The Weekend 5/23/25 | 🅼🆂🅽🅱️🅲 Breaking News Today May 23, 2026

Added: 2026-05-24

[00:00:01]Welcome to the weekend. I'm Jonathan Kart along with Jackie Alamaini and Eugene Daniels. We begin this morning with the growing backlash against Donald Trump's nearly $1.8 billion so-called anti-weaponization fund. That is the fund that Vice President JD Vance and acting attorney general Todd Blanch could not unequivocally say would not be used to give taxpayer dollars to convicted January 6th riers, including those who violently attacked law enforcement officers. It is being described as quote utterly stupid, morally wrong, unexplainable, a galactic blunder, and stupid on stilts. But what is different in the outrage against Trump's latest abuse of the presidency is that all of those comments came from lawmakers in Trump's own party. It's something we've rarely seen during this administration, but apparently this is a line that is becoming too far for even Republicans to cross. Blanch failed to win over Senate Republicans in a closed door meeting on Thursday. Yesterday, Senator Ted Cruz described it as quote, "One of the roughest meetings I've seen in my entire time in the Senate. Fiery does not begin to cut it," Cruz said. My guess is there are probably 45 senators in the room. At least half of them were blasting the attorney general and they were pissed.

[00:01:29]Coming from Ted Cruz, that's saying a lot. There were multiple senators yelling at the attorney general, saying, "This feels like selfdealing."

[00:01:37]And it's not just Senate Republicans pushing back. We are also seeing some signs of resistance from their colleagues in the House. There's now a bipartisan bill to block this fund co-authored by Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick. Whether it'll ever be brought to the floor for a vote is yet to be seen. In response to the backlash, Trump posted yesterday, quote, I gave up a lot of money in allowing that the just announced anti-weaponization fund to go forward. I could have settled my case, including the illegal release of my tax returns and the equally illegal breakin of Mara Lago for an un for an absolute fortune. Instead, I am helping others who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden administration receive at long last justice President DJT. And I was quoting there. Joining us now, Ali Vitali, host of Way Too Early, MS Now senior congressional reporter and my office mate, and Jeff Mason, White House correspondent for Bloomberg.

[00:02:40]>> Office am that I already said no to.

[00:02:50]All right, um I found it very rich that Senator Cruz was saying that that meeting with the acting attorney general was the roughest meeting he has been in in his entire time in the Senate and he's like one of the most disliked people in the Senate. So, I'm sure he has heard his fair share of rough language. But was it as rough as the senator describes?

[00:03:13]>> Yes. And the fact that Ted Cruz would would wait until his podcast to make that criticism, I think, is notable. But we did hear Republican senators immediately coming out of the room saying at best they had some questions for the acting attorney general and at worst that they were concerned about this fund and that key appropriators like Senator Susan Collins said that they were not convinced about the need for it in the first place. And I think that it comes in tandem with the fact that we're now seeing push back on the billion dollars for a ballroom that should have been in this reconciliation package. We're seeing Republican and Democratic push back alike to the existence of this fund, whether or not they can do a bill that would restrict it or just make it not exist anymore. I think that is an open question. There's also court proceedings to that effect, too. But it all really begs the question on Capitol Hill as they left town, by the way, not doing the reconciliation package that should have just been an easy targeted approach on immigration.

[00:04:04]Is this the moment that Republicans finally realize their political moment in the midterms diverges so aggressively from the presidents? And are they ready to at least start not agreeing in lock step? Because this shouldn't be notable that they're saying, "Hey, this isn't money that we approved to go to rioters that endangered many of our lives on January 6, 2021." It's just notable in this era of Washington where they've completely capitulated to the White House >> by vanquishing his perceived enemies.

[00:04:33]This week in these primaries, he's seemingly made others on Caprio. Also, I think it's very interesting that the senators yelling at yelling at uh Todd Blanch, but take that same energy down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to where the actual issue the be the guy that you have beef with is actually Donald Trump.

[00:04:48]Um Mr. Mason, >> I won't make you answer that question.

[00:04:52]Um I will I do want to throw up the >> exactly the name of the folks who have already said they're planning to fire for compensation for this fund. Um, Enrique Tario, convicted seditionist and leader of the farright proud voice. He seeks up to $5 million. Michael Cohen, who's been on this show a couple times, convicted January 6 riers Brandon Fellow seeks 30 million. Yvonne St. Sire 10 million. Trenis Evans seeks more than $1 million. Michael Caputo, Sam Nunberg, these are folks who worked for Donald Trump, Roger Stone, folks know those names. Um, how is the administration, especially with someone like Enriqueio, how are they defending how's this White House defending him possibly getting money from the American taxpayer?

[00:05:39]>> Well, they're just largely defending the fund and and you saw the defense that President Trump put out in that Trocial Post. I mean, he had said at one point this week that he had nothing to do with the negotiations that led to that. Do >> you believe it?

[00:05:52]>> It's not my job to say what I believe or I don't believe, but it's contradictory.

[00:05:56]I mean and that I mean you can say that with just clear reporting from what he said at one point he said he wasn't involved and then he said I could have gotten a lot more that certainly indicates >> that he was involved and had a hand in either in the negotiations or at least was informed about it and was weighing in.

[00:06:13]>> So it's they they are defending it large as something that is right and as something that he wants. Uh and yet it's created all of these political risks for him.

[00:06:24]>> Yeah. Jeeoff, I want to stick with you for a second because just even being at the White House this week, it was sort of remarkable how much the conversation was not focused at all on any of the push back from Republican senators. um at least amongst the the White House officials and the senior administration officials that I was in touch with which I think sort of speaks to this idea that we always come back to which is what Steve Bannon called when Steve Bannon made the comparison of the US Congress to the Russian Duma right that at the end of the day >> they might have an angry orary closed dooror meeting but are they actually going to take up Brian Fitzpatrick's anti-weaponization bill and you know John Thun saying that this is water under the bridge. Is it actually water under the bridge? What are they going to come back next week and and do? And and I guess what are you hearing from your White House sources about sort of their current view of the the legislative body at the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue?

[00:07:23]>> I think that's a spot-on question and I would use a similar answer to the one that I gave you, Gene. If you look at history, if you look at precedents, how has this White House, how has this president dealt with Republicans on the Hill? Occasionally they'll get some griping and then they'll move on or they'll they'll shut it down. So if if Republicans >> Yeah. I mean if if Republicans decide we're so angry about this, we're ready to break with the president. We're ready to support this law. We're ready to put create a legislative fix that says no, we're not giving a 1.8 8 billion dollar to to this group of people at a time when our constituents are upset about the cost of gasoline, the cost of housing, the cost of groceries, then they have a mechanism to do that. But history would show that's not the mechanism or that's not the pathway they're going to choose. And you know why? Because, you know, passes prologue.

[00:08:15]Jeff, let's play some top Republican lawmakers. uh what they had to say after the January 6th attack and then it'll put into perfect perspective what Jeff was just talking about.

[00:08:27]>> All I can say is uh count me out. Enough is enough. If you're a conservative, this is the most offensive concept in the world that a single person could disenfranchise 155 million people.

[00:08:40]>> The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob riers. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.

[00:08:49]>> There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it.

[00:09:06]And so this is why, you know, you know, to the point of Jackie's question, it's like, why do we even believe that these folks when they come back are not just going to go lock step behind the president? But Ally, I want you to talk about something you actually talked about seconds before we went on air. And that was about this fund, this anti-weaponization fund. Because to my mind, it's like, where's this money coming from? He's just taking a billion8 dollars and just pushing it somewhere.

[00:09:36]But you're telling you were telling us that money actually is exists in a fund.

[00:09:42]>> That's sort of my understanding and and it came to my attention because when you heard Brian Fitzpatrick in the immediate hours after this fund was announced start talking about okay well we're trying to get our arms around it and figure out where the oversight mechanisms are and where the funding streams are. That made me realize oh this might not be a new request that they are making of Congress. they are just creating this out of the fiscal budget that they already have. And I think that's one of the key questions is for Congress who appropriates the money to these departments. They are trying to figure out where the revenue stream actually is. And so I think that's one of the reasons that people had a lot of confusion about this is okay in the $33 billion budget that DOJ had for fiscal year 2026. It's not the one that they're talking about now. It's why Todd Blanch and others are up on Capitol Hill talking about the fiscal year budget for next year. But this is something that they it sounds to me like they created of their own volition and that is why Congress now is having to figure out okay how would we even begin to stem this and is this something that we have to make a law proactively restricting because we cannot say in a different mechanism we're blocking the funding.

[00:10:51]That's I think where the conversation right now on Capitol Hill is >> right. And as you were talking I I'm remembering maybe a year or so ago, weren't we talking about the fact that Congress would pass something and then the White House would put out a statement saying, "I don't care what you guys pass and what it was for. We're going to do what we want."

[00:11:09]>> That it was all sort of funny money.

[00:11:10]Right? And I think that's where it comes into a conversation about the comparisons to a Russian duma of sorts, right? like this Congress, I think, in pretty fascinating fashion, has been willing to seed a lot of its authorities to this White House, whether it be on war powers, whether it be on appropriations and funding. And I think this is a moment where Congress could make it that the White House has to actually pay attention to them and take them seriously and not just steamroll over them. But the White House is not going to ask Congress to do that. that they are perfectly comfortable with the way that things are and the way that their priorities have flowed. And so this is now a question to double back to where I began of is this a moment where lawmakers realize that their political fortunes are different than that of the White House and is this a moment where they actually choose to exercise this at a time where Donald Trump and I don't remember who brought this point up but it's the right one. And I think it was you Eugene that this is a week where not only did they see their colleague Bill Cassidy see the president be endorse endorse and work against him and lose a primary but also endorsing Ken Paxton in Texas over John Cornin who has been in leadership who is leadership's current pick for who they think can best win that seat who frankly conventional knowledge knowledge in Texas is that it makes it a much less close race if it's Cornin on the ballot as opposed to Paxton. I mean, that is not divorced from the reality on Capitol Hill where Republicans are now saying, "Okay, if you're not going to ride with us, we're going to finally voice some objection and we'll see if it sticks. I think that you're right to play the mask that you paid to have the face that you're having." Like all of that is fair because past can be prologue, but we are forced to question, is this a moment where it's different?

[00:12:49]>> And we will continue to ask those questions. Ally and Jeff are sticking with us through the break because coming up next, more on why the iron grip Trump still seems to have on Republican primary voters could spell political disaster for the GOP in November. Trump may have succeeded in pushing some of his Republican critics out of Congress, but his pressure campaign could pose a problem, as we were saying, for his agenda on Capitol Hill. After Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassid's loss, he reversed course on a war powers resolution, ultimately siding with Democrats to reign in US military action in Iran. Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie, who lost to a Trumpbacked candidate on Tuesday. Massie is signaling he may have more headaches in store for Trump before he leaves office.

[00:13:37]By the way, today is the six-month anniversary of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. We've taken out two dozen CEOs, an ambassador, a prince, a prime minister, a minister of culture.

[00:13:58]>> And that was just six months. I got seven months left in Congress.

[00:14:09]Ali Vatitali and Jeff Mason are back with us lots in that speech. Um, it feels like Trump's primary strategy is structurally incompatible with keeping the house and I that seems simplistic, Ally, but like it also seems like sometimes in politics the most simple answer is the answer. I I just think that sometimes the the politics and the reality of what would be good on the ground is not necessarily what the president does because it doesn't comport with the agenda of you're either with me or I'm against you. And I think that's what we're seeing in Texas right now. Again, to double back to where we were. The idea that Cornin is a stronger candidate in a general election than Ken Paxton is something I heard a lot when I was on the ground in Texas back in February. um the idea that some of the other candidates that he's put forward in past midterm elections. He has had success in winning primaries, but you don't win in a primary, you win in a general.

[00:15:05]>> Ask Senator Hershel Walker.

[00:15:06]>> I was going to say the prime example of this. And so, we've seen this time and again, the biggest difference here, and again, this is the central question is Trump will never be on the ballot again.

[00:15:16]And so, at what point do they realize that the political winds are different now? And maybe they aren't, and maybe they won't.

[00:15:22]>> But let's talk about Texas, okay? I mean, I I covered the Obama administration. At the end of the Obama administration, a bunch of the presidents, the then president's staff, went to Texas, >> had a big goal of turning Texas purple, said it was going to happen within just a few years, and it didn't happen. So that doesn't mean that the Democrats don't have a better shot at perhaps getting picking up a seat in the Senate um with their with this candidate and with Paxton as the as the Republican.

[00:15:53]>> But it's I'm not saying it's easy.

[00:15:56]>> It's a better shot, sure. But there it's going to be it's an uphill battle, but it's about how much money and resources and time they have to spend in Texas.

[00:16:05]>> I don't think though because Jeff, I'm with you, Jeeoff, on the on the eye rolling to this perpetual conversation.

[00:16:10]I always add that caveat when we talk about it here. Um, but I had asked our um, PAs Molly and Audriana to do sort of like back of the math, back of the envelope math about how much the president has spent so far in these primary challenges. And there is sort of a feeling that it's it's it's not a zero- sum game. There's that much money and they have that much of an advantage over Democrats, which is a whole other conversation that we're going to need to get into about Ken Martin's fundraising prowess. Um but but let's listen to actually Susie Wilds quickly who uh talked about her plans for Trump on the campaign trail and then then we'll come back.

[00:16:49]>> Typically you in the midterms it's not about who's sitting at the White House.

[00:16:54]It's you localize the election >> and you and you keep the federal officials out of it. We're actually going to turn that on its head.

[00:17:02]>> Good.

[00:17:02]>> And put them on the ballot because so many of those low propensity voters are Trump voters.

[00:17:07]>> Yes, they are. And we saw a week ago, Tuesday, what happens when he's not on the ballot and not active. So, I haven't quite broken it to him yet, but he's going to campaign like it's 2024 again.

[00:17:21]>> Sorry.

[00:17:22]>> So, what do you make of this strategy? I mean, is it is it sort of what Eugene said, which is them playing in a a different landscape, but applying the same sort of playbook, or is this actually going to be a winning strategy? Well, I mean, it's hard to say, but I think the fact that Susie Wilds is acknowledging that they need they need a campaign that makes it seem as if President Trump is on the ballot and they're going to execute it in that way is an acknowledgement that Republicans have a a weak hand, at least partially weak hand, going into uh the November elections. I'm also it has to it just made me kind of wonder when she says I haven't broken this to the president yet whether he's going to be on board because he hasn't I mean listen the last 10 weeks or so he was supposed to have been doing an economic tour of the United States that's what they flagged to all of us reporters just you know right before the Iran war started right >> I mean that's what he was going to do they were they wanted to go exact Yes.

[00:18:20]Exactly. And they've and they've done a little bit like he went to China. He's done a couple domestic trips, but a lot of the last two and a half months, I don't need to tell you guys, has been focused on the war. And the president hasn't been doing and hasn't wanted to do a lot of domestic travel. So that would be a shift if he did do that.

[00:18:37]>> Well, we can because of Donald Trump, right? And that's and that's the thing.

[00:18:40]We've got two headlines put up. One, NBC Republicans grapple with how much to feature Trump on the campaign trail for the midterms. And then listen to this.

[00:18:50]Mike Lawler had had this event with the president yesterday here. Listen to how Mike Lawler defends having the president campaign for him.

[00:19:01]I'm happy to welcome him here. I look, I I think so much time in the media uh is spent uh focusing in on uh kind of this this bubble. The idea that, you know, he's deeply unpopular or people don't like him or don't want to come uh hear him is just not true. Uh and I can tell you I know my district very very well.

[00:19:22]Uh I know the people in my district very well. Uh the fact is the president has always hovered around 4950% uh approval. Uh and that hasn't changed.

[00:19:35]>> Somebody else who knows that district very well is Ali Vatitali cuz you grew up in that district. Is he wrong or is he in another universe? So, I actually think it's fascinating watching the way that Lawler is campaigning this time around because I've covered him since he came into office. And the district is a swing district. This is one that's going to be a bellweather for us in a really fascinating way. But I actually think that all of you are right in that you're right about the fundraising advantage that Republicans have so they can do the things that Trump wants in playing in these primaries where they don't necessarily have to. You are right that their bigger problems are not even the fact that Trump is going after other Republicans. It's that he's not focused on affordability. And I think that for someone like Lawler, he will actually win or lose based on the fact that he brought back salt tax deductions to that district. And so there are dollars and cents flowing into that New York congressional district. And the question is, does the fact that he's putting Trump so much forward and other administration officials have been going to that district as well? Does that help him or do people remember, okay, around tax season I had a little more money in my pocket, but I'm also paying way more at the gas pump. I think that's going to be an interesting bell weather as it always is. But the affordability thing is central in that New York district.

[00:20:44]>> Distinguished twain alumni Ali needs to be Kart's office mate and distinguished >> Dr. Kart fighting jet lag from China. Jeff Mason, thank you so much for joining us this morning. We appreciate it, guys. Still to come inside Tulsi Gabard's surprise resignation as director of national intelligence. Former CIA director John Brandon will join us.

[00:21:09]Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is leaving the Trump administration. She resigned Friday, citing her husband's battle with an aggressive form of bone cancer. She will remain in her post as the nation's intelligence chief until June 30th. In a social media post, President Trump announced Aaron Lucas, Gabbard's deputy, would serve as acting director of national intelligence. It marks the end of a tenure that saw Gabbard, former Democratic congresswoman who ran for president in 2020, largely sidelined from the Trump administration's national security operations, including the capture and ousting of Venezuelan leader Nicholas Maduro earlier this year and the ongoing war in Iran, where she held a different position than the president.

[00:21:55]Gabbard's tenure also increased the politicization of the intelligence community as she focused on an investigation into the results of the 2020 election that Trump lost, including an appearance at the FBI search of an election center in Fulton County, Georgia in January. We're joined now by John Brennan, former CIA director and MS Now senior national security analyst.

[00:22:18]Director Brennan, thank you for joining us this morning. I guess just to sort of set the table for us to start the conversation. I mean, how unusual was it for you to see Tulsi Gabbard kind of intimately involved? And and you know, this is a job that is supposed to be someone who who tracks and combats foreign adversaries against the nation.

[00:22:42]um be involved in these domestic issues, not just domestic issues, but sort of uh falsely based investigations into the 2020 election and a push to try to seize our voting machines and investigate them.

[00:22:58]>> That was highly unusual and inconsistent with the roles and responsibilities of the director of national intelligence.

[00:23:03]The DNI does have a responsibility to publish assessments of foreign interference in our elections and that is on the analytic front but it has no responsibility on the operational front, the collection front and especially not on the domestic front in terms of seizing these you know election related materials, equipment u voting equipment and so therefore I think everybody was quite surprised at at it whether she was in Georgia, Puerto Rico or other places and uh I don't think that she has won any friends within the administration over the past, you know, year and a half because she has done things that very much have been at odds with what the administration is interested in. She published this video of a nuclear annihilation that Donald Trump was upset at and very inconsistent with what was the message that he was trying to get out.

[00:23:53]>> Let's talk let's talk a little bit about those contradictions. Here's some sound from testimony in March where she was just on the exact opposite of where Donald Trump was. Let's play that.

[00:24:05]>> They're working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America.

[00:24:10]>> The IC assesses that Iran has previously demonstrated space launch and other technology it could use to begin to develop a militarily viable ICBM before 2035.

[00:24:21]Should Tyrron attempt to pursue that capability, >> their terrorist leaders are gone.

[00:24:26]or counting down the minutes until they will be gone.

[00:24:30]>> The IC assesses that the regime in Iran appears to be intact but largely largely degraded.

[00:24:37]>> So there's so much of this where you know the her the reason she's leaving, right? The reason she say she's leaving because of her husband and and his battle with cancer. But at the same time, there has been a watch on whether or not she when she was going to leave because of the back and forth. She is ideologically unaligned with a lot of the things that Donald Trump has been doing, especially when it comes to Iran.

[00:25:01]>> Yeah. Her public statements before she became director of national intelligence where she was condemning foreign military adventures of the party of the United States and also pointing out that there were previous plans to invade Iran. Uh and so therefore I think her her ideological views were very much inconsistent with where this administration is going. But also I think she really lost favor with this administration which was demonstrated by her not being a part of the discussions.

[00:25:28]Uh she was not in the room. She would not go strange.

[00:25:31]>> Right. Well yes because the relationship between the director of CIA and the director of national intelligence really is critically important. They need to get along and it's clear that John Radcliffe had the inside track in terms of his ability to influence the White House thinking and policy discussions.

[00:25:46]while Tulsi Gabbard was more interested in doing things that were again inconsistent with what the traditional role of the DNI has been and and clearly she was irritating folks I think at the White House. So there's no love lost right now in terms of her decision to depart. Obviously we're our thoughts and best wishes are with her husband. But I it just shows that she had no real in inclination to do what a DNI is supposed to do which is orchestrate the 18 intelligence agencies and take care of some of the management issues. Whether you're talking about the budget, you're talking about IT interconnectivity, you're talking about the, you know, adoption of different technologies.

[00:26:22]These are the behind the-scenes roles and responsibilities that are not sexy and clearly she was not interested in it.

[00:26:27]>> Um, you know, maybe a lot of the things she was doing was inconsistent with her with her jobs because she was doing things she was hope would hope she hoped would save her job. You know, we've been talking about this about her standing within the administration and whether she was going to be gone or fired or leave for a year. Politico headline from June 17th, 2025. Inside Trump and Gabbard. Um, in recent months, Trump has increasingly mused about nixing Gabbard's office completely. An idea he floated when he gave her the job. In the White House, there have been discussions about folding its mandate into the CIA or another agency. You're the former director of the CIA CIA. Would that make sense to fold the DNI into the CIA or another agency? Just do away with the DNI altogether? Well, until the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004 basically separated out from the director of CIA, the community role and the director of CIA role. Until then, there was one person and it was a CIA director who's in charge of the community, but it's too much. I ran the CIA. I know that it's a more than a full-time job. And you need to have somebody who is going to be able to look out at those agencies and again orchestrate this this symphony of you know so tremendous capabilities across many different departments and agencies.

[00:27:48]So no I don't think it's a good idea. Is the was the legislation perfect? No. But I think there is this role for community management which is what in fact the DNI is supposed to do. So I I'm not in favor at all of consolidating those jobs once again.

[00:28:03]>> All right. John Brennan, former director of the CIA as always. Thank you for coming to the weekend. When we come back, the latest on Donald Trump's deja vu all over again Groundhog Day style of diplomacy. You're watching renewed confusion about the status of the Iran war this Memorial Day weekend. President Trump is remaining at the White House as he considers his next moves in Iran. The New York Times reports he met yesterday morning with sec defense secretary Pete Hexth in what appeared to be a review of military options for potentially resuming the US bombing campaign. It comes as negotiations over an end to the war continued to stall. Earlier this week, President Trump said he'd cancelled a military strike on Iran planned for Tuesday to allow more time for talks. And yesterday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio touted what he called slight progress in talks with Iran.

[00:28:58]Meanwhile, Iran is also in conversations with Oman, a US ally, about a system for charging fees for vessels passing through the straight of Hormuz. But Secretary Rubio said that would be unacceptable.

[00:29:13]Iran is trying to create a tolling system. They're trying to convince Oman, by the way, to join them in this tolling system in an international waterway.

[00:29:20]There is not a country in the world that should accept that. I don't know of a country in the world that's in favor of it except Iran. It can't happen. If that were to happen in the Straits of Warmuz, it will happen in five other places around the world. Why would countries all over the world say, "Well, we want to do this, too."

[00:29:35]>> Joining us now, Becca Waser, defense lead at Bloomberg Economics and a former staff member on the Commission on the National Defense Strategy. Becca, welcome to the weekend. Okay, you may have noticed my intonation in in the in the introduction there. We're we're talking about Iran. Well, the United States and Iran are not talking or there might be some talks, but Oman and Iran are talking. Can you explain the significance of Oman now entering the chat at this point? Well, Oman's actually always been in the chat, but really what is happening now is they're looking to maybe codify the idea of tolls in the straight of Hormuz. And in order to actually enact that, Iran needs Oman on side. And that really means that there's on the other side of the other side of the straight. And that means that not only would Iran be able to exact a toll, but there's this idea that maybe Oman would also be charging a toll and that could be part of an international good. We have heard in the past President Trump say that he believes that perhaps maybe the US would also do joint tolling with Iran and extract some concessions as well. And if that were to occur, it would most likely be through Oman. Can we stay on this because I I have heard from my diplomatic sources that any sort of toll is a non-starter when it comes to negotiations >> um from the Saudis, from UAE that after decades and decades, I don't know how long of a a free and open waterway that there is no way they're suddenly going to start working with Iran to transport anything in and out of the region. I mean, this is essential to frankly what has been a public good. This idea of the free flow of commerce through waterways around the world. And so, if there were to be the start of a toll, the start of something that codifies Iran's control, that has a potential domino effect elsewhere. And I think that's incredibly important for everyone to note because so much of US military power has been undergurtded by this idea of having the free and open commerce and the freedom of the seas and this would change that significantly. One of the things many of the things that have have caused the issues that we're seeing is the back and forth on the biggest aspects of whatever ceasefire agreement would actually if it was a real ceasefire um would stick right there's the tolls there is the capacities of Iran where Donald Trump says they have 18 to 19% but all the reporting says that 70% of missiles um pre-war. There's also the early war goals which was to install one of the former presidents who is quote hardline anti-Israel and anti-American views um into it. It just feels like it's all over the place. And when you talk about, you know, the deja vu aspect of it, like there is the the there seems like they went into this halfcocked. And as someone who has been in these rooms, had these conversations, what are you gleaning from where we are 3 months into this war?

[00:32:47]>> I mean, where are we 3 months into this war? It is largely purgatory. We are in neither war nor peace. And I think somewhat of that is these mismatched goals. And I think there it's been a conflation of strategic objectives and military goals. And you hear that miss.