Poverty and Inflation Crush Americans as Trump Sends Billions to War and Israel

Stephen Sour, thank you very much for coming on. So, the reason I'm so excited to talk to you is because it's hard to find anyone who pays attention to the numbers. It's easy to find people with opinions and sweeping theories about this that or the other, the rise and fall of nations. But to find someone who actually keeps track of what we're spending on this or that or what people think about this or that as recorded in public opinion polling, pretty hard actually. And you are probably the most famous person who keeps track. So, thank you very much for doing this. So, let me just ask you, let's start with the Iran war and it's popularity. So, like democracy kind of demands if you're going to do big things that you've got public buy in because you're doing it on the behalf of the public reportedly. How is this war viewed by the public in the United States? >> It's the most unpopular war since polling began. >> Really? >> Yeah. Yeah. first poll according to this joint poll that was that's been conducted on a near weekly basis since the start of the war through the present by the economist in Yuggov they've pulled Americans on whether the Iran war has been the right decision or the wrong decision. It started at negative net 13% net support which means that 13% more uh people 13 percentage points more people opposed the war than supported it. So most Americans oppose the war the day it started >> from the jump 13 percentage point. ask you to stop there is that's I mean that itself is unusual right cuz if memory serves when wars start with fireworks

and flags and all that most people are kind of all in >> right it's sort of cathartic at the beginning >> exactly >> but then it wears off over time and all wars Tucker get more unpopular over time even World War II uh which started off with something crazy like 95% you know 95% support something like that >> but over >> but even the Iraq war in 2003 >> yeah that started off at I believe plus 40% or something. >> Is that true? Wow. I forgot that. Okay. >> Um and the Afghanistan war even higher. And of course those have tumbled down over time. >> Oh yeah. >> Um but the point is that all US wars, major wars since World War II have started with positive net support. The Iran war is the only one that has started at a negative number in terms of net support. And over time it's only gotten more unpopular. So, at the time of we're having this conversation, according to the latest data, it's at -35 net support. >> -35. >> Yeah. And for context, that makes it the most unpopular war ever.

>> I bet I'm not an epidemiologist, but I bet there are diseases with higher ratings than that. >> Yeah, I I would assume so. I mean, it's it's a near universally unpopular policy. And even if you look at there's always uh you know additional related Iran war questions on this poll that you know you don't get from the summary sheet. You have to actually dig through the the data looking at the individual questions and the responses is that even if you um even among the people who still support the war it was the right decision about half of them want it to end as quickly as possible. So they won't really admit that it was the wrong decision but that say like should we end it as quickly as possible? Yes, absolutely. I love this. I hope it's over soon. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. >> I really think it was a great decision. Can it end? We needed it to end yesterday. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Okay. Well, that's really interesting.

Um I sense that. I mean, I you know, I I strongly uh felt that myself, but I was also surprised by how little effort the administration meant went to to sell it ahead of time. Like usually these things are the product of a long runup, a roll out. >> Yeah, there was a steady buildup of military assets, but they didn't they didn't prime the Trump administration didn't prime the press. They didn't square the UN in the same way that the Bush administration did in the runup to Iraq. to my knowledge it seemed even though there was this you know one or two monthl long buildup and then there was you know the last June there was the attack um by the US on Iranian nuclear facilities I believe on uh June 21st 2025 >> that's correct >> and then there's of course that that history that had built up and then of uh Benjamin Netanyahu the Israeli PM lobbyed the White House famously in I believe January uh actually in February They met in uh early January, I believe, Trump and Netanyahu. And then in February after a briefing with Netanyahu, Trump decided to go to war and the US was at war a couple weeks later.

>> But during this during this whole time, there was no real concerted effort to get people on board. And because over time the US presidents have an enormous amount of latitude to just basically go to war outside of congressional opinion, outside of a congressional approval rather as required by law and they find legal justifications to kind of work their way around it. And the worst part is Congress really for the most part isn't interested in holding isn't interested in constraining presidential decisions. So why the US went to war with Iran? Multiple reasons we can discuss, but I think one of the main reasons was there's nothing stopping it, right? >> There's no institutional push back from Congress, which is even from the opposition party, there was >> So Chuck Schumer hasn't demanded a congressional resolution declaring war on Iran, even though we've been in war with Iran since February 28th.

>> They've they've they've introduced a lot of war powers resolutions. What the problem I have with Democrats among them among many is they refuse to take on the budgets that enable wars in the first place. >> Exactly. >> So we have all these symbolic votes of non-binding resolutions that would ostensively order Trump to withdraw all troops from the Middle East who are engaged in hostilities with Iran. But Democrats are very excited for a very select number of of of Democrats. And then on the opposite side, a very small an even smaller number of Republicans who are actually willing to take on the military budget. So I think Democrats realize there's a lot of currency um and there's a lot of um political capital to be gained by coming across as anti-war. So they'll speak out about it >> and they'll say they're anti-war, but they'll vote for the budgets that enable war in the first place. >> So let's talk about that budget. um the the defense budget or I guess now it's called the war budget cuz it's the war department um has grown, you know, at higher than the rate of inflation, which is saying a lot. So where are we now on the on the defense budget?

>> We're at 1.1 trillion. That's the enacted budget for fiscal year 2026, which which actually ended on September 30th. So we're still at that level through this. It's called a continuing resolution. Just continues the levels. um >> 1.1 trillion. >> Yes, that that's that includes the that's the base budget that's enacted every year plus it's the amount of money that came from the big beautiful bill. There's about 150 billion in military funding in the big beautiful bill, the the first reconciliation bill passed in believe July 2025 under the Trump the second Trump administration. >> So I too little attention is paid to this. So 1.1 trillion. So that's by far the largest piece of the discretionary budget. I mean nothing even comes close. That's the majority of the discretionary budget as far as I know. >> Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's I mean every year the budget that Congress votes on military spending occupies more than half of it. >> Yeah. >> Right. So the rest being the what we call entitlements or things that just keep going until the government goes back. >> The discretionary budget is the the one that u the Congress votes on every year and then entitlement spending the mandatory spending as it were.

>> Automatic. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yep. the um stuff that operates basically as trust funds that keeps going regardless of you know whether the government is operating or whether we're experiencing a shutdown is a is a separate amount that's um that goes on automatically as you said but then there's 12 funding bills that Congress approves every year to fund >> the federal agencies that basically keep the government going and of that amount military spending is is over half of it and if you look at all US government spending in a given year military spending if you include the mandatory resources included, you're getting to about a third. And if you include um uh like militarized uh domestic security like domestic security apparatuses it's and the proportionate uh responsibility each of those has to the national debt then you're talking about like um um the largest component of of US spending every year is on war and policing effectively.

>> Yeah. How's that going? Well, so actually how is it going? So 1.1 trillion. And as far as I know, we can't get our fabled aircraft carriers anywhere near the Iranian coast. We can't secure passage of shipping through the straight. We can't keep the Red Sea open. We can't subdue the Houthis, who are we told this like primitive got chewing tribe in the mountains of Yemen. So like what exactly is this money going to? If you can't beat the Houthis with $1.1 trillion, try not to use profanity here. What what is this for? Uh well, one one way to answer that question is that more than half of the annual military budget goes to for-profit contractors. Most of us have been raised to believe that the only path to success in this country is to go to some college and then spend your life behind a desk. But of course, that's a lie. America needs people who know how to do things, how to build and sustain things, the infrastructure of our country, for example. And that's why our partners at Defend CellCam are launching a new program to award $150,000 to American workers across the country. The money will help hardworking people pursue careers in the trades that this nation needs to thrive and survive.

Defense business success makes the blue collar scholar program possible. When you buy a Defend Camera, you're helping support the next generation of tradesmen. Plus, you get a Defend camera, which is the best. There are a few better ways to keep your family and your property safe. Visit defendscellam.com/workforce to learn more about this. Apply or nominate a bluecollar scholar yourself. And if you're picking a camera, use the code Tucker to save 20%. But for 1.1 trillion, you could just buy Yemen. >> You No, I'm serious. You could buy the country, which apparently I've never been. >> Yeah, the military budget is large. I mean, it's larger than the economies of a lot of countries >> of most countries. $1.1 trillion. Yeah, it's there's no African country with a $1.1 trillion >> GDP. So like why wouldn't you just why wouldn't you buy Yemen? Like what is the point here? Is it to enrich Boeing? Is that to me it's it's if you want to look at it through a lens of okay how the military industrial complex operates. It gets an enormous amount of money through the annual military budget. That money flows into obviously profits and shareholders and executive pay. the executives at the top weapons manufacturers who get the majority of their revenue from the US government make 20 million $30 million a year. Um and these are basically public firms statistically speaking and most of their money comes from taxpayers. Um but they're allowed to profit like like >> they're making $30 million a year.

>> Yeah. Top executives are Yeah. Boeing, Loheed, General Dynamics, North of Grumman, Loheed Martin. >> Wow. might have said that already, but then a portion of that revenue is recycled back into the political system through lobbying, through campaign contributions, and through an underrated method of influence is the funding of think tanks in Washington DC. Oh, >> I've noticed. >> Which gives them who produce reports that are not, you know, objectively PR material, but they they fall within a certain spectrum that is allowable for the arms industry. So it gives arms industry interests a sort a sort of academic or technocratic gloss that it wouldn't otherwise have through lobbying or campaign contributions. Makes it easier to justify. >> So you send money to AEI or Heritage or Brookings. >> I'll give you an example. So CSIS, Center for Strategic International Studies, is a very establishmenty think tank. I think like Henry Kissinger was on the board there at some point or whatever. and it's bipartisan of course um and it develops Iran war cost estimates in an intelligent way. Their re their research is actually well grounded but they will sound the alarm when it comes to war costs related to US munitions expenditures. So raising that alarm and

again it's just justifiably so. The US has burned an enormous amount of munitions in Iran. That helps create a demand to buy more weapons as the war itself has. >> But they will also It's like you need new toner cartridges. >> Yes. Yes. >> You've bought the hardware, but the actual profit is on the toner cartridges, the oil changes, the munitions, the stuff that you have to keep buying. And they really uh and my main pet peeve in this sort of national security intellectualism that happens in the in the in DC is they turn political problems into technocratic or technical problems waiting to be solved. So the US is experiencing a shortfall in missile interceptors. Interceptors are missiles that shoot down other missiles. Yes, everyone I think is aware of at this at this point. But the US has burned such burned such vast quantities of these interceptors during the Iran war that has created a shortfall and subsequently a PR nightmare for the for the Trump administration and and and the people in Congress who support the war. Now um the obvious solution to the interceptor problem is to look at the main cause of why we've run low in the first place which is the war. Instead, we're getting these very >> Wait, so pointless wars are tough on your munition stockpiles. Is that what you're saying, >> Tucker? It turns out that that to be the case. I know this is shocking to some people, but we're getting these 12 You have a PhD. How'd you know that?

>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. I I just Yeah. It was just years of intensive study, but the important is like people who do have PhDs are are developing these, you know, 20page reports on how to replenish the stock piles, but not really calling for an explicit end to the Iran war. So they're just saying really tinkering around with like oh m uh production schedules and yeah like can how how can we increase the year yearly production capacity from the projected 650 Patriot interceptors in fiscal year 2027 to get it to 750 and how do we invest in the solid rocket uh supplier base and how do we get the critical minerals we need to accelerate production like what are you talking about? we have a problem that is caused by war. And if your first recommendation isn't to stop that war, I just I just can't take that seriously. So that's the kind of that's the kind of analysis you get when even when it comes to like a very narrow subject like missile like like rebuilding the inventory. >> So this is part of their lobbying budget. Lock like Lockheed for example, it's just to pick one would spend you know it's the money it gets from the government building the weapons that it has sold to the government of course and employing its workforce and all that but then part of the money would go to lobbying either directly or influence campaigns laundered through so-called think tanks.

>> Yep. Spend money on advertising too. One thing that I've tracked over the years and this is like I run this newsletter called Polygraph on on Substack and I one of the main things that uh I do is I state the obvious but in a very very specific way. So, for example, for every military budget that Congress votes on every year, I compare um the yes and no votes, and I compare how much each respective vote category took from arms industry donors before voting. And lo and behold, as you're totally unsurprised to hear, is that the members of Congress who receive more money from arms companies, military contractors, are more likely to vote for the military budget and military budget increases. >> Oh, wow. Really? >> Yeah. So, >> so there's cause and effect. >> There's at least a correlation. And I I >> Oh, but correlation is not cause >> when people say duh, I said yeah, I'm not surprised either. But you know when we talk about money in politics the first like people say oh like like everyone knows that it's a problem but you know you approach a certain politician about it and they say oh it's it doesn't affect my vote you have no proof about it. It's like here if every year I'm noticing that members of Congress who vote for a military spending increase take three to five times more arms industry cash than members opposed to military spending increases. Then we've moved the conversation away. We're suddenly for

people who care about the the effect of money and politics. We're suddenly now on the offensive because now members of Congress have to say, "Okay, this correlation exists now." So, and you're part of this group who on average takes three to five times more money from the companies that profit from war and you've just voted for a record amount of military spending. >> Well, yeah, especially considering the use of these weapons. I mean, it's one thing if we're defending the homeland against a ground invasion from Paraguay or something or any, you know, defend the homeland. Got it. Fine. But these are like totally pointless wars disconnected from America's national interest in which unarmed civilians, kids get killed cuz why it there's like no justification for any of it. It's like repulsive. Yeah. Morally, I I mean, I'm not going to I don't come to be a moral authority. I can tell you how much it costs though. I can tell you as someone who's followed these costs, it's incredibly taxing on the conscience.

>> Well, can I just ask too, unless I'm misunderstanding, you're saying that some of these maybe all these weapons manufacturers derive most of their income and profits from the taxpayer. >> The major ones. Yes. So for example, Loheed Martin last year or a couple years ago received I think uh 73% of its income from DoD contracts and then even more from US government brokered sales to foreign countries. So all in all, when you combine the amount of um revenue that Loheed Martin received from government contracts plus the arms deals that were executed through the arranged and executed through the US government, you're talking about a company through which you know 97% of their revenue is tied to policy. They're just working for US taxpayers who are their customer, their only real customer right? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> What you're saying is they're taking taxpayer money and using it to lobby taxpayers for more taxpayer money.

>> This is how military be. >> How is that allowed? >> So they take if I don't pay my taxes, I go to jail. >> So they're taking money from me at gunpoint, the majority of my income because I'm not in private equity and I pay labor tax just like everyone else does >> on wages. And so the majority of my money goes to the government by force and then the government sends that to people who lecture and lobby me and my elected representatives to take more of the money. Like how is that a fair system? >> That's a question you can ask, you know, in a lot of sectors as well. The difference is >> in a lot that's right. Thank you that because that is true what you're saying. It's not just sector. But the one thing that's that's special to this sector is that we're not talking this is a state-run economy, right? Because I mean it's when we talk about the US arm industry, it's it's primarily it's a socialized system. It's top down. It's it's about state planning. It's about delegation. It's about contracts. And members of Congress really like it because they can they have with their districts they have their own little FFT where they can direct you know government contracts uh how they like depending on you have to usually hire lobbyists for this and they they write legislation a certain way. So that narrows down the the list of eligible companies that can bid on a contract and then you kind of you you work you work your legislative magic to alter the text in the bills so that you're given a very

high chance that one company is be able is going to be able to carry out a certain project and you know that company has links to your district as a member of Congress. So ship building in Maine and Mississippi, munitions in Tennessee, aerospace in California. It's like every state, every congressional district has a piece of this, correct? >> Yeah. Yeah. And through this process called, it's either called like political engineering or geographic engineering that these arms companies deliberately spread out their assets to touch quote unquote all as many congressional districts as possible. So when lobbyists say get together to um uh keep afloat a dying and deeply fraudulent project like um the latoral combat ship which was uh eventually just killed off in in the last couple years. in the early teens is had a huge problematic history and there was this huge lobbying effort in the early in the mid20s to you know keep funding going to this very problematic ship even though it had tons of technical flaws. There was literally a crack developing in the halls of the ship cuz they were made of aluminum and not steel. Um and this massive amount of technical problems that this ship was just never going to deliver and is obvious. But there's this huge lobbying effort where uh a group of lobbyists organized this lobbying effort where um I'm going to slip into the first person here cuz I was a part of this lobbying

effort where we organized all of the suppliers, the contractors, and the subcontractors involved in the production of this um what John McCain called the little crappy ship, the LCS. and we just developed a map and this huge spreadsheet of all the different areas that um projects were related to and how many people employed. So when we went to congressional offices to lobby for this project, there was eventually like in the white paper that we provided like a a you know a uh some sort of national security justification usually that we just grabbed from an arms industry funded think tank and then but the real line was like okay and at the bottom was just like and by the way it this this uh this company employs 550 people in your district. >> Well anyone who uses Cozy Earth will tell you the exact same thing. It's been a gamecher. It's wild. The night's getting cooler. Creating an extremely comfortable space on your bed and couch is a very good thing. Cozy Earth is here to make it happen. Their bubble cuddle blanket. Precisely what it sounds like.

How could you not sleep well in one of those? It's really hard not to sleep well. In fact, your kids might wind up physically fighting over gets to use it. You should know that. Cozy Earth sheets are also designed to keep you cool and comfortable all night, preventing you from overheating or kicking off the comforter 2 in the morning. Waking up hot and confused. Overheating at night means a miserable sleep. But Cozy Earth solves that problem. Head over to cozyearth.com. Use code Tucker for up to 20% off home and sleepwware. That's cozyearth.com. Code Tucker. When prompted at checkout, be sure to tell them that you heard about Cozyear right here on this show. >> Wait, so you were a lobbyist for this? So you're like a whistleblower basically. >> Uh, no. I was a very small part. I um it's a very small cog in the machine but I gained enough understanding to I gained enough knowledge to get an understanding of how the system works. Were from your exposure to the system from the inside were people um cynical about it? Did they think that what they were producing these armaments were going to make the world better or was that not part of it? I did get the feeling that they were that some people I asked about especially towards the end because I I mean uh towards towards the end obviously I devel I figured out who I was and was basically just morally opposed to this through and through but when the subject came up when I tried to bring it up indirectly there I got the sense that a lot of people were talking themselves

into a moral high ground that didn't exactly exist and the stuff that they were saying was less at me and more like re like reaffirmations for them. Yeah. >> I'm good enough. I'm smart enough and dog on people like me. >> Yeah. Yeah. There was that there's a sense of uh entitlement. There's a sense of um but also a moral component too. That was just it was odd to see and to >> you know Stephen the world needs 2,000 lb bombs. >> Yes. Yes. Has to. And we're we're helping, you know, we're helping delivering savings to the taxpayer by, you know, helping the F-35 stay funded even though it has tons of problems. But yeah, there's there's a lot of >> How interesting. Well, I think it makes you much more credible that you have experience from the inside watching all this. >> Yeah. Trained by the best. >> Um, so this defense budget 1.1 trillion, that seems way higher than I remember it.

>> Yeah. Yeah. So in 2021 the military budget was 741 billion. This is in I'm just going to say in nominal terms because this is how you know Congress remembers these things but a little bit higher if you adjust for inflation. Much higher but over time I mean by the time well that was when when Biden entered office and then when he left it was I think it was close it was like 850 or something. So it increased over during the course of the Biden administration before him it increased under Trump. Um, it increased under the first term of Obama, then went down. But pretty much since 2015 or 2016, the military budget has gone upward pretty much every year, even after accounting for inflation. >> So basically everything Eisenhower warned about has come true. The defense industrial >> Yeah. Eisenhower >> establishment has just eaten the country. >> Yeah. Eisenhower was worried about basically the war machine becoming sentient. like this collection of this collection of interest would sort of not necessarily like >> execute corruption in kind of like the you know backfield you know smoke filled rooms and cash table although that that happens but it's it's more about like creating the conditions where >> Capitol Hill is just operating in its own world it's insulated from the interests of everyone else and when you know >> we ideologies are here to we we've all got ideologies you and I have them of of course, but when you start mixing in profit interests to decisions about

especially war and peace and people's security, I have a bit of a problem with that. I have a massive problem with that, of course, especially when it's not even working. It's not even achieving your stated aims, >> right? >> Whether I mean whether or not I agree with those aims, which I don't, but even if I did, I would say, okay, it's fair to measure your performance by the standards that you articulated. we have the greatest military in the world. It can do this, but you haven't done it. So, like, what's your explanation? >> Right? It's one of these cases that we're going to hear this more and more from Trump administration officials like like Pete Pete Hagath, for example, that oh, it's Congress that's not letting us win the war. It's like, no, no, no, no. We haven't even accomplished the military objectives that that were laid out. Like, Iran is still able to project power across its borders. Like, congrats. You've beat up on a country that has the GDP of, you know, Kentucky or Illinois or something like that. But it's still a it it controls the straight of Hormuz for the most part. Uh it's still able to project power outside of its borders. And whenever the cost of the Iran war is is brought up in any sense, the rebuttal is okay, well this war is about preventing Iran from getting the nuclear weapon. So, you know, how much would you pay to for Iran to not have the nuclear weapon? Which is a false which is a false question. It's it's patently absurd because one, it requires someone to believe that this war won't actually make Iran's interest in acquiring a nuclear weapon more

likely, which I think it would. I mean, if I were them, I mean, it would definitely heighten my interest in acquiring. >> Iran's getting a nuke. >> And by the end of this, there will be nothing we can do about it, >> right? And maybe at that point, we'll find it in ourselves to actually be honest negotiators to negotiate, you know, an arms control agreement. But >> we had a war in June of 2025 that we were told ended their capacity to create nuclear weapons, >> right? >> And of course, those of us who are watching carefully knew it had nothing to do with nuclear weapons, and neither did the subsequent regime change effort that followed it. All of it was a lie. Nothing to do with Iran's nuclear weapons. They didn't have a nuclear program that was close to producing a nuclear weapon, and they didn't have the means to deliver it. They had no ICBMs. The whole thing was a joke. There's really a reliance on the Trump administration and Trump administration officials to it's a performative war in a sense where people aren't expected to gauge his su success or failure based on on political outcomes but just actions that the US takes. Like for Pete Hegath, he expects people to just be enamored with the use of force and violence and derive some sort of, you know, value from it or entertainment when people are most people are morally opposed to that sort of thing unless it's absolutely absolutely necessary and actively undermining their material

interests at home. Because this war is it's it's for the average person. It's it's it's morally repugnant. It's a betrayal of the campaign promises that Trump ran on and it's also just in a material sense making their lives worse both as a consumer because they're paying for higher gas prices and higher prices for everything as a result of the inflationary war spike but also as taxpayers as well cuz they're on the hook for um the bill that the Trump administration is about to send taxpayers for the war. So the bureaucracy of our banking system makes running a small business a lot harder than it should be. When entrepreneurs need capital, traditional banks drag them through weeks of red tape and paperwork. It's highly frustrating if you've done it. Working with Cardiff is totally different. Cardiff is America's favorite small business lender because it's built specifically for independent business owners who move at a very fast pace. Cardiff has loaned over $12 billion to small businesses across the country, cutting out the delays that big banks inherently put in the way. With Cardiff, there is no long wait. If your business has been open for at least a year and makes at least 20 grand a month in revenue, that's revenue, not profit, then you can get up to $500,000 in same day funding. It's that fast. Cardiff's online application takes 3 minutes.

There's no impact on your credit score. You just get to see your options and you get approved and funded before the workday ends. So, we are not and would never encourage people to go into debt, but there's no way to run a business without borrowing money. Just a fact. Skip the legacy bank delays and get up to $500,000 in save day capital right now at cardiff.co/tucker. That's cardiff.co.co/tucker. Real growth fastfunding. Cardiff borrow better. So, let's discuss that. Let's discuss the totality of the cost. And you I think you just named the big drivers of the cost. It's not simply the defense budget or whatever additional funding they're going to require to backfill all the munitions that they blew doing what. I'm not sure. But it's also the cost in inflation. Uh what summarize and then dig into if you would the costs. >> So I pay attention to the narrow set of costs called direct war costs which are the immediate budgetary expenses from the war that the US is on the hook for.

The broader costs, the indirect war costs refer to the costs to the economy. So, there was a Moody's analysis, I think, that that found that the average household paid $2,000 more as a result of the war due to mostly due to inflation, higher fuel costs, and that sort of thing. I pay attention to the numbers that uh the Pentagon is supposed to faithfully report and the US government is supposed to faithfully report regarding the war's current costs. Um, especially the Pentagon, but the Pentagon has refused to provide those numbers. That's they provide a topline number. That's dubious. The most detail they've provided, at least publicly, is a summary table, which left a lot of stuff out. It didn't count the cost of replacing bases, for example. It didn't count the cost of moving money around in the Pentagon budget to pay for war operations that would have gone to something else or would have gone unused. So that has opened up the space for um independent analysts to uh assess the cost of the Iran war. And for the first 60 days of the Iran war, I estimated that it cost 72 billion in direct cost between operations between replacing the munitions that were expended damage to US military bases and military aid to uh Israel. So, taking those costs into account, I arrived at 72 billion for the first uh 60 days.

Then then the next month, um the Trump administration requested an $87 billion supplemental funding bill, which is uh literally money supplemental to the main budget that Congress approves every year for Iran, mostly for Iran war related expenses. And according to the KO Institute and others people who have who have you know read the bill, this is the number I arrived at, it also included 72 billion for war related costs. Um and then for the next estimate I had over the for 120 days I arrived at uh 103 billion and then uh a week later there were two reports from NBC and Wired that internal Pentagon estimates had the war at around 100 billion as well. So by this point I'm feeling very pleased with myself because I had you know you know had a number that was then corroborated with you know uh the amount that the administration requested for the war and then that was coming from um you know internal Pentagon assessments through just you know the rank and file people who do the budget work there. But then last month or in September, the Congressional Budget Office came out with their report on the cost of the Iran war and they arrived at 38 billion.

An extremely low number. >> 38 billion. Shockingly low. So the Congress and it became the authoritative war cost estimate because the Congressional Budget Office is a technocratic group that's nonpartisan. its job is to just to it's to assess the cost of legislation that Congress passes in various proposals and policies and that sort of thing. And because of that, they have, you know, because of their technocratic remitt on just, you know, crunching numbers and their nonpartisan status, the Warcross system was was treated as genuine. But when I went through this, I mean, Tucker, I mean, the mistakes that were made in their support is is is were just shocking. just basic matters of fact. For example, it put as uh under the equipment losses, it put that the US had lost 24 MQ9 Reaper drones um as of August 1. This is a five-month estimate.

That number came from a Congressional Research Service report published in May that that had that number, 24 losses. But that report was based on a report from CBS from an unnamed US official from the first week of April regarding US war losses. So effectively the CBO for their you know official war cost estimate or part of it took a number of for the number of drone losses took a fivewe estimate for their fivemonth estimate. So what what should the number what should the number of uh you know drone losses should be for MQ9's? If you compare the total aircraft inventory for the Air Force uh total aircraft inventory is this list that's published each year as part of the Air Force budget request. They give the amount that was enacted, their enacted inventory, the number of aircraft they have in each fleet for each respective unit. The amount they have enacted for that year plus the amount that they want to have, you know, active for next year.

In June 2025, as part of their 2026 request, the Pentagon said it had it would have 189 MQ9 drones in its inventory uh at the end of fiscal year 2026. The next year, this past April, they said that therefore said that the enacted amount was down to 165. So that explains the 24 drone difference. But in May, an Air Force general testified before a Senate subcommittee and said the air the the MQ9 fleet due to wartime losses was down to 135. So or roughly 135. So either way, we're looking at an estimate for at least for MQ9 drones that is 100% off. It should have been twice as much as was. Did anybody else? So, so CBO comes, Congressional Budget Office comes out with this $ 38 billion estimate for the cost of war and it's of course dutifully repeated by every news organization. I mean, that's the point of CBO numbers is to get reporters to >> tell the public that they're real. Did anybody reverse engineer it like you did?

>> To my knowledge, no. >> Right. So, you're just like one guy in Pittsburgh is like, let's look at how they got to this number. and you find out it's 100% off just on in this one category, one kind of drone. >> And I should say this that for the most part CBO and I were working with the same amount of resources because as CBO notes in its report, the Pentagon didn't cooperate with their, you know, estimate. So CBO asked for numbers from the Pentagon, but the Pentagon just refused to provide those numbers. >> How is it its own country? It gets to act independently. >> I suppose so. And and from people I talked to on the hill, it's that the Pentagon I got two two types of answers. One was that the Pentagon does this all the time. And the second version was the Pentagon has done this in the past and it's also worse than it's ever been in terms of stonewalling other agencies from access. >> Congress is just like in full cuck mode, like no self-respect whatsoever. >> The Pentagon has never passed an audit. I mean, federal agencies were required in the mid90s to pass an audit to be able to produce accurate financial documents. And in the private sector, you go to a CEO of a private sector firm who does not produce accurate financial records goes to prison.

>> Oh, absolutely. >> So, I'm thinking why not have the same standards for the heads of government agents? >> Well, but also the only enforcement mechanism really is the is the legislative branch, the Congress, the co-equal branch of government, one of three. And if they don't assert that privilege, if they don't use their power, then it just goes away. So like, what's their problem? Why is it so hard for Congress just to like I don't know, use the power it was given by the Constitution to make the country better. >> I think it has a lot to do with what we were discussing earlier about the influence. >> So craven, >> but it also I mean, you know, feel free to edit this out. The list of complaint goes on. And I mean, CBO again under their lists of uh equipment losses, it didn't include an MH60 helicopter that crashed in the Arabian Sea as part of the Iran war operations in early July. Understandable though, it didn't make headlines. It actually did make headlines. I mean, that the crash I mean made headlines like one of the crew members died and there's a search for him. It is, you know, not just, you know, independent media. I mean, it was it was covered by independent media. It was covered in New York Times as well, you know, major organizations as well.

So it got enough press attention. I just detected just a level of effort that I wasn't really happy with. It also refused to assign a cost to the bases that are now, you know, in some cases beyond repair that the US has basically lost and abandoned in the Middle East. We're told that, you know, not to complain about war costs for maintaining this uh, you know, this archipelago of bases across the Middle East. Not we're told it's in the interest of our security and that not to complain about the cost of maintaining them and conducting operations from them because it's, you know, provides, you know, immeasurable economic benefits, but when we lose one of those bases, we can't even write off the cost, which just strikes me as a bizarre choice. It also didn't CBI didn't al didn't bother asking about the cost to other agencies even though you know the state department spent I think around 80 million evacuating personnel across the world and um suffered around 100 million in damaged diplomatic facilities as a result of the war.

But the main reason why I believe that there was such a huge discrepancy between the internal Pentagon budget estimates that were around 100 billion through the first what did I say 120 days than my own which draws around 100 billion is that CBO when it calculates costs for for anything but including war it does so based in relationship to a certain funding baseline. So, it's not measuring how much the US spent on a war, per se. It's measuring how much more the US spent um in comparison to a pre-existing baseline. So, it's how much the Pentagon spent above its normal operating budget. Now, the problem is the normal operating budget. And so, let me back up. Whenever you measure war costs, you you obviously want to separate the the peacetime cost that would have been incurred anyway with the additional costs from the war. Fair enough. I get that and I do that too in my own estimates. The problem is it matters a lot which budget and which funding baseline you choose to represent you know the peacetime budget. So when CBO made its calculation, it was able to write off huge amount of costs because they were quote unquote already included in the DoD budget. And you can see this this is throughout the report. But the amount of money in the DoD budget is

the historical amount. We were just talking about that $1.1 trillion. Yes. Which is the largest since 1945. Um it's on average it exceeds adjusted for inflation the average amount the US spent on its military each year from 1942 to 1945 by about 90 billion. So >> wait, it's more on average per year >> than we spent during World War II? >> Yes. >> Oh, come on. >> Yeah. >> Our current budget >> adjusted for inflation. >> Are you sure? >> Yes. Now granted, the spending during World War II occupied a much greater share of the US economy because the US economy was a lot smaller back then and US had a smaller, you know, population as well. But in terms of terms of, you know, >> inflationadjusted dollars, that's what we're talking about. >> We're spending more now >> than we spent during World War II >> on average from 1942 to 1945. Yeah. And the one point >> those are the war years cuz Pearl Harbor was the very end of 41, >> right? I just want to specify that wasn't including like the lower cost of 1941. Yeah, that's >> but and the proposed budget for next year that Trump proposed is 1.5 trillion.

>> Why have I you've blown my mind? It's it's >> it's because it's it's passed so swiftly with bipartisan appeal >> because the war costs from World War II are very famous. I mean, it had huge effects on the economy at both ends of the war. Of course, those costs like transformed the US economy for generations. Everything about it was just at massive scale. >> Yeah. And I'm not disputing that at all. Like if you measure it as a percentage of GDP, it was it was much higher in World War II cuz, you know, the economy was smaller. So, Christianity began thousands of years ago in what we call the Holy Land. But today, some people would like Christianity to die there. We're talking about the Israeli settler movement. Extremist, violent, dangerous, and very anti-Christian. also supported at the highest levels of the US and Israeli governments. American taxpayers literally pay for Israeli settlers to murder Christians and Americans and attack them. And the Senate, for example, goes out of its way to pretend it's not happening. Senators just voted against disclosure on the killings of nine Americans in the West Bank.

Probably the Senate represents you. Talking about you, Rick Scott of Florida, and many more like you. Well, the Vulnerable People Project is fighting to end these atrocities. The Vulnerable People Project is a Christian movement, sincerely a Christian movement, nonviolent, Jesus focused, that seeks to build a safe home for Christian children in the Holy Land. Place where they will not get attacked and murdered by Israeli terrorists supported by the US Senate. The Catholic pastor in the last all-Christian town in the West Bank has a very simple plan. Create a children's center called Kids Kingdom. It's a place for kids to play, make friends, learn the Bible, and grow in their Christian faith. This shows listeners can make all of that happen. So many appeals you see based on the Holy Land are in fact scams that support anti-Christian violence. But this is not. Your support at save westbankchristians.com will help create a place where these children can thrive in the birthplace of our faith.

Visit savewestbankchristians.com. save westbankchristians.com to help build kids kingdom. Give Christian children a future in the land where Christianity began. >> Well, yeah. I I get it. But like in absolute inflation adjusted dollars, we're spending more now. Even if you take away all the absurd propaganda about World War II and just the cheering for death and all this stuff, but just like just consider the scale of it, like what those dollars achieved between 45 42 and 45. It's kind of crazy how little we're achieving even if you disagree with the goal. >> Yeah. >> With 1.1 trillion, >> right? And these numbers come from the office of management and budget which is the white house office where all these historical records are kept. But even if you look at like I went back when I was doing my my analysis of you know polling data that we discussed earlier about um you know polling since I was looking at you know polling from the 1940s on wars but I also was looking at budget documents too and congressional discourse. And there was the difference between then and now. One of the main things that stood out to me, Tucker, is they the members of Congress re like were openly acknowledging that this is an absurd amount that we're spending. This was during World War II, but it's it's necessary and this is going to be wasteful and after this war

is done, we're going to resend all the money that was approved that was able that was made allowable for agencies to spend that wasn't spent. We're going to take it back. And there was there's um recisions bill is how you do this to resend money you introduce bill that does this and there was you know I think at least one massive one after World War II that took this money back but the difference now is that this is just this is just normal now and this it was reflected in the CBO's estimate by adopting this by adopting this baseline and you know maybe they were locked into maybe they're that's a constraint by CBO that they have to abide by the most recent fiscal year uh you know funding projections and if happens to be the largest military budget since World War II, then okay, so be it. But I'm I'm just saying that when because of that choice, I just feel like their estimate is detached from reality because they're more concerned about abiding to their budget model, which I think was disconnected from reality. So, if you're spending that much money in an agency that has never passed an audit, as you said, and there's no obvious sign of what you're getting at all. Like, it's not like you're paying a World War II size military cuz we're not. The military like in number of personnel is lower.

>> Yeah. >> And the quality is obviously lower in some ways. You could be paying for a lot of stuff that people would have no idea even existed. Like that would be the Pentagon budget's a great place to hide all kinds of projects that >> nothing to do with national defense. >> Oh yeah. Yeah. The Pentagon budget is a great place to hide money intentionally or unintentionally as well. >> And I think the way the way we get this back under control, so the Pentagon has never passed an audit. It's been actually forced to conduct audits over the last seven or eight years. And each year it claims, oh, we've made progress. And they claim that, oh, we're able to account for a slightly higher percentage of our assets and our budgetary resources than the year before, but the number the amount the value of the assets they're unable to account for increases every year because their budget goes up. So even though even if they make progress in terms of the percentage of their budget they're able to account for the objective resources that they're just cannot provide proper documentation for keeps going up. So this was the last time an American general officer um went to jail for corruption. You heard of that happening?

>> No, >> I haven't either. Have you ever heard of the head of a weapons manufacturer going to jail for corruption? >> I haven't heard that either. There ever? Yeah, >> I haven't either. It's kind of weird. That's one of the stories I've never seen. >> Yeah. And I was thinking >> I'm sure there is any with $1.1 trillion a year flowing through the system that's producing results that are so embarrassing. The failure is so obvious that they're literally just like we're going to use nukes cuz there's no other way out. >> That's where they are. And and there's no push and it it's like the it's like uh the decision to go to the war. It's like there's just nothing stopping it. I think if Congress was really interested, if to get the Pentagon to pass an audit, you threaten its budget in a serious way, you cut its budget so it has less stuff to track. Or my preference as a first step is to introduce legislation that's like the Sarbanous Oxley Act for the private sector where CEOs who produced inaccurate financial records would go to prison.

Why not a surveillance oxy act for the Pentagon or other >> I mean just or just apply the you know federal anti-corruption statutes evenly across the board. >> Yeah. >> And you know reform begins with ending corruption. That's like widely understood universally understood. And when the new president of Venezuela, rather El Salvador, took the country from a state of war for 40 years and tried to make it a peaceful modern country, the first thing he did was send his own employees, including his own cabinet ministers, to jail for corruption. Like when they committed corruption, sorry, we're busting you. And that goes a long way. But that's never happened that you know of. >> Wouldn't that be something if the next administration decided to prosecute, you know, Trump and Biden administration officials? Well, just if you commit a crime, I don't know. Why do you get a special pass? I don't really get it. If I commit a crime, I fully expect to go to jail for it. I try not to for that reason. >> Yeah. >> But um H interesting. Okay. Well, that's that's a you've shocked me. Um Huh. So, now to the And I'm sorry, I forgot the category that you had for it. The costs of the war that are not directly related to the congressional appropriations.

>> Yeah. non-budget. So that includes even stuff that is budget related but is longer term like veterans care for example. >> Okay. >> So each person that is each US troop that is killed or disabled just creates a ripple effect of of money which I think is you know obvious I think it's the US should properly compensate you know veterans. >> Yeah it's the deal >> but it's a cost that's not talked about immediately. I mean the best person uh the best resource for this is uh this Harvard professor called Linda Bilz who will probably have a report on this coming out soon but um her and an economist called Joseph Stiglets wrote a very influential book on the cost of the Iraq war called the $3 trillion war. >> Yeah famous book >> that greatly influenced my thinking and my methodological chops. But that that book does a great job in understanding of of explaining of how these costs of just you know just one injury just sets off you know decades of costs. So how many veterans do you know on disability?

>> All of them. Yeah. >> I don't think I've ever met one who was on disability. I'm not begrudging them disability. I'm just saying it's a fact that almost every single person I know who served in the US military is continuing to receive money from the VA. Yeah. Uh, and so that's a huge cost. >> I'm not saying they don't deserve it. I'm not saying it's fraud. I'm just saying it's real. That's all I'm saying. >> Yeah. And it's not talked about. So, and it's it's hard to project, too. Um, but it's a rule of thumb that um I think has been, you know, apparent over time is that the costs of war, current and future costs of war are always underestimated. >> Pretty much everybody's heard of Timothy McVey. According to the official story from the FBI, McVey was the sole terrorist responsible for delivering and setting off the bomb that murdered 168 people in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in April of 95. But that clearly isn't true. Eyewitness accounts overwhelmingly differ from the government's story and have for 30 years. So, we decided to investigate cuz no one else was. Our producers went on the road and talked to more than 100 people directly connected to this case. We talked to McVeyy's top attorney. He shared that McVey himself changed his story repeatedly to match the government's story. Huh. He even failed a polygraph test about whether he had co-conspirators. That co-conspirator might have been a man called John Doe number two. Dozens of people saw this man. He was real and has been for 30 years. Where is he? And what was his

role in this terror attack? And we unpack all of it with firstirhand sources in our new series, The OKC Bomb Files. It's now available at tuckerclson.com. So, what do you think uh those costs are likely to look like if the Iraq war is any guide? >> I mean, in terms of the all-encompassing costs, >> the Iraq war we can say we're saying is 3 trillion. >> No, it's more by this point. That was like the estimate as of 2008. Um, and then it's it's grown since. Now we're in like cost of war project at Brown which does you know fabulous work. They I mean the cost of the you know post 911 wars in several trillion dollars uh more above 3 trillion well above three trillion. I think it's like 6 to 7 trillion. So it's like the cost of these just it's it spirals so quickly and these are you know budgetary costs as well. Again we're not measuring I mean some people are measuring um and rightfully so the cost to consumers. So it's like the cost I was just discussing was was the cost to us as taxpayers but not the cost of consumers. So you know it's kind of a double whammy as far >> what would you do for the country with that much money like maybe it wouldn't be falling apart like it is.

>> Uh yeah uh you could pretty much >> could we have nice airports? >> Yeah. Yeah, you I mean the possibilities are pretty much endless like to like to end you know extreme poverty for a year or you know it's it's like a fraction of that. It's just it's very very shocking. Whenever um a project is proposed that regardless of what it does, if it promises to make the world better, you have to have an enormous amount of research and cost analysis and all this stuff backing it up and you have to, you know, survive. You have to get it through Congress through tons of, you know, political effort and that sort of thing rarely does, you know, happen. But if you're in the, you know, arms industry, what you're promising is the absence of catastrophe. You're basically saying this has to happen for the sake of national security. And as a result, there's just not enough there's just not that much interest or inquiry of whether this stuff act these purchases, this money and the stuff that it buys actually does what it says because it's preventing a catastrophe instead of >> you don't know how bad it could have been.

>> Yeah. There could have been jihadis in bed with you. Like they could be beheading you right now. >> Yeah. If if we didn't >> if we hadn't done what we did. So please say thank you. >> Exactly. Exactly. And if that if that weapon system that we said is protecting you gets destroyed in the Iran war, you can't you can't say it costs anything because it's already in our budget. So, so if you're uh the Pentagon or a member of Congress taking money from the weapons manufacturers, you're the weapons manufacturers themselves and you're paying various think tanks to do intellectual research on issues, you've got a massive incentive to scare the crap out of the entire population at all times, to engender fear in order to receive compliance and money, >> right? And I think I think the defining feature last election and and this one too is about security. But it's not the security that they're selling, the brand of national security, quote unquote national security that they're selling that is believed to be advanced to the use of military force. The security that people feel about is like an uneven terrain that they're on that they are one financial slip up or one axent away from you know they're tight they're tight rope walking over the abyss in terms of their financial security and their food security. Yeah.

>> So that's the security that they're that I think is the most at the forefront of people's minds. So when people say they're concerned about the cost of living and the cost of living has been the top issue among US voters since referring again to the economist in Yugo this polling that they've done for the uh issue that Americans identify as the number one issue they started asking about inflation and prices other words cost of living in July 2022 for the like on a near weekly basis in 116 of the 117 weeks weeks prior to the 2024 election, that was the top issue, inflation in prices. And if you take the monthly aggregate, inflation in prices, cost of living, has been America's top issue since July 2022. It still is. So that's a bad sign for the Trump administration cuz they >> bad sign for sure. And they're about to get punished, I think. But who knows what what'll happen.

>> But it doesn't look good. No, I mean I think I think Republicans will lose in the 202 they'll get punished in the same way Democrats did in 2024 because you know the two main issues that I think have the most political power and most salience among the public are cost of living, economic security if you will, which is one of the dimensions of human security. So that's not national security, but it's like the actual everyday security that people experience like from the main threats that are non-military that that happen to them that that they're or liable to happen to them. So cost of living and then cost of war as well because people view they view the Biden administration as more interested in aiding Israel, arming Israel, fighting wars on Israel's behalf and sending money to Ukraine um for that war than they than the Biden administration was concerned about addressing the cost of living crisis at home. And that's going to be a major factor in the 2026 election.

>> Sadly, they were correct in both cases. Yep. Yep. >> There's no no daylight between the administrations on those two issues. What is the how much do you think the US has sent to Israel in recent years? Do you have a sense of that? There's so much lying on this topic, it's hard to know. >> Yeah, I'm just going to just stall for a bit so people don't think I'm a nerd, but not like I didn't just calculate this, but through 2025, the US has provided $352 billion in aid to Israel since its founding, since the 1950s. 352 billion. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Isn't it the size of New Jersey? >> It has about 9 million people. So, I don't know how big New Jersey is. >> It's the It's physically the size of New Jersey. Smaller population than New Jersey. >> Mhm. And that So, >> that's crazy. >> So, when we talk about the military aid that's provided each year, the number um there's 3.3 billion provided through the State Department budget for called foreign military financing. That's the program. It's basically a gift card for Israel and other countries as well to spend on US weapons. Israel is uniquely allowed to spend some money on its own buying weapons from its own agency using US taxpayer dollars.

>> The US government gives money to Israel and Israel uses that money to buy weapons from American or Israeli manufacturers and we say that's good for the US economy. That's basically >> Yeah. Which I have bit of a problem with. >> Why? If you're interested in It sounds like an electric windmill kind of. We're We're paying to run it. >> If you're interested in creating jobs through public funds, through taxpayer dollars, if you want to get the most bang for your buck, you do pretty much anything besides military spending. It's the absolute worst way to create jobs. >> Run it through another country. Why wouldn't we just send the money to Lockheed then? Like, right? Like what? pretty much are. One stat you brought up the, you know, the economic benefits, I think, or maybe I did, I don't know, but the jobs argument often comes up with with military spending. We saw the saw this a lot with uh the Biden administration with sending their massive amounts of military aid to Ukraine. Oh, the money is being spent here. This is creating US jobs.

The link between more military spending and more jobs is hazy at best. So for example, 1985, the US arms industry employed 3.1 million people. Okay, that was in 1985. In 2021, the arms industry employed 1.1 million people. So a reduction of two million people in in the uh arms industry arms industry private sector arms industry employees. So despite that so there's a 2 million drop in jobs but the military budget went up by 290 billion in real terms from 1985 to 2021. So despite a nearly $300 billion increase in the annual military budget from 1985 to 2021, there was a 2 million drop in arms industry employment. >> Did weapons get that much more expensive or how does that work?

>> Yes, that's part of it. And then another part is just factors that affected every industry um that led to decline of uh manufacturing in the US but also profit driven interests as well. They want arms arms company's main concern is profit. So that when that's their main concern, they're interested in in cutting down the workforce as much as possible while still maintaining enough of a presence in congressional districts where they're able to say they create jobs. But it's just through these cost-saving measures to boost profit and technological advances that affected every sector in terms of employment and arms industry employment. The relationship between military spending and and economic benefit is very very shaky. It sounds inverse. >> So >> well yeah >> and it's also a sign when you hear that oh this creates jobs.

Okay, that's a tacid admission that their main justification which is national security which is you know security is you know it's the one thing that people can't do without it's the most important thing. So if they're making something a jobs argument that means their national security argument is not such a smart point. I'm a little confused by your your Israel aid number. So 300 what billion >> 350 that's inflationadjusted terms over the course since uh 19 >> constant terms. Yeah. And that as of 2025. So that that excludes the four billion uh that was passed uh this year for 2026. That includes the 3.3 billion that I mentioned for the you know gift card. And then here's the >> So we're like 360ish >> uh thereabouts. Yeah. Cuz you have to adjust all pass. >> So I'm confused at 360 billion. So, I was reliably informed more than once by Nikki Haley, who was literally a governor of a southern state called South Carolina, >> that we get a lot more from Israel than Israel gets from us.

>> She's probably referring to like in like a private sector investment, but even that is way lopsided. The US invests way more in Israel than Israel invests in the US. >> So, has the is really Treasury sent us over 360 billion? Like, what is she talking about? It's uh or is it a hard to quantify moral victory that's just worth a lot? It's it's just best not to think about Tucker. >> I think you're right. It's in that category. >> Just ignore ju just ignore it goes away. Just do your show, Tucker. God. >> But here's the here's the mess here. Here's the message. >> It's best not to think about >> Here's something here's one thing though. So when you count military aid and military aid is most of that $352 billion $360 billion I just talked about it does military aid is a category that refers to a narrow set of you know goods and services provided to another country training equipment for the most part actually for the exclusive part pretty much it doesn't include literally assisting a country militarily so I just crunched the numbers on the how many >> wait can you what does that mean so if the US for example since October 2023 fired an estimated 609 missile interceptors for the sole purpose of defending Israeli territory from Iranian ballist incoming Iranian ballistic missiles and Houthy missiles.

>> Is that the number? >> Yeah, I just calculated on uh yesterday's for this show. >> You did? >> Yeah, it took forever. >> Why are you do Why is no one else doing I'm sorry. I know I'm sidebaring you again and again, but like why is it up to you to do this? >> Yeah, I wonder that myself. It was like just some like >> No, but like where's everybody else? >> Some guy in Pittsburgh with an internet connection. >> I you have a a background worthy of your job. But I I do think that maybe we could have a think tank doing this or the New York Times doing this or how about the Congress of the United States doing this? Why is it up to you? >> Uh I I'm good at it. I I'll admit that. Um I also think there's a skill set that's required but also I mean I think the main thing is just the effort that's required to know. >> Yeah, there's that too. That's that explains I mean a lot of the disinterest from you know whatever number officials give that's the number >> but it's calculated disinterest. It's Nikki Haley get up there Israel gets a you know give us a lot more than we give them. And it's like, okay, I guess.

>> And it's it's it's like um actually one of the funny one of the most useful bits of information that we got um was from this Washington Post report uh back in May that said the US had fired over 200 of these TAD interceptors since terminal high altitude something, >> but these really expensive missiles and >> most expensive. Yeah, >> close. >> No, not that was the next number that was mentioned actually. So it said more than 200 thads and then more than 100 of these standard missiles which include the um standard missile 3 uh and then the standard missile six which operate lower altitudes. The interceptors actually they actually um the US has employed four types since October 23 to defend Israel and they are the SM3 um which are $31 million each for fiscal year 2027. for any fact checkers at homes that refers to FY27 discretionary cost, unit flyaway, recurring cost, just, you know, just for any fact checkers out there. Um, and basically anyone who's panic about the numbers like I am. So, you have this about $30 million interceptor called the SM3, which is the only one that the US has to uh make space-based interceptions cuz so ballistic missiles launch, they go through like a 1 to 5 minute boost phase, they leave the Earth's atmosphere, they travel in space for a bit, like 20 minutes or so, and then they come crashing down in like a minute

or two window called the terminal phase, and then the middle part is called the midcourse phase. It's tech. You have the most opportunities in the midcourse phase because it's about 20 minutes long. It's the longest of the three phases. The problem is you need an interceptor that's capable that's technologically advanced to reach outer space and intercept a missile in it. And also it's ex if you're able in outer space the ballistic missile is able to release decoys chaff balloons because without resistance from the the earth's atmosphere they just travel along at the same they basically travel in this cloud of debris and it's at the same trajectory as the missile itself which makes it you know extremely difficult to you know separate the wheat from the chaff as it were. So, the US has fired um during the June 2025 war, it fired 80 of these things at around $30 million a pop. That was just during the June 2025 war. And then they didn't the the post didn't give a breakdown between that and the other standard missile, but it's been over 100 combined.

>> How many of those 30 in the first war, the last summer war, uh were fired in defense of Israel? So there was uh there's 80 launch 80 SM3s launched in defense of Israel uh during the June 2025 war and then uh more than 150 THADs also launched in defense of Israel during that war. So if you include that number, all the all the intercepts uh recorded intercepts uh documented use of these interceptors that the US has used for just not in defense of its own bases but for the sole purpose of defense of Israel since October 2023 through September 2026. So 3 years you get 609. >> I've never received a thank you note or really any expression of gratitude from anyone in that enough really. That's what we're told. It's a you know it's it's really quite shocking and actually um JD Vance actually had a slip up where he like he was kind of shooked from whatever brainwashing happened to him but he jumped he kind of had an outburst where a reporter asked him about US support for Israel and he corroborated the the the Washington Post report where the numbers I just mentioned the more than 200 that and the more than 100 standard missiles were about 2/3 of all interceptors fired for defense of Israel. So that includes Israeli interceptors as well. So the US

shouldered around 2/3 of the missile defense burden for Israel during the 2026 war and close to 70% during the 2025 war. And that that I'm not factoring in the $500 million in missile defense aid the US has provided every year for Israel to buy those interceptors, its own interceptors. I haven't crunched those numbers yet. I was hoping to have it ready for the show. It just takes for I swear to God, it takes forever, man. >> Um, that is just absolutely remarkable. >> Yeah. And I um Wait, so 350 billion since its founding for a tiny country? I mean that's the largest s I mean is there any it's unfair to ask you this uh having not asked you to prepare for it but like is I mean that's got to be the biggest source of income to the economy right over time there's no oil gas there >> as far as it's it's the largest cumulative amount the US has provided any other country I'm >> ever out of all countries. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. And as far as waging war on another country's behalf. I mean, there's really three costs that I've I've only I've only really done two. I'm still calculating, you know, the the So, there's army in Israel, the the aid that we just talked about, and then there's, you know, directly defending Israel through the middle missile interceptors I just talked about. >> I'm realizing now that I didn't include um interceptions of Iranian drones and Houthi missiles, too. I have to calculate that [ __ ] So, I have to calculate those costs as well. And then there's the cost of just waging war on Israel's behalf because this really is I mean you could I don't think there's any one thing any one reason the US went to war but it strategically speaking like this war doesn't happen without Israel and without Israel's influence over the US government and >> Marco Rubio said it out loud. >> Yeah. Yeah. We followed Israel into this. And by the way the speaker of the house Mike Johnson also said that and it's also true cuz I saw it. So maybe you support it, maybe you think that's great, maybe you don't, but that's just a fact that it cannot be erased.

>> Yeah. It's for this it's it's not for US interest. It's not America first. No. >> Which I which I still think >> it hasn't been implemented obviously as we've as we've painfully found out. Um but I still think that idea has a good amount of currency. >> America first. >> Yeah, of course. >> If implemented properly, you're talking about, you know, >> it's called democracy. That's what democracy is. No, it's democracy. You serve on behalf of the citizens of your country. They own the country. >> I just caught myself over intellectualizing that. Thanks for >> No, but it's like it's the only legitimate basis of government in any system, including a monarchy. If a king rules on behalf of another kingdom, he's betraying his subjects. Lots of kings. No American wants to hear it. Lots of kings are super popular, actually. >> Yeah. Yeah. Some are not, but some do a good job and they're really popular and people who live there don't want to replace the king. >> Why is he popular? Because they think he's serving their interests. He's Kuwait first or, >> you know, Emirates first or whatever.

But it's that's the only legitimate way to run a country or a family >> or a military or a business, right? >> And it's painful being told the opposite. >> The leaders serve the people they lead, >> right? It's the difference between ruling and governing. Really? Yeah. And it's just a hell of a lot easier to rule. >> Yeah. But you can even rule that. You can rule with the people's interests in mind. You know, you can Yeah. But you still have to, you know, you answer to people and, you know, pay attention to what people think. But with ruling, yeah, you could just, you know, wage wars on countries behalf. You can direct funding to the exact companies you want. Pretty for all intents and purposes, you can. >> Well, then you have to ask like, who's actually being oppressed here? You know, is it the are we doing this to liberate the long-suffering people of Iran or Russia or Vietnam or name your country Somalia, all these countries we've gone to war against or within their borders and it's like, you know, I hope for liberation for everyone, but I see the American public is being oppressed by everything that you mentioned.

>> I think I think workers across the world are being oppressed. I I really think one of this the main political conflicts going on now is the workers versus the war profiteeers and the wararm mongers. I really think it's I mean you can define working class how you like but I mean regardless of your definition if you're even just you know vaguely within the bounds of reality you you recognize that working class well-being is acutely compromised when governments prioritize waging warfare over promoting the general welfare as it wa as it were. And if you're not putting workers interests first who make your economy go, then you're going to run into some real problems electorally if there's any semblance of democracy in your country. >> It's the oldest story there is. >> The king bankrupted his country through wars and got overthrown. I mean, like only in an ahistorical moment like this one and people like rediscovering something that every empire has learned serially for millennia, which is what I just said. king bankrupts his country through hubris in war and gets overthrown or his kids get overthrown or whatever. It's like that's how you wreck your empire, >> right? Do you think do you think more people are starting to realize that especially over these last couple years in the general public?

I think that I have not had a shallow conversation with anybody including convenience store clerks since co I think America for all of its many faults many of which are like on display and problems that are accelerating. I think people are way deeper than they were just a few years ago. >> I mean you'd be at the airport and you hear people talking about like celebrity news or something called People magazine. Do you remember that? Like chronicled the diet habits of actors or something. It was like the whole thing was like so absurd >> and frivolous and embarrassing really. And now I feel like people have been forced to confront real topics. So yeah. No, I think people are starting to figure stuff out. Of course they are. I was thinking about I've been thinking about like for months like what the proper like how the public is is perceiving you know the political elite broadly like the establishment how they perceive like your average politician or the head of state and it an analogy uh occurred to me yesterday when I was boarding the plane here and the pilot was greeting people at the door of the airplane just saying hi hello and I I thought of it then which is what if that pilot was visibly wearing a parachute as he was bringing passengers to his airplane about to fly.

>> That is so good. >> And it's like and do I get one? Oh, no. No. Don't no your seat's down there. Don't worry about it. But have a good flight. >> Okay. And I think that's kind of it itarkens back to this actual it itarkens back to this quote I had or I heard during the 2024 election where it's like >> young people don't see real hope. They just see a dying empire led by bad people. Oh, I have a stat for you. You want to hear about the So, okay. So, this is this is a poll taken May 2026 New York Times Ipsos. This asked whether people support somewhat support somewhat oppose or strongly oppose uh additional aid to Israel. Okay. Most people oppose it. All right. So 19% somewhat 38% strongly support it. Now it it it divides that but into like a bunch of different categories like you know age, political affiliation, that sort of thing. Among the um survey respondents who did not vote in 2024, the most popular response was strongly oppose additional aid to Israel. And 50% 50 half of the people who did not vote in 2024 answered that they strongly oppose additional aid to milit to

Israel. And I think it's it's not about it it's it's part of >> military aid or just aid. >> Uh the the question asked about additional military and economic aid. >> So yeah, that's both kinds of aid. So >> right. So I think that's twofold. I think one is the atrocities in Gaza, the genocide have become matters of fact at this point. As much as people really try to talk themselves out of that reality, it's a matter of fact at this point. And also there's Gaza is like it's like the Schrodener's cat of political issues. I don't know if you've noticed it, but it's like if you are on, this is something I've noticed on Twitter, particularly from this group called I call a lots, which are which is short for acrimonious liberal on Twitter, is that I will get yelled at for if I bring up, you know, polling on Gaza in the 2024 election and how big of effect it had on Kla Harris's loss, I will be told in like in by someone will say, "Oh, Gaza didn't matter at all or and in and like the next breath sometimes from the same person it says oh well the people who didn't vote in 2024 because of Gaza got what they deserved you know a president they didn't want I guess so it it kind of occupies these two spaces where critics of of people people who criticize other people who have made Gaza decided that Gaza matters to them on a electoral level that it'll affect their judgment and their vote and

their voting behavior behavior that it it I it oscillates between this is the most important issue or this is the issue that doesn't it was a non-factor completely. So people just really can't decide. But I think I think it did matter. I think the this and the polling I just mentioned and a bunch of other polls suggest that it did matter too. But I think it's also the interaction between putting another country, especially one committing war crimes on a near daily basis, ahead of the interests of of the people. And I think this is where this intersection between the cost of war and the cost of living crisis, they meet because it's not just the financial resour resources being dumped in. >> It's the political capital too. Like if you think about the one, >> it's the attention, >> right? So this think about the one legislative priority that Joe Biden took out an Oval Office address to sell. It was the foreign aid bill for that provided the record of aid to Israel.

Bunch of money for the war in Ukraine as well and a bunch of money for um Pacific aid for Taiwan aid as well. That it wasn't his infrastructure bill. It wasn't his massive build back better plan that you know he fought he devoted the most political capital to. >> I didn't remember that. That's amazing. >> That was the one bit of legislation that he decided was worthy of an Oval Office address the nation to sell. >> Well, they've just they've given up on our population, on our country, on us. They're looting it now. and their parachute is, you know, crypto and then another passport and they're they're out, you know, and you sort of know that like they're not lashing themselves to the mast of the SS America >> now. They've got their parachute on >> for real and I think we have every reason to be offended by that. >> Right. Right. >> Do you feel since you look at polling so much obviously you know, the Republicans are going to get hurt, no party's ever earned it more in my opinion. Um, and I think it's exactly what you said hurt Kla Harris, but it's even now the connection between this foreign misadventure and their declining quality of life and standard of living.

It's just so it's one to one to block this trade for moose. Like even I can understand that like no energy flows like you did this to me. I had I'm not voting for you. But I wonder how many people see this problem not simply as a Trump problem, Republican problem or a Kla Harris problem or a Biden problem, but as like a a system problem like both parties. I hope a lot of people that's my read on it. I think >> it is. Do does polling suggest that? >> I'm still working through the data cuz I I mean the p this was just a bit of the research that I have going on. I think I have too many projects going on, Tucker. But uh you're doing a lot of math. >> Yeah. Yeah. And it's not my nature to be this fidious and this, you know, committed to, you know, really making sure everything's right. Like I never follow recipes to the tea. So I just don't make that good food, I guess. Um, but for this like I'm just, you know, all about getting it right. And also just being, as you know, being independent means you got a lot of freedom, but it also means that you don't really have any institutional protection.

>> Oh, for sure. Yeah. So if I make a mistake, heaven forbid, that like one that's that turns out to be like a a cost estimate that turns out to be catastrophically wrong or I misplace a decimal or something on on some sort of bill, I'm summarizing the cost of I have nothing really to protect me. And it's like so like as I operate this newsletter on on substack called polygraph it's like >> if I mess up there then like I will be punished immediately for it in a in a very very harsh way. Um forget what I was going on about but also it's like being a sports writer. We always used to say when I worked at a newspaper the sports writers are the hardest job because their readers knew a lot about the topic. >> Yeah. So if they made any mistakes, so your readers, anybody who writes about something specific like this, your readers were a self- selected group who are coming at it with prior knowledge. >> Yeah. Yeah. And it's it's it's uh I have some paid subscribers who are actually mentors of mine. Sure. >> Yeah. And it's also just like people I don't know. It's like the like there's some I get notes from people who like usually positive um who really really know their stuff. learn a lot from my readers.

>> You were asking about whether the people view the Iran war as a a system problem. Yes. Or as >> a partisan problem, >> right? >> I think the Iran war happens if Kla Harris gets elected. I think Trump is I think it happens either way. I don't know if the war takes its shape, but the the political establishment, the national security establishment was just headed that way. And if you think like I think back to this interview that Harris gave in October maybe of 2024 where she was asked who what's the biggest threat to America? Now if you look at polling the most popular answer is always America. People always say America is the biggest threat to America. And then the next ones are you know Russia and China for obvious reasons. that has that has gotten the most attention as rival powers to the US I guess uh over the last few years in terms of like building up the threat and um animosity towards each of those countries. Harris answered Iran as the most as the biggest threat to the US and that was only she wouldn't have answered the same way had the had October 7th and the resulting genocide not happened.

I can't believe that. So I feel like on. And when was this interview? October of 24. >> Yeah, this was when people were answering like I mean the the answer of like the number of the percentage of Americans who would call Iran the top threat is still probably somewhat low, but it was like in like four to 5% of Americans calling Iran their the top threat. But here was Kalan. >> Have you ever been mugged by a Persian? >> No, >> I haven't either. >> No, I've only just they've only just been extremely nice to me. >> I agree. I had breakfast with one this morning actually. Yeah. Went to Harvard more literate than I am. Yeah. No. Uh it's not a low IQ group. It's a very impressive group. >> Oh, it's always so embarrassing when a nonnative English speaker speaks English better than you. It happens to me a lot. >> For sure. As Kant said. Yeah. Uh but you know, it's just amazing that she could say that. It was Iran. So that she's being paid to say that. Of course.

Yeah. And I I really viewed her as and I think she viewed herself too as a continuation of the Biden administration. It was the direction the Biden administration, you know, the the effect of the national security establishment. It's like an inter it's um like an interaction between, you know, the White House and the underlying establishment. But that's just that's just the direction I I got the sense that the US was going. It was it was just the march toward war. It was just escalating because the US decided >> I felt that strongly. the US just decided like you know US foreign policy had always been differential to Israel for for the most part but it wasn't really until October 2023 where I I felt you know confident calling it Israel first cuz there was there was just no conditions on it the not just the the vast amount of the historic amount of resources invested but arming Israel but you know going back to the numbers with interceptors fired like directly defending Israel. The US did that a bit during the initial stages of the Gulf War with with uh um Scud missiles from Iraq, but this is just an entirely different level. But just overtly waging war on Israel's behalf, too, is just an obscene escalation.

>> I've been on TV for 30 years when October 7th happened and I don't think I criticized Israel a single time on camera. Not one time. And not just because I was hiding my true views because I was like, ah, you know, I had complicated views on it, but I wasn't mad about it. I didn't think it was a top priority issue. I just was like, there's a lot of things going on. Why am I going after Israel? Kind of like the country. >> And there was just a massacre that took place on October >> of course. And there was that. I was I was highly offended by the murder of innocents in Israel. And I still am when I think about it. We just the anniversary was >> two weeks ago. And I was thinking about it. It's awful killing girls at a concert. Come on. But um there was that. But I mean the relationship between Israel and the United States I always thought was poisonous but I didn't think it was fatal and I could just kind of ignore it which is what I did >> when >> but it changed after that. It changed after the Hamas attacks in southern Israel that day. Our relationship with Israel changed. Our politicians changed.

That's what I noticed. Like it was like kind of crazy all of a sudden. It really was. And it was, you can see the historical foundation there, like a buildup over time where it's like this long-standing support for Israel, this, you know, repeating these accents. My support for Israel is iron. >> Yeah. I just kind of ignored it, you know. >> Yeah. Cuz it was just, you know, it's kind of like became white noise to a point. >> They had I spoke at the Republican convention 2024 for Trump the night he was inaugurated. >> And I was, of course, I've had a lot of time to think about that in the last six months since Trump has done things that I like so offensive to me I can't even control myself. I'm so upset about it. So I went and watched that speech. I was like what did I say? I don't remember saying it. I didn't write it down. I don't remember what I said. So watch. There was flags flying in the convention center at that convention 2024. Israeli flags in an American presidential party nomination.

And I honestly I did I guess I noticed I don't know. I don't remember noticing. You're right. It was white noise. I just kind of tweeted it out like, >> you know, you've got your Israel thing. You're pretty obsessed about Israel. Whatever. Have fun with your little Israel thing. And you know, you're into the World Cup and soccer and you're, you know what I mean? It was like that. At least that's how I thought of it. >> I was totally wrong. I didn't realize it was $350 billion. Like I had no idea. >> It became impossible to ignore. >> Well, that's it. Yeah. Exactly. And then, you know, I really think like the main driver for like the change in public opinion to Israel has been morally based. And I think opposition to US policy toward Israel would even be higher if people actually knew these the true costs if like the government actually bothered to investigate, you know, the atrocities being carried out with US weapons. >> Well, can I say I never recommend Wikipedia for anything. It's controlled by the intel agencies, foreign and domestic. It's everything about it offends me. But the Wikipedia entry on Gaza, which is probably the most contested entry on the entire site, of course, >> read all those warnings at the top.

>> 100%. But because it's so contested, I think you can look at it with some confidence, at least for an overview, maybe not in every detail. >> Yeah. >> Read the Wikipedia entry on Gaza on what's happened since October 7th, and it's like it's bracing. >> You can't dismiss it as Israeli propaganda. You can't dismiss it as like third world leftist propaganda. Like you can't Nazi propaganda. It's like it's it's hard to dismiss. >> Yeah. I think this is a reckoning that's coming from the political establishment as well where it's like initially opposition to the genocide in Gaza which is just like oh this is just you know people on the left you know totally third worlders. >> Yeah. And you know rich kids you know yelling us from the totally on TikTok from their dad's company car. But no, it's like no, the call was coming from inside the house very much. So these are the base. These are, you know, >> voters. I kind of ignored it. I I'm so embarrassed to say that, but I did. I was like, I don't I don't get involved in that stuff. It's not my business. I'm sure Israel's mistreating the Palestinians. They certainly have before, but like I'm not getting involved.

>> I thought that when the Gaza stuff first started. I'm embarrassed, but I did. one of the is like was there like the defining moment where you felt >> two churches and I was like >> oh I remember that >> I was like and I you know it was nothing compared what they did to the rest of Gaza and I'm not making the case that only Christians are worth defending but I I whatever it's a long not very interesting story but I mentioned it to some evangelicals not on camera of course but just in private and uh I'm not an evangelical but I've always liked them and and I said something about it and they're like shut up like no Christian churches, your denom, you know, your faith, their churches are blown up. >> It's like, how do you not feel connection to that person? >> Shut up. >> Yeah. >> Like, this is the sickest. This is the weirdest thing. I didn't know what it was. This is the weirdest thing I've ever heard. >> Did they also have their fingers plugged into their ears and go, "No, no, no, no, >> no, no. They hated me. They hated me for saying it." I was actually on stage giving a speech about something else and I I got a question from an audience member and I said, "What's that?" You know, and they they shuffled me off stage. True story. So it was that actually changed my view. I was like whenever someone's like we don't want to hear it and it's true. I wasn't speculating and I wasn't even getting that you know assertive or striden about it.

I was like well you know you're Christians you should care about the bombing of a church. Shut up. >> It's like Catholic Relief Services humanitarian group and a a couple other faith-based organizations as well that were in the Christian denomination reported on it and were like >> oh well now then I went right down the rabbit hole and started talking to people. I spent time in the Middle East, so I called people I knew and and then I realized, wow, this is like the worst thing ever. But I had almost fully ignored it for about a year >> and uh I'm not I'm not proud of that at all, but I did. So anyway, not ignoring it now cuz that's impossible to ignore. >> Yeah. And the attacks on Christian centers in southern Lebanon and attacks on all people in Lebanon. >> Well, that is one of the most upsetting thing. using the war that Israel pushed Trump, its proxy, into starting, using that war as cover to just like grab southern Lebanon south of the river is like one of the worst. And then Bomb Beirut where you used to live. >> That's, you know, you feel that in your soul. You really, >> you really do.

One of the things I'm going to look at for a a project is I'm going to you mentioned like grabbing land. I I think ultimately that this is it's it's about land. It's about grabbing land >> of course >> and I'm going to compare diligently teach myself how to use satellite imagery or maybe just something rudimentary like Google Maps or something and outline you know a pre, you know, October 23 and compare it to like 1967 borders as well. just compare the shift in the amount of territory that Israel occupies, not only just Gaza, more in the West Bank, more in southern Syria, southern Lebanon as well. And I want I just want to I I just want to number just just to quantify how much of a land grab is happening. Uh and I haven't I'm unaware of anyone else has done it. I hope so. >> Do you know anyone who's done reliable what you would consider factually accurate analyses of what's happened in Gaza? >> Oh. uh on what level? >> How many people killed? Let's just start there.

>> You know, honestly, like the most, you know, the best numbers come from the Gaza Ministry of Health. And obviously the the US media decided early on this is going to be Hamas run, but it's like it's the Hamas government. These are just civil people. They're not in the right, >> they're not in the army, you know. >> Um but the most reliable figure is that, you know, the verified figures are coming from the Gaza Ministry of Health ultimately. And you know, you can do your like international organizations can do their best to you know, cross reference and verify, but you know, >> everyone's ultimately leaning. Even like Israeli intelligence agencies have admitted that they use Gaza Ministry numbers. >> So I think that's where it's coming from in terms of in terms of people I listen to. Um Karim McDesci and his brothers who have the podcast called McDi Street. Karim McD was a professor at AUB. I think he still is. uh >> American University of Beirut >> right where I was. Excellent resource. Um UN Special Reportur Franchesca Albanese.

Um >> nice woman. >> Have you met her? >> Yeah. >> Oh, cool. Cool. That's probably actually one person. I I was just extremely excited to meet her. Um Nora Aracott as well, who's a law professor at Ruckers, I believe. Um, those are just a couple off off the top of my head, but I mean there's a lot of there's a really a hell of a lot of people doing good work on this. Um, it's just a I' I've just I've thought about Gaza pretty much every day for the last 3 years. You know, it wears on you a bit. So, I you know, it's not out of interest of like some weird obsession or anything. It's just like the feeling of ignoring it though would be far worse than you know >> having it you know at the forefront. >> You can't you can't unsee it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Stephen Summer, I really appreciate all the time you spent and particularly the numbers and will you restate one last time where people can follow you in case they didn't catch it. >> Best place is to follow my newsletter on Substack. That's where you hear about um everything I'm I'm up to and that's the main vehicle for publication. and it's called Polygraph and you can find it on Substack at stephvensembler.com.

>> I love it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Tucker.