Rahm Emanuel: Trump's Foreign Policy, China, Europe's Decline, Immigration & DSA vs Democrats

Key Takeaway

Run a personal “systems audit” today: identify one outcome that matters—career mobility, family stability, or community impact—and check whether you have a concrete next-step plan rather than only a goal. Borrow Emanuel’s education standard: pair ambition with preparation, accountability, and a destination. Schedule one skill-building block, identify the credential, mentor, or project that moves you forward, and write down the next commitment you will make within seven days.

Episode Overview

Rahm Emanuel discusses U.S. strategy toward China, Taiwan, the Middle East, Europe, immigration, education, and fiscal policy. He argues that America should rebuild alliances and domestic capacity simultaneously—through research investment, skilled immigration, stronger schools, modernized community colleges, and policies that reward wealth creation over preservation.

Full Transcript

Transcript of Rahm Emanuel: Trump's Foreign Policy, China, Europe's Decline, Immigration & DSA vs Democrats from All-In Podcast. Auto-generated from episode audio; may contain minor errors.

Okay, friends. We are extremely excited to have Rahm Emanuel join us for an interview with All-In today . He was a senior advisor to Bill Clinton, the last president to have no national debt, Obama's chief of staff, mayor of Chicago, ambassador to my favorite country to visit —Japan—under President Biden. He hasn't made an official statement about his participation in the 2028 presidential election, and I do n't think he will make one here, but he says a lot about where the country should go in the world after Trump, particularly in 2028.

Friberg and I will ask Rahm about the most important issues facing America today. The economy, inflation, employment, the skyrocketing national debt, endless wars, the rise of socialism and, unfortunately, anti-Semitism , immigration, skilled and legal, and how his positions have evolved over four decades of serving America. Welcome to the All-In interview. Rahm Emanuel, congratulations, Rahm. I...yes. Okay, that's it. I didn't know it was a signal. I waited because it was like an obituary. I was waiting for the rabbi to come out. I'm going to give this presentation—the only one that ever starts with Clinton.

They usually start with my career in Congress, so I give you credit for remembering that I started as a senior advisor to President Clinton. So , let's start with this. What did you learn during the Clinton and Obama eras? And you know, these two—I would say, the last two sane presidents that we seem to have had and who were centrists. I think I'm a centrist, a little bit left- wing, but these seem to have been two great presidential campaigns that you've been involved in . What did you learn from each of these leaders ?

They have different skills. So, in addition, they had their own vision of the world. They had a vision for the United States in the world. They had a vision of a kind of progressive, affirmative view of government. I think the most important thing I always remind everyone is that you can't have progressive politics if people believe that the government can't even organize a parade with one car. This is impossible . They must have a positive vision. And the last time you had a net positive was during Bill Clinton's time.

And it actually didn't just happen because of the balanced budget, although that certainly helped, it happened when he signed Social Security reform. And you can go back and look at this data . As for their skills, Bill Clinton was a unique person who, in my opinion, knew how to play three-dimensional chess, combining politics, state policy, and the press, and understood the presidency in the way that Teddy Roosevelt had redefined it at one time . He reinterpreted it for the 21st century and really meant what he said, becoming a kind of bridge.

And no one knew better how to not just make speeches , but to take a political course, convey it to people, lead them from what they had to change, without making these changes threatening, and achieve the goals they set. Nevertheless, President Obama, in my opinion, coming in at the end—or not quite the end, but during the war in Iraq and so on, understood that this was a different president. Both the end of the war in Iraq, or its approach, and the financial crisis have shown that we are at a turning point and a transitional moment for America.

And I really think, you know , look: every president is evaluated. What kind of world did you inherit? What kind of world are you leaving behind ? And sometimes the harshest critics of Obama and Clinton come from the left, not the right. And I asked, " Is it peace or prosperity that you like least?" Because I'm ready to discuss it. Was it the fact that, since Reagan, Clinton's economy grew the most, jobs increased the most, and wealth inequality decreased the most? And people called it unipolarity, when no country had the power, economically, politically, or militarily, of the United States.

Now we can go back to what happened there. And I think the same way the left criticizes Obama for being a bit, well , weak. And you know, he takes a country that's close to a depression, known as the Great Recession, but it was actually approaching a depression, saves it from that, goes from losing 800,000 jobs to creating 200,000 and, you know, gets America out of two wars. He is obviously continuing the war on terror, but is repositioning America in the world as a force for good.

And I learned, like you, you know, it's not a set of instructions. There is no set of instructions in the drawer of the Resolute desk, but there is a combination of state policy, politics and, I would say, public relations, that is, communications. Did Obama export American democracy as a core policy element? And has that led to the world we find ourselves in today, where there's this pushback, because a lot of what's exported ends up being on one side of the political spectrum, not the other. And now we seem to see what we have done?

I expressed this opinion a long time ago . I spoke about this recently at the Aspen Security Conference. So now I'm writing my next article for the magazine as a prelude or introduction to the Xi-Trump summit. Mhm. I'm going to call it the destruction summit. China's biggest export is not cars or electronics. This is China's internal economic dysfunction. They are destroying the manufacturing and industrial base of other countries around the world. They have more cases at the WTO than any other country, and they are all against China.

Steel mills in Chile, garment factories in Indonesia, blast furnaces in Brazil. We are exporting our internal political and cultural dysfunction. This means that two superpowers are holding the world hostage. One is due to economic dysfunction and internal problems. I mean, Xi refuses to deal with an obvious housing market crash, barely surviving consumers, and an industrial base that makes no rational sense. And so, literally, as an example, their auto industry is exporting more cars, and their profits are down 20%. Is n't that right? We, that is, through Trump, can look at what he is doing in Brazil , meeting with the neo-Nazi AfD party 9 days before the German elections, or at the racial tensions in the UK.

It seems we only want to make it worse. We are literally exporting our internal political and cultural dysfunction to the entire world. Although I believe that this president's style is to humiliate the weak and flatter Putin and Xi, it's a matter of style. But here's the thing: two superpowers seem unable to deal with their internal problems and are now dumping them on the rest of the world like a garbage dump. I believe, after returning from Japan, etc. , that instead of tariffs, we should create an economic bloc so that we can all stand together against China, not only by organizing this bloc, but also by meeting them in the market.

This is how we, you know, make friends and influence enemies. Yes. Is this a different view than the Obama-era concept that we should export American culture, American democracy, that seems to be how it was phrased. And this then opened the floodgates for the export of our culture wars. And then our culture wars became a kind of battlefield, where , for example, transgender theater appears in Africa and so on, right? All of this. No, I don't think that's what opened the door. Listen, David, I believe that the United States of America, like every country, has four tools in its national security arsenal .

The first is military power , the second is political persuasion, the third is economic management, and the fourth is cultural appeal. And you're saying that...I mean, American culture is a broad concept, not just Hollywood. Um, the American brand is a cultural attraction, or at least it was. I actually believe that this president has damaged the American brand, our economic governance, our marketplace, our technology, our universities, and our research. National laboratories are part of our economic governance, part of our national security, and part of our capabilities.

You know, there was a great article by David Graham the other day, but, gentlemen, only the United States could bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table. There is no other world power. Our capacity for political persuasion is an asset in our national security arsenal . If you want to achieve what I talked about in my speech in the Middle East regarding Israel, a two- state solution, China, Russia or Europe cannot do it. Only we can do this. We now have enormous political and military power.

But I think she's not ready for the future. This is the fault of both parties. I was also involved in one of them. I think we got so caught up in the war on terror that we lost sight of the transformations that were happening on the battlefield and the technology. You can see this, for example, in the field of drones. Neither Iran nor Ukraine has a navy, but both control waterways near their fronts. This tells you everything you need to know: you're not fighting two wars, you're fighting two different types of wars, and we have to be prepared for that.

So, in my opinion, this is also a kind of illness of all of you in the media: who should we blame? I do n't think Obama represented our cultural appeal to the world. I believe that America's popularity in the world is a political asset that can be used. Now that the American brand has sunk to the bottom because of Trump, it is hurting America, its political power, economic governance, and military capabilities. It's simple. So I'm not saying , you know, I don't think that we exported these cultural values ​​and that's why this problem arose.

That's not how I see the source or cause of what happened here. Rightly. Can I ask you one thing about China? So, China has historically been This is your podcast. You can ask about anything. The question is whether I, the question is whether I will answer. Well, I'm just here for Jason, at his disposal. But, uh , anyway... You're fine, honey . Continue. This, this is true for both of us. Okay. Well, thank you. Uh, Jason will ask me out again. OK. So if you look at China, historically it's all about the manufacturing base, about the energy production capacity, right?

I often mention that they are on track to 8 terawatts of electricity generation. We are sitting at about one, hovering around one, and it will be very difficult for us to reach two by 2040. So China has a huge amount of energy that they can use to power electrified things. They have 20 times more manufacturing space than the US, and much of it is automated. But now, thanks to artificial intelligence and open source AI , China is not only suppressing the ability to compete in manufacturing, creating molecules, pharmaceuticals, materials, we are now seeing them actually destroying the ability to compete in knowledge, services, and intellectual property.

And it has truly been the heart of the U.S. economy, at least for the past 30 years, and perhaps even longer . But as we moved to a more global trade-oriented economy and allowed manufacturing to move to China and other places, we focused on this knowledge base and services. Do you think we have an answer to China today given our economic situation and what's happening with artificial intelligence? And that's what really worries me about this conflict between China and the United States - we're all still looking at the last 30 years, instead of thinking about what the next 20 years will look like in a world where AI commercializes everything that the American economy has been built on.

One, uh, let's take a step back, the way I see it: Xi comes to power. And we are led to this "win-win" concept that he sells, but it was never a "win-win". China wants everyone to depend on China, and they depend on no one. This is their theory of the matter. You...our markets will be so big and important that there's nothing you can do about it. You will be dependent, your economy will depend on our markets. We will use this to then destroy, manipulate, and control your sovereignty.

And we will be independent of you. We don't need your market. And we will have many options. If you don't give us the barley, we will find five others who will. Look at the soybean case. United States: "We will cut off your soybeans." And we have soybeans from Brazil and Argentina. So they have duplication in the system. So they have maximum freedom of action, while we have minimal, just like everyone else. Secondly, I take a lesson from, uh, Ko and I think it illustrates their plan and how we need to get smarter.

We must learn from our mistakes. They cannot be ignored. You should take a look and I'll get back to your part about software. But in Ko Jin notices in Operation Warp Speed ​​that within 12-14 months or so, the US is developing a vaccine with over 90% effectiveness. China spends 18-19 months on this, and their efficiency is about 60%. And we know for sure that many Chinese leaders did not get the Chinese vaccine, and eventually quietly switched to Pfizer, Moderna, etc. And they were unable to export this vaccine.

Nobody in the third world wants it—it's a huge opportunity for America. We waste it politically, economically, and culturally, in so-called "victory " on the world stage. Second, Xi is making a decision that will never be repeated. It is investing heavily in biological sciences, and within 5 years China has not just been hot on our heels. It is catching up with the United States in the biological sciences—a field in which the United States, with a few exceptions in Europe, has dominated. Now again , I will take a swipe at Trump.

Every budget he proposes cuts the NIH by 40%. In every budget. And the Republicans are compromising and allowing a 15% cut. You can't cut NIH and still achieve American leadership. There are medications on the market for pancreatic cancer. They came about thanks to NIH funding, and in fact now it looks like they're going to help with three or four other types of cancer. NIH, the National Science Foundation, DARPA, as well as America's national laboratories and universities — this is our pride. And what do we do?

We have an administration that declares war and actually engages in unilateral disarmament. In terms of software and manufacturing—we dominate software and these technology niches. We shouldn't think that it's either software or manufacturing. It's both . We allowed one of them to atrophy, all of us. We have allowed the commercialization of our national security. The Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce have over- influenced our national security with China as we've seen industry after industry, supply chain after supply chain move overseas and America's economy become increasingly vulnerable, and it's all our fault, everyone's fault.

And the other part is what we need to do for the next 20 years: bring together Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the EU, friends in Latin America, and make more friends. Don't declare war on Brazil. This is a big economy in the region. Make it an economic bloc. because a common position isolates China. Insulate the insulator. And then use this time of the bloc—not our unilateral actions, but of the economic bloc where we are the dominant player—to organize our research and potential for further development. Here is an example of using the defense industry: the United States was once again unprepared, but do not underestimate the United States, its technology entrepreneurs, venture capital, DARPA, and its deployment capabilities.

Give us 5 years and our potential for this incredible system will pay off, unless we allow Lockheed, Raytheon, or General Dynamics to destroy it and the Pentagon to nurture it. But we must use the time of the economic bloc to rebuild what we have allowed to decay, and then organize this bloc to confront China. And then China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia— we isolate them. And now, I have to be honest, the president has isolated America, making it vulnerable. So, this is how I look at the next 20 years.

Yes. And where do the countries of the Middle East fit into this equation? Are they part of a block? And of course, David, I'll say this. There are three trends observed in the Middle East . Step away from the news of the moment. There are three or four trends that we then combine. And one of the reasons I put out what I put out about Israel is as a way to isolate Iran. It would be a good day for Israel's security, a good day for American leadership, and a good day for American allies in the Middle East.

The UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait remain, so to speak, with the United States. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are on this first list. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey and Qatar appear to be trying to play it safe. They know they are dependent on America, but they are not going to be so dependent that they become vulnerable due to a lack of leadership in two wars—in Iran and Iraq. This is one trend. And one of the reasons I mentioned the India-Middle East- Europe Economic Corridor in my speech is that it brings everyone closer to the United States economically, as well as politically, within 23 countries.

Second, Iran has invested 40 years and over $40 billion in what Israel has called an “ octopus”—its puppets. Hamas has degraded to defeat. I think there was a very good article in Foreign Affairs on this subject. Hezbollah is cornered. Damascus and Syria are lost, and the Iraqi president seems to be making good progress, though not completely, in the fight against the militia. This proxy force strategy is so different. Here's an example: the Lebanese government is working with Israel to corner and weaken Hezbollah. Syria, a president not related to Assad, is currently negotiating a security agreement with Israel .

This would mean peace with Jordan, peace with Egypt, and a security agreement with Syria. The three powers fighting in the Six-Day War eventually came to some agreement with Israel as a fact. A radically different, strategically distinct situation. And Syria will become the exit for a pipeline from Basra to their energy port, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. These are huge opportunities . So when I say, and you of course know about semiconductor chips and other economic aspects, yes, key players in the Gulf will become part of this economic bloc.

Let's talk a little about Taiwan before we leave the topic of China. Apparently, the Trump administration has been talking about China planning to invade Taiwan, seize factories, etc. in 2027 or 2029. You've worked under several administrations where strategic uncertainty was the approach to Yes. And, they say, we support Taiwan and China, while maintaining complete uncertainty. The next president will probably have to deal with this. Actually, let me say this. We leave politics uncertain, but regarding the use of kinetic force to change the status quo—we have no uncertainty.

Yes. Explain this. There are, well, there are two different parts of the " one China" policy towards Taiwan. This is a political statement. And the second is that no one changes the status quo through the use of force. These are two different things. Yes. And if, uh, to prove that someone ...well, just to prove that someone knows something about the Taiwan Relations Act, as well as politics. Yes. Do you think that China will at some point block Taiwan, impose a blockade, and how should the next president, or how should the next president, deal with this circumstance?

Should we fly all the equipment and people out of Taiwan, or should we enter into a blockade? This, in my opinion, is the escalation that perhaps isn't getting enough attention, and then we'll be back to the war in Iran. OK. Jason, let me start with this: this is a consequence of the war in Iran. China watches as the United States sinks in the Strait of Hormuz, wasting resources. Their confrontation with the Philippines has escalated significantly. Their economic, military, and political isolation of Japan became much more aggressive.

They are behaving much more aggressively around the Senkaku Islands. They launched a combat missile from a submarine in the area of ​​Australia. and all our allies in the region. This is just some of what I could say about Vietnam, their actions , and other events, the most dramatic of which are taking place in the Philippines in the South China Sea. All they need to know now: China is sending a signal to all our allies—Korea, Japan, India, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, the Philippines, and even Vietnam—look, your protector...is no longer a protector.

I see the damage being done by this administration, which is shifting not only resources but also its political focus. The one thing you guys didn't ask about, not that you didn't ask, but... when the White House becomes a juggler who can only throw one ball. This White House is consumed with current affairs, they have lost focus on the Indo-Pacific region, and it is quite clear that China has increased its aggression. Our main bulwark in the Indo- Pacific region is Japan. They are under economic, political, and military pressure.

Yes, we just provided support for the yen, but we did nothing in the Senkaku Islands area. We have done nothing about the economic coercion that China is resorting to or the political pressure from China. So, wait. You say: 2027. I look at today and say that we can't wait . This is happening now. Secondly, I think the South China Sea...everyone is talking about Taiwan, and I'll get to that. I think when you look at the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and the behavior of China and the artificial islands that they're creating, say, out of rocks, like Scarborough, etc.—they're not waiting to claim that the South China Sea, where they lost a court case in 2016, is their internal territory.

And the Philippines is not Taiwan. This is a country. This is a contractual ally. And they won the case in 2016. And if we don't perform there, I don't know what will happen before it's Taiwan's turn. So it sounds like you think we should be projecting force there, deploying troops or ships with our allies, and we need to rebuild those bridges. We already have troops there, and we already have the resources. We need to double them and give the Philippines confidence, especially considering that President Marcos is taking enormous risks.

Second, regarding Taiwan, there are three strategies. One idea is quarantine, the second is invasion, and the third is that there are three islands off the coast of mainland China that are connected to Taiwan . There is a rock, a butterfly, a tree and a fisherman. That's all. So, there are three strategies. One is an economic quarantine that would simply suffocate Taiwan. The other is an invasion that tries to complete everything in 96 hours. And the third—they capture those three islands and look at the world and say, "Are you going to start a war over this?" And they are implementing their gradual strategy.

If you look at China and its history , they have historically used all three against different countries . We must be prepared for all three. First, they want the 96-hour scenario, not the Ukrainian example. We have to say " no," it will be 96 days, and have the resources and the capacity to show that this will not end quickly. Secondly, regarding quarantine : we need to be able to demonstrate this through our resources, which is why the Philippines and Okinawa are critical— quarantine won't work without air and sea control.

And the third is the small islands near Japan, not far from China. How we need to act, etc. Because remember, there is a security aspect and a deterrence aspect, and our deterrence potential is very weakened right now. I want to hear your thoughts on the remilitarization of Japan, since you worked there, and their role in that, because they, like South Korea, are critically important allies . So let's move on to Iran, once we've summarized the situation with these two allies and how you think we should develop our relationship with them.

Of course, we just supported the yen, and we have a pretty strong relationship with Japan. Look, Japan is a key element of America's Indo-Pacific policy. Look at the Quad: India, Australia, Japan, United States. Look at the trilateral alliances I worked on: between Korea, Japan, and the United States. United States, Japan and the Philippines. The only constant is Japan. Regarding the United States: our Okinawa, our largest military presence in the world in one country—this is Japan. Europe is the largest continent, but it is the only place in the world where an aircraft carrier is permanently based .

So, in terms of military , for the last five years in a row, number one in foreign direct investment is the US and Japan. For the past five years in a row, the number one foreign direct investor in Japan has been the United States. So from an economic perspective, you know, soft power or cultural attraction: you can look at what Japan has done for baseball in the United States, how both countries share a cultural interest. So, I'm just going to walk around Japan because the Prime Minister had the audacity to say publicly what we've been trying to get from the Japanese Prime Minister for 30 years: that a move on Taiwan would be a threat to national security .

She said it, and China was furious because she publicly announced something she never wanted to announce for domestic political reasons. They are now under pressure from economic coercion, political pressure, and military intimidation. You have to be there to be uh and it's not easy and I'm not I'm glad the administration decided to support the yen and intervene. I think there's a lot of vested interest here related to our Treasuries, dollars, and the pressure on our debt right now because of the sheer volume of our liabilities.

But we should do more in military training when Russia and China are conducting exercises around the Senkaku Islands, where we are simply not present. Can we move to Europe for a minute before we talk about this? This is your show. Do what you want. Internal issues. I really want to talk about domestic issues, specifically the economy and the interaction of government spending with the economy. But before we do that, there is a perception that Europe is in a state of irreversible decline. And many have pointed out points that I think contradict your characterization of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party as neo-Nazi; that this party is actually a response to the open border policy in Europe, the open immigration policy, which many believe has really drained resources and eroded culture.

Yes. David, let me say one thing. Yes, please. German intelligence is monitoring the AfD. Forget whether I characterize her as a neo-Nazi. You don't want to believe it. Well, American intelligence also monitored Donald Trump, right? So, I mean, there are many ways you can present it, but yeah. Yes. Yes. Many ways. Yes. But I'm not trying to support this party. I'm trying to point out that this is a reaction to events in Europe. And I do, there is no doubt about it, both from a cultural and economic perspective.

There is a backlash in Europe, just like here in the United States. So, what is your view on the state of Europe, the role of immigration, and where things are heading? Look, I think immigration played a role as well as economic stagnation. Um, and I think that uh, and that's also to some extent, as we move closer to home before we continue on the topic of Iran, and we'll do that . Listen, if you look at incomes here in this country, a lot more Americans are living paycheck to paycheck right now.

That's almost two-thirds, I think 63% of Americans, and so it's changed our politics and our cultural landscape. So do I think immigration plays a role? It plays a role 100%. I also believe that income stagnation, where there is a greater concentration of not only wealth, but also a concentration where the political system is tilted in favor of that wealth, all of this is mixed in one pot. There is no separate dish for immigration, separate from matters of income, economic growth, GDP, etc. I mean Europe. Here is my opinion.

I think former Italian Prime Minister Draghi wrote a good plan for the EU. It is in our interest to have a strong, reliable European economy so that it is technologically and otherwise useful to the Western system. If I'm right about the block, you don't need freeloaders. You need people who really row. And that's why I believe that Europe is important to America's security, and most importantly, to our economic prosperity. And we want them to be competitive . I truly believe that they themselves have engaged in a kind of self-suffocation.

Regarding this point, Ron, because the idea that Europe is committing suicide has already taken some form in the political narrative that is currently being voiced. Do you disagree with this? I think, I think that Europe has made political decisions that are not in the interests of the citizens of Europe. Good. Well, okay. Good. So, did I, you said I said I should I understand, there is no difference. The answer, the short answer, is yes. Do you agree? Well, so yes. So let me ask, these politicians are probably left-wing politicians.

These are politicians who come from the left wing. The energy policy that destroyed Germany's nuclear power industry and made them dependent on Russian energy was a crazy set of political decisions. the idea that you're going to provide public services and welfare programs by opening the borders to increase the population at the expense of unproductive people coming in and depleting those resources, and then, you know, there's all these issues of cultural erosion that I think about, but the idea that the AfD and other parties in Europe are emerging because of, you say, open borders—that's leftist policy, Friberg, for the last 40 years it's been Republican policy—to let as many people into the country as possible as a workforce.

Wait a minute. Yes. Is Angela Merkel's party affiliation a mystery to you , David? Yes. Oh no. Wait a second. You made this general attack on the left. Angela Merkel left the Christian Democratic Union , the conservatives. Yes. Secondly, it was her decision to cut... Wait, no, wait a second. You make a remark that...I... apologize for. This will be the last time I'm on your show. Historically wrong. That's entirely fair. OK. Well, you can tell me I'm wrong. I...Well, okay. Fasten your seat belts. I like it now.

It's like 30. Okay. She...She's from the CDU, and when a million people left Syria , she said: we'll handle this. This is from the Christian Democratic Union , the Conservatives, Kohl's party. Secondly, after the accident at a nuclear facility in Japan, it is closing nuclear plants and making Germany much more dependent on Russian energy, and we were the ones who warned against this. So don't tell me this is from the left. You are wrong. There was a lot of anti-nuclear rhetoric for a long time. To be clear, but...but who is the chancellor who said to close them?

Yes, it was... No. Who? Merkel. Merkel. Yes. What party is she from? Christian Democratic Union. Which...which part of the political landscape, the left or the center? OK. I would...well, today I would say far-right, but... that's nonsense to sell the way you probably want to characterize it. But I think the argument... your main argument...let me...now that I've decided to earn my Emanuel points on you, let me backtrack. Both immigration and immigration, I think. Yes. Yes, she did . She opened the borders when a more measured approach should have been taken.

Listen, one thing we know, I'm going to talk about immigration at home. Listen, people don't like this mess. They don't like it at the border, and they don't like it on the streets of Minneapolis . And Europe responded to the chaos, whether in Stockholm or Berlin, that seemed completely out of control. Europe is a very hospitable continent, but this seemed completely unmanageable. as you saw this weekend regarding Morocco. Okay, so it's not that bright. But to say it's leftist is simply inaccurate. On the economic front, Brussels, in its attempts to regulate, has stifled innovation, entrepreneurship, and competitiveness , and now they are trying to fix that.

That's where I see our fault—and not ours, but the Trump administration's —we are adding to their tension as they try to deal with it. Germany is losing today, I read the article, I need to remember the number correctly. It seems to be between 5,000 and 10,000 manufacturing jobs lost every month due to Chinese pressure. This should be an opportunity for us to come and say: let's work together and confront China. Not separately, but together. We don't do that. We, we, our vice president, nine days before the election, are meeting with the Alternative for Germany (AfD).

When racial issues arise in the UK , we exacerbate them. When Maloney deals with internal issues, we attack her. Sorry, Ram. Why, why is Trump doing this? Look, I think this is... What is the strategy on his part, if any? Jason, I've said it before and I'll say it again: this president beats up the weak and flatters the strong. He is fixated on Putin and Xi admiring him as an equal, while they consider him a laughing stock. They do not consider him their equal. America is superior to them, but it is not at their level.

He takes Lula in Brazil, Merz, or Meloni, or Carney, or Scholz, and humiliates them because he thinks: if you are a middle-class country, I will show how big and formidable I am. He's just a hooligan, and no one is going to do that anymore. Everyone can see that the king is naked. Which I think would be a great moment for us to... There's no strategy here. It's all his insecurities. He just improvises. OK. Um, so let's discuss Iran and then move on to the United States.

I know. You know, I felt a moment of pleasure criticizing David. Well, no. I mean, that's why we're here. I'll tell you, if you showed me Angela Merkel's decisions on a blank sheet of paper, I would say that this is a left-wing program, which is, so I would say, and all over Europe, there was almost this kind of I don't know how to describe it, and what I'm trying to understand is also the psychology against foreign influence on these suicidal political decisions, which seem to be wrapped up in imposed left-wing ideas that eventually turn into political actions on a national scale, and maybe you're talking about immigration.

So let's get straight to them... economic solutions, energy solutions, migration solutions— that's the core. So let's talk about defensive solutions. Okay, Ram, let's take things one by one. Migration is an extremely important issue. I think we are going from one extreme to another. The Americans didn't like the open border, it's chaos, as you pointed out. They also hate the chaos when, according to polls, ICE is pulling people out of their homes, taking away strawberry pickers, and, you know, basically treating people in a brutal way. And in some cases, it seems we had four deaths, and that will be investigated over time.

But I want to know what your decision is regarding migration. We had President Trump on the podcast. He promised that we would issue a green card along with a diploma to every immigrant who comes here. And then they backed off from that and tried to essentially drive out some of the best and brightest that we brought here, which negatively impacts our ability to build great companies in Silicon Valley and so on. Almost all the great entrepreneurs we have are either immigrants or children of immigrants, like my friend David Friberg here.

So, tell us, what is Rahm Emanuel's plan for migration after this seesaw we've had? Is there any " golden mean"? Yes. Well, I'm actually, oddly enough , the last optimist who believes that a legislative agreement can be reached. I start with two principles. We are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And everything we do regarding legal and illegal migration must be responsive to both. No one likes it when people break the law and get away with it. And me included. Here is a man who, under President Clinton, developed Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego, Operation Safeguard in Nogales, Arizona, and did projects in El Paso.

This is my position. As well as workplace resources. Hard borders, strict enforcement of laws. There is such a thing as the "Dignity Act," which has 23 Republicans and 23 Democrats in the House of Representatives. He is faithful to the principles of a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. Is this a bill that Jason would write? No. Is this a bill that Rahm Emanuel would write? No. But does he achieve his goal? Yes. So everyone else is hiding behind rhetoric. I supported him. If you were in politics, you would stay away from this and only use populism.

But it's important to me to solve this problem so we can have a future. You have 23 Republicans who have signed on to certain things regarding legal and to some extent illegal migration. Is it shifting a little more toward the Republicans since the time when Democrats were in the majority ? Yes. Now they are in the majority. Now, could you return it to its original state? Yes. And you need leadership from the White House, not just coming to this show where President Trump talks empty words and never sees through to the end, like he did with the Dreamers program, with green cards and diplomas.

This is legal immigration, attracting the best and brightest. Going back to our China example, all of these people who are leading the life sciences industry in China came from the United States, studied here, and worked in this field . We kicked them out like fools. Of course? So, in my opinion, pass the " Dignity Act." Don't touch it. And again , I want to be clear. This is not the kind of bill I would write if I were sitting at the keyboard. Does it achieve the goal I set?

Is it a real compromise? Yes. Are we finally doing what we need to do at the border? Right. Is he finally doing what we need to do to attract the best and brightest? Yes. And that, in my opinion, would stop the civil war. What about the points system? It seems like all the great, high-performing immigration countries in the world have a points system. And even Japan, as I just learned on my last trip a few weeks ago, will require fluency in the language to get such a job.

And there are so many people who want to go to their great country. They keep the situation under strict control and force people to assimilate. So what are your views on assimilation, language proficiency, and the point system? Well, look, are there any lessons from Japan? I think the best lesson for the United States would be if I could, but there are lessons. Remember, you are touching on a topic that is not only legal, but also historical and cultural. I don't think Japan is a perfect analogy.

No , considering it's an island. I think if we 're looking for something similar, two countries we should look up to are Canada, which has a certain point system, its own version, and Denmark. And if you ask me, and look, Japan has a 98% homogeneous society, only about 3.7 million immigrants, and they think they have a problem with immigration. If you look at the United States quantitatively, it's a completely different situation. So, I'm looking at the Canadian system. Well , how Canada, thanks to our system or its dysfunction, is now attracting talent that used to come to America to study here.

I actually think the Canadian model and the Danish model are closer to where we get the best practices and lessons learned. The Dignity Act does some of this. Here's an example. This is not about immigration, but this is what I was talking about regarding the accessibility of higher education. I would allow universities and colleges across the US to set a goal: you can have up to 20% international students. Today. Some have 6%, some more. I don't care how you divide it between a master's degree and an undergraduate degree.

It's up to you. But these students pay the full cost. They pay full price. This would help subsidize our ability to give American students a three-year bachelor's degree instead of a four-year one, saving Mom and Dad a year of tuition because international students pay full price, and they want an American degree . So, given that they came here to study, they are likely to want to stay and start building this country economically, as you said, through technology and other companies across the United States. Many immigrants and children of immigrants came because of the university system, and that is the political power, influence, and potential that the United States has underinvested in .

So I look, and the short answer is: Canada and Denmark are the best examples. As for the Dignity Act, I don't want to sit here and dissect it with you and criticize it, but it does . B, I want to be very clear . If you control the border, you send a signal that people who break the law will not be rewarded . And I'm so angry at my party, not just for losing control of the border, but for the fact that in the 2020 debate they raised their hand and said, "I will give health care to people who crossed the border illegally" —forget about immigration policy, this is a question of values.

American families are suffocating from the cost of healthcare. Not everyone is covered by insurance, but we are moving towards it to a large extent. And you talk about free healthcare for those who crossed the border illegally, at every level. This was unwise on the part of the party. Free. Kenya. Jason, I wish you would start calling him David. Good. A little more. A little more damage from this problem. We have Sachs and Friberg. So you're saying that I...That's not... That's your problem. I just think that Friberg is so insensitive about his, and we've clearly proven that David is very sensitive on this show.

Me, I'm very sensitive. Me, I always tell people that I'm probably the last person to get offended by anything , but Jason always offends me from the start. So, Ron, I'll start by outlining the problem, and this is a point that I would like you to disagree with , that I disagree with. Yes. Federal Debate Club. So no matter what I say, you have to disagree. Good. Can we establish the fact that Angela Merkel left the CDU? Me, I would establish the fact that I consider Angela Merkel to be a leftist.

But we... I mean, it shows that, I think, we... what defines each of these parties. I mean, you were part of a party that Democrats, you know, in , I think, their era of peak moderation, who wanted to balance the budget, who wanted to control the border, and who wanted to have, well, globalism, you know, and now it seems like half Trumpism. I mean, it's hard to define these parties now, especially with the social ones. That's why I think that categories like saying that these are left-wing politicians are actually useless and broken.

But keep going, David. Yes. No, because I mean, even under the Trump administration, we're taking equity stakes in companies, which is, yeah, not a typical free-market conservative view. But let me just outline this. So, I would argue that over the last 30 years, as the government has spent more to make things more affordable for American citizens, the cost of those things has been increasing disproportionately. The average inflation rate over the past 30 years has been 2.5%. But housing prices have increased by at least 5% per year on average, including interest.

Education over 6%, healthcare 5.15%. And all three of these categories are areas where the federal government has launched programs to either subsidize or to ensure that these categories of services are available to people through promises. You will all have a home. You will all have an education. You will all have health care. And the more the government spends $300 billion a year on housing, $200 billion a year on education, over a trillion dollars, almost $2 trillion on healthcare, the more expensive things become. So is the government's role really to provide these services, or to step aside and let the market work?

Because in all areas where the government did not launch services, did not provide support, did not issue loans, such as technology, energy, food, consumer services, we see a net decrease in overall value. So deflation really works when you let the markets work. But when the government steps in and tries to push markets to provide more for more people, everything just gets more expensive. OK. Tell me, tell me why I'm wrong. You are wrong. And first, the GI Bill was a government initiative . Massive growth in housing construction and homeownership in America.

Would you recommend that after World War II, those who served overseas should cancel the GI Bill because the market would take care of your housing needs? It also had an educational component. Secondly, when you said that we don't have...that food prices have gone down and the government has been involved, what do you think about the farm bill that subsidized growing food in the United States for big agribusiness? Well, I know this bill well, and we could discuss it if you want, but I can... secondly, you say that we are not involved in energy.

Well, we have a tax write-off for drilling. We are involved in the energy sector. This is simply not true. You can make that argument about anything, Rob. Like, you could say we touch everything. But I'm talking about our total dollar spending, total dollar spending. That's why your analogies are flawed, and secondly, right now I think the United States government needs to strike a balance between... the private and public sectors. And that balance is trying...when the forces and the concentration of power and wealth become excessive, and I just opened the Theodore Roosevelt Library and so on.

It was a rethinking of what government does to help those who are most vulnerable— not just vulnerable, but vulnerable to the concentration of power. Now about housing. This is where the government failed, and it's not at the national level, but at the local level. It did both; when you have things like San Francisco, like New York, you have a concentration... an economy that's doing well, but restrictive zoning, building, and permitting laws drive up costs. Not the only reason, but a significant, significant factor. I'm not the mayor now, but if I were the mayor of Chicago, I would say, " Okay, I'm going to take all of our zoning laws, all of our building codes, and all of our planning regulations and compare them to Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix.

You tell me what we have and what they don't have and why we have it and they don't. And if you can't justify it, then to hell with it. I'm also going to take action, because I think the biggest problem we have with housing is the first-time homebuyer . And that's been happening since the financial crash of 2008. For some reason, the market has gone to the high-end and the lowest-cost housing, and the first-time homebuyer is where we're stuck with new construction. And I really think that's an area where both the public and private sectors need to come together to solve a problem that's been around for almost 20 years and that the private sector has n't solved on its own.

So I don't agree with your analogies, but I believe that there are areas where government is getting in the way of itself, and there are areas where it should be directed to incentivize the private sector to solve these problems. That's how I would approach this . On education -- yes, please. Oh, I was just going to point that out . Okay. Listen, I spent eight years, every day, every hour, working to fix an education system that was broken. And when I graduated, Stanford called it the best.

Sean Rear at Stanford called it the best education system in the top 100. We led by example, we raised the graduation rate from 56 to 83%. We raised reading and math scores at every grade level in elementary school. I'm saying this from memory, so I could be a little off the mark . It's in the report, but we were six months ahead of our peers. And believe me , it's not easy to achieve. Now I'm going to Louisiana at the end of September, so that it's the only state where reading and math scores are back up to the evidence level to find out what they're doing.

How I went to Mississippi on higher education and elementary school. One, we created full-day kindergarten and free full-time preschool . I'm a big advocate for early childhood development and elementary school. Three things: total accountability, not just for teachers but for parents, principals and schools. Two, reboot teacher education and training so that it's ongoing, not just set and forget. And teacher training today is very weak. Give teachers the support they need to know what to do with the subjects they're supposed to teach. Keep them trained. We need to completely reboot the entire teacher education program, starting with the colleges.

Three, pool resources so that states and cities can merge them, because what's happening on the South Side or the West Side of Chicago, in the suburbs or in our best schools, like North Side and Payton, just don't add up. Students, especially from poor families, need more resources, and accountability in the system. Now, the fourth thing that nobody wants to talk about. You know what? This has to be done every day. This is a twenty-year project, not a two- year project. This is what Mississippi and Louisiana have shown us.

Fundamental high school reform. Elementary education—stay with the basics. High school, we've gotten to 50% of our kids, which was our goal. We're graduating with college credits. I would set a goal if I were to do it. 100% of our kids will graduate with college credits through dual enrollment at our 1,200 local community colleges. Second, we're the only school district in America that's done this, and I'm going to make it a national requirement . No one will get a high school diploma without a college, community college , military, or vocational school acceptance letter.

Every kid, not just Jason, David, or Rams, has a plan. They know where they're going when they get their diploma. Comprehensive postsecondary education. I'll admit that we've hired a ton of career counselors in Chicago, but we're at 98% compliance. Third: Take the $8 billion you're spending on ICE detention centers and modernize our community colleges: campuses, curricula, and how they're relevant to local industries. Finally, fifth—higher education. 20% of international students. They're allowed to claim up to 10% of the costs you pay to meet federal requirements .

You keep 100% of that money. Three. If a kid graduates with 20 college credits, they can get a bachelor's degree in three years, and not in four, saving parents money for a whole year of schooling. Oxford and Cambridge have three-year bachelor's programs. Second, if your income is under $ 200,000, you'll go to college for free. Fourth or third, finally, in this area: if your income is over $200,000, it doesn't exceed inflation every year . Here's what I would do in education: provide children with a minimum of four years, ideally three, of general preschool.

Go back to basics, stick to them, bring accountability and standards back into the education system, revamp our high schools with a college/career focus, not just a diploma, with two or three examples. Best of all, I also did the first and only school district, the first city to do that. You have to be a high school senior. We made community college free. The goal here is to take the high school years when you're losing students, and community colleges and put them together so that kids graduate with college credits, prepared for the next step in life.

80% of all jobs require some education, at least two years after school, and we have n't done anything to upgrade our high school classes since Teddy Roosevelt. It's kind of top-down. Yes. And no child, no student of any income or background is left out of this. You want to go to college and then become an engineer, great. You want to be a nurse, you want to be a carpenter. As you put more of these dollars into community colleges, into the federal student loan program, the administrative staff continues to balloon.

We've seen the administrative staff go from 10% to 60 % over the last 30 years because they didn't have spending limits, because the federal student loan program doesn't provide criteria that say, "If your tuition is too expensive, if your school isn't very good, etc., we're going to limit your access to this loan program." Loan program is so unlimited that it adds fuel to the fire. Okay. About the cost. It's about the cost. That's right. Okay. I just sat there and told you what. Okay. Great. Now let me ask you.

You didn't pay attention to the fact that 50% of our kids can't read at grade level. You want to talk to me about Oh, no. No. Wait a second. Wait a second, David. The way you asked that question showed me where your priorities are. Your priority is Okay . I want to talk about student loans. College education. College education. I'm not I'm not talking about how you get into college? Well, I understand I understand you don't talk about that, but there are a lot of parents who sit around the kitchen table and talk about that.

I'm talking about cost and college education. That's it. That's all I'm talking about. I just gave you a plan. Ask anyone who comes to your show. I just gave you a plan to control costs. It had nothing to do with the student loan program. It had nothing to do with the fact that we're hurting ourselves by not allowing international students to come in and pay full price, which is why our colleges are in trouble. You get up to 20%. You decide how to do it. You can define the 10% savings that the federal government requires.

You keep 100% of the cost. But here's what you do differently. And to get that... Wait, wait, wait, a second. I have... That's part of the answer to part of the question. Yes. Yes. Okay. Do you want to go to college? Change your approach not just to elementary school, but to high school. You know, when kids drop out , David, in third grade. That's when they start to fall behind. And when 50% of your kids can't read at grade level, the cost of college is not your problem.

We're going to compete. with China, where 50% of our kids can't read? I'm sorry, but that's not how you beat a country that's three times the size of yours. Yes, we need to fix... we need to solve this problem. But if you look at it more broadly, my concern is ... Kids are dropping out of school in the third grade. David, I don't... Yeah, I'm not talking about college deductions. I'm talking about how much we spend on administrative nonsense in colleges, and how we've allowed it to bloat up, which ultimately leads to problems with the cost and accessibility of higher education.

Ram, because when tuition becomes 30, 40, 60, 80 thousand dollars a year for a child... You're talking about two different cost problems, and to me that's a problem. The problem is that we've given up on 50% of our kids. Giving up is a fair statement. That's a fair statement. Okay, what you've identified is problem. I define the problem. Second, I think I've spent more time on education. I wanted to be a preschool teacher when I went to college, and I've transformed a system that William Bennett called the worst in America into one that Sean Rad and Stanford called the best in the top 100.

And I had to put my whole soul into it to do that . Yes. We have to take the school years, not to mention the standards and accountability in elementary school, and update them with the three things that I've been talking about that go together. A B average, free community college. 50%, and I would aim for 100%, should graduate with college credits. And third, nobody gets a degree without telling us what they're going to do next. University, community college, branch of the military, certification school .

I'm not just talking about university. We're missing out on 500,000 to 600,000 electricians just for data centers. Broadband, 150,000. You can't build submarines because we don't have pipefitters and plumbers. Okay. So I -- you want to be a pipefitter? Great. You want to be a doctor? Great. You want to be a physical therapist? Great. To have an education system that actually reflects the economy and the skills that we need. Yes, that's a valid point. And, and, and my concern, Ram, is that you said "no." You make many, many great points, and some of them I disagree with, but that's the whole point.

And if you look at the broader picture, I mean, I look at our $7 trillion a year in federal government spending, $5 trillion a year in revenue. We're $ 2 trillion short . We're $40 trillion in debt, 30 years under 5%. That's $2 trillion a year in interest costs. We have to find a way to get the federal government fiscally balanced so that we have a future for our children. And so to me, it all comes down to a kind of spending model. And I think about where we're spending money, what we're inflating spending on, and does it make sense to do it.

So I have, I have a plan. Look, and by the way, Ram, that was what Trump promised to do with the Doge and the other cuts, and that was, that was all, that was all snake oil salesman's tales. Look, I don't accept redistribution and I don't accept corruption . You can't have capitalism or economic freedom with corruption as a foundational principle. It goes against the rule of law, which is key to capitalism and economic freedom, and redistribution doesn't solve anything when it comes to growth. I believe in five things that are important for economic growth and income growth so that people are no longer living paycheck to paycheck.

wages. First, everything we just talked about on education and training, from pre-K to undergraduate. Second, the Dignity Act, as I said, on immigration. Third, modernize our energy system. Texas is the best example in the United States. And I said 3, 4, 10% of the tax on all prediction markets and online sports betting should go to the NIH, the National Science Foundation, and DARPA. Double our investment in research. Fifth, a tax code that rewards not wealth preservation but wealth creation. This tax code is a nightmare when it comes to economic freedom.

Control overall spending over the next five years so that it doesn't grow, and start making tough choices within the system. I told you, you don't support this. I wouldn't spend $38 billion on detention centers that nobody needs. I would take eight of them as a starting point and modernized 200 community colleges across the country, which are the economic backbone of La Crosse, Wisconsin, and Spartanburg, South Carolina. And the list goes on. I've seen it firsthand, because we've done it in our community colleges . The World Bank called it the best college career program in America.

That's exactly what I think we need to do. And we're going to have to make some tough choices. I don't believe in sending ICE agents out with $50,000 bonuses when I'd rather give a bonus to someone who wants to be a carpenter or an electrician. That's more important to the future of America than some people running around the streets of Minneapolis. What's the politics here? How do we get Congress to agree to this? Because we've heard a lot of statements over the years from both parties that we're going to rationalize spending.

We're going to do the right thing. We're going to get out of the deficit. We're going to do economic conditions of the United States viable so that people can thrive. Everyone has great ideas , but when it comes down to it, their district or state representatives end up saying, "I'll give more to my people to get reelected." And the budget goes up and up and up. David, David, this is what 's so sad about American politics. As the man who coined the phrase " never let a good crisis go to waste," this is an opportunity to do great things.

Look, I think the surplus that Bill Clinton left behind has bred negligence. We tried to fight two wars with two tax cuts. It's really absurd. It's never happened before in American history. And that's the beginning of chaos. We went from a surplus that Alan Greenspan described as a danger to America because of the 10-year Treasury bonds, to a $38 trillion deficit—a surplus to this, because it was reckless. We went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan with two tax cuts. This has never been tried before in American history.

And it was unwise . Now this crisis is coming, it is inevitable, and it will test the system . And we cannot allow the development of AI to continue to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. That is impossible, because you cannot achieve financial stability by talking about cuts; not only because of politics, but also because it is unfair and will not work. So we will have to deal not only with spending, but also with revenue. I gave you an example, but our tax code is designed in such a way that all of us, including myself, are encouraged to save wealth and pass it on.

The other day, six weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal ran an article. They are organizing special retreats to help children understand how to manage their inheritance. Yes. You must be kidding. And our tax code facilitates that. You You're a fool if you don't take advantage of the opportunity to preserve your wealth and pass it on to the next generation . And you all know that. We all know that. The tax base appreciation mechanism is a way to avoid taxes while everyone else is working for a living and can't pay their bills.

So it's going to affect everyone, and change is inevitable. One thing I didn't care about, like most capitalists, was the minimum wage, because I thought the free market would take care of itself . But when you watch it rise in cities in the United States and the experience of New Zealand and the Nordic countries, all the studies show that there is no difference between $12 and $20 an hour. It doesn't cause economic hardship for companies, it doesn't lead to unemployment or automation. So what do you think about raising the federal minimum wage ?

Three points. I worked with Bill Clinton when we raised it. When Nancy Pelosi and I helped her become Speaker, her last time it was raised. It was seven twenty- five. When I was mayor, I raised it too . I strongly believe in raising the minimum wage . I would raise it every year, like we did in Chicago, combined with a very generous earned income tax credit. That's what makes work pay. So, minimum wage with a very solid earned income tax credit, which if I were a magician, you know, I would wave a magic wand, combine it with the child tax credit, and create a single family credit.

So , it's all in one. I think we should talk about DSA before we wrap up. You know, DSA had their convention in Chicago last weekend. You're not Democrats. You're a separate party. See you in November. You're alive, you're literally beating Democrats. Forget it. I don't care. I spent my whole life trying to get Bill Clinton replaced. George W. Bush, Barack Obama ran against John McCain, flipping 31 red congressional districts to blue so that Nancy Pelosi could become Speaker. I have no interest in flipping blue districts to dark blue .

It does nothing for the minimum wage . It does nothing for universal preschool. It does nothing for providing health care to 10 million children who didn't have it . So I'm not impressed. You're a separate party. You're the Democratic Socialists of America. See you on the ballot in November. You had a convention. You're not Democrats. And there was a person the other day in Tom Edel's party and Tom Metzel's column who is a Democrat for Justice, part of the DSA network, who said they're not interested in beating the Republicans.

Well, now I appreciate honesty. I think Donald Trump is an existential crisis. You think Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Hakeem Jeffries existential crisis? I don't. And we have a fundamental strategic difference. We have a fundamental political difference in strategy and a fundamental political difference. Go to your own party. Stay there. See you in November. That's it, Dr. ultrasound. Let's move on to Rahm Emanuel. We will be inviting you again in the coming months and years because it was incredible, and we will have to invite you to Chamat and Saks next time.

Thank you very much. Thanks, guys. Okay, best friends. I think this was another epic discussion. People love these interviews. I could listen to him for hours. Certainly. We sorted out your questions in a minute. We give people factual data so they can form their own opinions. What do you guys think? It was fun. It was wonderful.

Go deeper

• All All-In Podcast episode guides