That’ll only get him so far. I think he needs to produce for poorer and working-class Americans. By the way, so you want to get rid of a whole bunch of illegals, no problem with that. But you better focus on the corporations that are hiring them. Do E-Verify.

Preet Bharara:

By the way, that is a policy that Democrats have supported.

Ian Bremmer:

I was just about to say that. That’s a policy that they should get Democrats on board.

Preet Bharara:

When I worked in the Senate, Senator Schumer was very in favor of E-Verify.

Ian Bremmer:

Fetterman would support that, right? You would get people-

Preet Bharara:

Your fashion doppelganger.

Ian Bremmer:

Absolutely. I mean, he’s 6’6 and now he wears a hoodie.

Preet Bharara:

Does he put a blazer on top of it?

Ian Bremmer:

I don’t think he owns a blazer. Does he own a blazer?

Preet Bharara:

I don’t know. I don’t know. I’ve not been in his closet in quite some time.

Ian Bremmer:

I’m really happy to hear that because that’s big and tall closet right there.

Preet Bharara:

What’s interesting is that, and this is not a good political argument to make from the hustings where I’ve never been recently or in the past.

Ian Bremmer:

I have not either.

Preet Bharara:

Elon Musk was an H-1B visa. Correct?

Ian Bremmer:

I thought he had a different visa when he came over. I didn’t think he was an H-1B.

Preet Bharara:

Let’s assume for the sake of my next point, but he clearly came legally as an immigrant through some program.

Ian Bremmer:

I thought he was a student. So, I thought I was younger, but yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. Maybe that’s right. Maybe that’s right. Let’s take someone like Elon, who came on. It could have been Elon or it could have been some or they could have hired for the job. Jack Jones from… Pick a state.

Ian Bremmer:

Indiana.

Preet Bharara:

Indiana. Why not? This is a totally unfair example, but I haven’t heard anybody talking about it in this way. Yeah. So, in that one instance, Jack Jones, I think is his name, loses out on that job, and that sucks for Jack Jones in that moment. But then Elon comes and he builds 80 companies and hires thousands and thousands and thousands of Jack Jones’s acquaintances, friends, neighbors, and others in Indiana and elsewhere. Isn’t that a net positive for people who have gripes like Jack Jones or is that just politically naive?

Ian Bremmer:

I think it would be a net positive if those people were actually getting trained and hired. But when you see large numbers of white men in the United States who are committing suicide and with massive drug dependencies and whose life expectancy is actually deteriorating over the past 20 years compared to every other advanced industrial democracy in the world, you have to ask yourself, clearly, Elon coming over has not worked for those people.

So, what is it? Is that just a failure of economic policy? Is it a broader failure of social policy? Is there something fundamentally wrong with American society? What is it? Is it algorithmic? I mean, I don’t think this is something you can place on just one factor, but what I am saying is I completely get why lots of Americans believe that the answer for their problems will not be solved by more globalism.

Preet Bharara:

Absolutely not.

Ian Bremmer:

More H-1Bs, no, not going to help them. Didn’t help them in the last 40 years. So, why would it help them in the next five? I get that. Furthermore, I worry that if you don’t resolve that in the political system, more people will choose to resolve that outside of the political system. People will say, “These governments will never take care of me, so the only way I can succeed is by bringing down the government or by assassinating someone.” I mean, Trump was this close to being assassinated, and nobody lionized that guy because he was an idiot twerp.

But I mean, Luigi Mangione kills a CEO blocks from where you and I are sitting right now. I mean a whole bunch of people, including even a lot of Democrats in power, were saying, “Well, I understand why he did that.” No, no, no, I don’t accept that, but you will get more people saying that. That’s the equivalent of understanding why Hamas blew up a bunch of Jews on October 7th. No, I don’t understand that. But more people will do that when you don’t resolve the problem.

Preet Bharara:

So, we’ve only been through a few of the risks here. There are 10 of them. You want to talk about one more?

Ian Bremmer:

Sure. Whatever you want.

Preet Bharara:

You pick a topic?

Ian Bremmer:

Me pick?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. What’s a risk that you thought about and wrote about this year that was more unexpected, that a year ago you wouldn’t have put it on the list or wouldn’t have thought that it would be on the list?

Ian Bremmer:

It might be Iran. It Might be Iran.

Preet Bharara:

Number six, Iran on the ropes. We’d like to hear that.

Ian Bremmer:

We knew the Middle East War was going to get worse. You and I talked about that last year because it was just a couple months after the Gaza War started. I mean, I wasn’t surprised at all that expanded into a major ground war, expanded into the Houthis and other proxies in the region in the Red Sea and elsewhere, expanded into Lebanon and Hezbollah. But what was a surprise was just the extraordinary amount of escalation dominance that the Israelis were able to show in the region. That meant that Iran has lost their empire in the course of less than 12 months, half a year. I mean, Hezbollah was the most powerful non-state military in the world, and they have been functionally destroyed in a matter of weeks by Israel.

Assad, that regime, him and his father were in place for 50 plus years. Then over the course of two weeks, they fell, despite Russian support and Iranian support, a lot faster than I thought they were going to go. So, when you say something that surprised me, yeah, I think Iran is now falling apart faster than you would’ve expected back October 7th. There’s a real question about to what extent the Israelis and the Americans will try to take advantage of that reality.

Preet Bharara:

So, wait. So, what’s the bad thing about all this?

Ian Bremmer:

Oh, again, risks are not about bad things. They’re about things that you don’t expect happening that will have geopolitical consequences. I’ll be very happy if the Islamic Republic falls, I think, and the Iranian people will be too.

Preet Bharara:

Isn’t power going to be consolidated more than ever in the White House and between Trump and the National Security Advisor and staff members who are not appointed and confirmed by the Senate? Will cabinet secretaries really have a lot of free rein or not?

Ian Bremmer:

I mean, first of all, you didn’t mention Elon, so we need to get there because in my view, Elon is much-

Preet Bharara:

What position does he have?

Ian Bremmer:

I guess he’s bomb thrower in chief, right? I mean, in terms of what he’s actually doing right now, but he’s going to be much more important and he’s certainly much more powerful than anyone else in the administration coming. He also has far more access. So, that would imply he’s the first person you should talk about in the Trump administration. But I wouldn’t count outstate. Actually, under Biden, Jake made all the trains run on time. He was the foreign policy driver and cabinet executed, whether it was yelling or whether it was blinking. This is different. Under Trump, any issue that he cares about on the day that he cares about them, it’s him.

The White House will try to make sure that that gets communicated adequately and done to the extent it’s possible. But areas that Trump doesn’t care about, of which there are many, the State Department on Foreign Policy will run. I fully expect that if you are in Latin America, most of those countries are going to deal in a much more traditional way with the Trump State Department than they will actually with Trump or the White House, because Trump won’t care that much. Under Biden, though it was very White House centric, but structurally, under Trump, it will be even more White House centric, but anecdotally and episodically. That’s how I would describe it.

Preet Bharara:

Speaking of Elon Musk, his partner in the DOGE is a guy named Vivek Ramaswamy. Where is Vivek Ramaswamy? That guy put out a tweet saying basically that white people were lazy and watched the wrong TV shows.

Ian Bremmer:

Did he say white people or did he say Americans and American culture? He made a racial point about it.

Preet Bharara:

I’m paraphrasing what other people are saying, which is always a safe thing to do. Well, he definitely said that Americans are watching the wrong TV shows.

Ian Bremmer:

Yes, yes, yes.

Preet Bharara:

Although he doesn’t seem to have watched the TV shows that he thinks stand for various principles. He definitely made poignant comments about American culture. But the more important question for me is what happened to him? Where’d he go? Do you know? Well, are you hiding?

Ian Bremmer:

It could be that on the one hand, you’ve got two co-heads of DOGE, but if they get rid of Vivek, that is 50% efficiency gains right out of the box.

Preet Bharara:

Why not practice what you preach?

Ian Bremmer:

I mean, you don’t need two of them.

Preet Bharara:

Well, I think that’s a fine point, whether you are or are not a doctor.

Ian Bremmer:

He’s a good talk. He’s a good talker. Vivek is a good talker, and he does not necessarily talk always about things that he has full substantive knowledge on. That got him in trouble. So, I think it’s good for him to be quiet for a little bit right now. That’s probably smart.

Preet Bharara:

For us too, because we’re at the end of our time.

Ian Bremmer:

Are we?

Preet Bharara:

How was that segue?

Ian Bremmer:

There you go.

Preet Bharara:

Top risks 2025. Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group, my friend, thanks as always.

Ian Bremmer:

Thank you, Preet. Great to see you, man.

Preet Bharara:

Stay tuned. After the break, I’ll be answering your questions about Judge Cannon, Rudy Giuliani, and special counsel, David Weiss’s final report on Hunter Biden.

Q&A

Now let’s get to your questions. This question comes in a Bluesky post from CW Kota who writes, “Hi, Preet. If Judge Cannon dismissed the case, why does she have any standing to weigh in? Who is the responsible court to tell her to stand down? Has this happened before? Thank you.” Well, that’s a great question and a question that I and others have been pondering. You’re of course referring to Judge Aileen Cannon, the federal judge in Florida, who has presided over the classified documents prosecution against Donald Trump.

You’ll recall certainly that Judge Cannon dismissed the case against Trump many months ago, back in July of last year, on the dubious grounds, at least dubious to me and many others on the dubious grounds that Special Counsel Jack Smith was appointed in an unconstitutional manner, that he wasn’t able to be appointed under her interpretation of two provisions of the Constitution. Now, as you might imagine, that ruling was appealed and the case is now pending in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. In the meantime, there has been another legal dispute over whether Jack Smith could release his special counsel report on the case on the Mar-a-Lago case, which is what I take you to be asking about.

By the way, Joyce Vance and I have been discussing these issues on the CAFE Insider Podcast. To listen to that conversation at greater length, listeners sign up at cafe.com/insider. So, in any event, the Jack Smith report is actually in two volumes, one on the January 6th case in DC, which was released earlier this week, and one on this Florida case, which has yet to be released and may never be. Judge Cannon had initially blocked both volumes of the report from being released, but later issued a ruling allowing part of it to be made public, and that’s what happened after midnight on Monday night. That second volume is the one that we’re talking about. On your question of standing, what I think you’re really referring to when you’re talking about a judge is jurisdiction.

Does Judge Cannon have proper jurisdiction to weigh in on whether to release the report on a case that she dismissed? The answer according to me, for whatever that’s worth, and also Joyce Vance and also a lot of experts who were considering the issue is no. After a case has been dismissed, the judge no longer has any control over it. We refer to that as the judge being divested of jurisdiction over everything having to do with the case. Cannon, on the other hand, has engaged in a little bit of, I think, suspect reasoning, saying that her post-dismissal order preventing release of the report comes down to the fact that Trump had two co-defendants in the case, Carlos de Oliveira and Walt Nauta, who Cannon argues could be affected by the report’s release.

So, she still has the ability to make a ruling on this point. DOJ, for its part, has appealed Cannon’s order to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Even though DOJ abandoned the case against Trump, the case still appears to be pending as to those two co-defendants. At the end of the day, the bottom line is the better analysis is that Judge Cannon did not have jurisdiction. In fact, as Joyce points out in her Substack this past week, “Defense lawyers may have belatedly seen this problem coming. They filed a duplicative request to prevent the release of the report with the 11th Circuit,” seeming to acknowledge that the right court per your question and the right person to aim the request at is not the District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. So, we’ll see. Stay tuned.

This question comes in an email from David who says, “Preet, when Trump becomes president, can he pardon Rudy Giuliani? And if so, does this nullify the financial penalty Giuliani owes the two election workers from Georgia who won their case against him?” Thank you, David. Now, it’s not 100% percent clear what you’re talking about. Rudy has been indicted in at least one jurisdiction. He’s had his bar license suspended in at least one jurisdiction, and he has had this civil liability judgment against him with respect to the defamation case by the two election workers.

Whether you’re asking about a pardon on the criminal side or whether or not a president has the ability to pardon someone from a civil judgment, the answer is essentially the same with respect to these two election workers. Let’s look at the Constitution, which provides for what the pardon power entails. That pardon power, as you know, is of constitutional dimension. It’s based on language in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which provides among other things, the president shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States. So, the key phrase there for these purposes is offenses against the United States. Crimes of a federal nature are always styled as offenses against the United States.

That’s why the caption always reads United States versus Joe Smith or Preet Bharara or Donald Trump or whatever the case may be. The pardon power extends only to offenses against the United States. It does not pertain to offenses against a state. Therefore, as I’m sure you know from listening to the podcast and hearing other commentators speak about it, state court convictions cannot be pardoned by a president. Then the other category of case that you have apart from criminal or civil cases, they can be claims for breach of contract, tort, defamation, you name it. In the case you mentioned that involves the two election workers is one of defamation. That’s a civil matter between private parties, private litigants.

It’s not an offense against the United States. So, Donald Trump, notwithstanding how much power he has and how unfettered the pardon authority may be, does not extend to a civil case like the one brought by those two election workers. It’s also the case that if there’s some related criminal case against Rudy Giuliani that may in some way overlap or be connected to the civil case, that pardon will have no bearing on the civil case either. So, that is done, that is over. Subject to any appeals, that may be possible, but Donald Trump, should he even care to exercise it, does not have the power to do anything about it.

This question comes in an email from Vanessa who writes, “Hi, Preet. What’s your take on Special Counsel David Weiss’s final report on Hunter Biden?” Well, Vanessa, thanks for your question. All the attention this week seems to have been focused for good reason and understandably on the one volume of the report by Jack Smith relating to the DC election interference case against Donald Trump. But there was another special counsel and there was another report. You’ll remember that back in 2023, Special Counsel David Weiss, appointed by Merrick Garland, the Attorney General of the United States, brought tax and gun charges against Hunter Biden.

Last year, in June, a Delaware jury found Hunter Biden guilty on felony gun charges, and in September, he pled guilty to tax charges in California. Now this is important to the spirit of your question. Joe Biden, the President of the United States, chose to keep on a Republican appointee, a Trump appointee, David Weiss, in the position of US attorney in Delaware, and then allowed his attorney general, Merrick Garland, to appoint David Weiss to be the special counsel overseeing all the cases against Hunter Biden.

That was done with the acquiescence and apparent approval of President Joe Biden who said repeatedly, and I’ve mentioned this before and been a little bit critical of it, said he would not get involved in the case, would not interfere in the case, and actually said very emphatically more than once, he would not pardon his son no matter what the result. Now, what’s interesting about David Weiss’s final report is a couple of things. One, he responds to the fact that President Biden issued a blanket pardon to his son covering any and all crimes committed from 2014 to 2024. He didn’t have to do this, but David Weiss chose to criticize the President of the United States for the remarks that he made.

Let me quote from his report, “When he announced the pardon, President Biden simultaneously issued a press release that criticized the prosecution of his son as selective, unfair, infected by raw politics and a miscarriage of justice. This statement is gratuitous and wrong. Other presidents have pardoned family members, but in doing so, none have taken the occasion as an opportunity to malign the public servants to the Department of Justice based solely on false accusations.” Now, you may have a view about whether President Biden was correct or not, but there is some force to the criticism given that Joe Biden allowed this all to take place, made statements about not wanting to pardon his son, changing his mind, and that’s David Weiss’s prerogative.

David Weiss goes on, does not mince words, says, “Calling those rulings into question and injecting partisanship into the independent administration of the law undermines the very foundation of what makes America’s justice system fair and equitable. It erodes public confidence in an institution that is essential to preserving the rule of law.” Now, some of you might be saying to yourselves, that’s a bit overwrought, that’s a bit unfair, that’s a bit unseemly.

But what’s interesting to me is what David Weiss, one special counsel, puts in his report as critical of Joe Biden and as defensive and defending of his own investigation, uses terms and phrases that are not that different from what Jack Smith put in the cover letter to his report that we spent a lot of time talking about this week, defending the interests of justice, defending his own decision-making, his own deliberation, and his team’s efforts in bringing the case and seeking to bring the case that he brought. So, you have two different special counsels appointed in two different circumstances, but by the same attorney general seeing fit to defend themselves and defend the rule of law.

So, whatever you think about the work of Jack Smith or the work of David Weiss, whatever side the fence you’re on, it’ll be interesting to see as the next Trump administration begins. By the way, as I’m recording this, I have in the background the confirmation hearing of attorney general nominee Pam Bondi playing in the background. It’ll be interesting to see if the special counsel regulations and guidelines are invoked at any point in the next four years by the federal government, by presumptive Attorney General Pam Bondi in the Trump administration.

My own surmise, my own guess is we won’t be seeing a lot of new special counsels in the next four years. My conversation with Ian Bremmer continues for members of the CAFE Insider Community. In the bonus for insiders, we discuss the death of statesmanship.

Ian Bremmer:

Geopolitics always runs in cycles, and this is a bust cycle. It’s the equivalent of a geopolitical recession.

Preet Bharara:

To try out the membership for just $1 for a month, head to cafe.com/insider. Again, that’s cafe.com/insider. 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. Tweet them to me @PreetBharara with the hashtag #AskPreet. You can also now reach me on Threads, or you can call and leave me a message at 669-247-7338. That’s 669-24-PREET, or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com. Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network.

The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tatasciore. The deputy editor is Celine Rohr. The editorial producers are Noa Azulai and Jake Kaplan. The associate producer is Claudia Hernández and the CAFE team is Matthew Billy, Nat Weiner, and Liana Greenway. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I’m your host, Preet Bharara. As always, stay tuned.