AI 冷战、Signal 泄密门、CoreWeave 上市、关税终局与萨尔瓦多遣返

Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:00): When I wasn't able to use the r word, I would use deficente for two people, Jason Jason Calacanis (00:00:06): And Falhomme. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:07): And Friedberg's dog, Marshall Friedberg. Oh, come on. Well, I can't stand Marshall Friedberg. That little bastardino jumps on the table, eats the nuts. Jason Calacanis (00:00:16): The worst. The worst. David Friedberg (00:00:18): I ate Marshall Friedrich. I ate him. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:20): I can't stand this bastardino. Speaker 4 (00:00:22): Little guy. Look at how he sits. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:25): He sits like a moron. Sits like a he sits like a depichantine. Look at this dweeb and this depichantine. Now, Nick, show them my dogs. Beautiful. Beautiful dogs. Valentina Zanini. She's the breeder of breeders. Look at these two beautifully elegant oh, look at octopi. Look how look how well behaved they are. Do you don't see them jumping on the table to eat the main course, Friedberg? Jason Calacanis (00:00:47): No. No. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:48): Marshall almost ruined our Christmas dinner. This is why I'm holding a real grudge against Marshall Friedberg. David Friedberg (00:00:52): HMOS nuts. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:54): No. And Alison cocking Alison off guard, she's Jason Calacanis (00:00:56): like, Marshall Friedberg, get off the table. Marshall. I just love that he's got a full name. Marshall Eugene Friedberg. Let your winners ride. Rain man David Silas. Alright, everybody. Welcome back to the number one state sponsor I'm sorry. All in podcast in the world. The number one podcast. Oh, sorry. Drey bullets. Here we go. Back on the program. Our guy, Gavin Baker, is here. You know him from Atreaties Management. Does private and public, 4,000,000,000 under management. And a lot to talk about with you. David Friedberg (00:01:40): GB One. Good to have you. Jason Calacanis (00:01:41): GB One is here. Solo, dolo. Core Weave IPO happening soon, by the time you get this. And, NVIDIA, you were there at NVIDIA. You are the one analyst, Gavin, that Jensen pulled up. You're loved by Jensen. What's it Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:58): like to be loved by Jensen? Tell us everything. Gavin Baker (00:02:02): Well, so first, he did there was Alfred from was from Sequoia. Mhmm. And then they had a a nice sell side guy whose name is escaping me at the moment. But it is technically true. I was the only public equity investor on the buy side that Jensen asked. I've known Jensen for twenty five years. He's he's kind of the same guy he ever was, like, just maybe slightly calmer. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:25): Gavin, can I ask you, like, all this stuff where they talk about the balance sheet questions that some folks have about NVIDIA, some of the accounts receivable issues and stuff, is there any legitimacy to those issues, the round tripping? Like, what's the what's the real story of someone that that peers into that p and l and understands it? Gavin Baker (00:02:48): Yeah. So we'll I guess maybe take them in reverse order. I really don't think like, if if NVIDIA had not put any money into CoreWeave, not put any money into kind of other of these neoclouds, I don't think it would have impacted their revenues at all at all. They would have sold Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:09): More to Meta and more to Gavin Baker (00:03:10): Tesla. More to Amazon. More to Microsoft. So the reason they did it is even three years ago, it was a very stable three player oligopoly from the cloud computing players in Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. And if you're NVIDIA, that's not great to have just three big customers. Those big clouds, particularly in 02/2023 when there was such a rush to get GPUs, they each kind of wanna do their own kind of custom version of an NVIDIA server. And NVIDIA, by giving kind of, like, a standard reference design, which someone like CoreWeave bought to CoreWeave, you got GPUs in the market a lot faster. And when you use NVIDIA's reference design, it's generally smoother and easier to stand them up. And so the big three kind of cloud computing, you know, hyperscalers, their incremental share of revenue went down, and that was nothing but good for NVIDIA because they now have kind of a more fragmented base of buyers who have less power over them. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:18): But what does it mean, Gavin, when, like, the accounts receivable jumps from a billion 5 or so to, like, 5 and a half billion year over year? Is that concerning, or that's just business? Gavin Baker (00:04:28): So look. It's never good. But if you think NVIDIA has gone through the biggest product transition in history in terms of Hopper. You know, this is a business doing tens of billions of dollars at scale. There's never been a product transition like this in the history of semiconductors going from Hopper to Blackwell, you know, kind of the 2,022 generation GPU to this one. The only precedent for this on planet Earth is the iPhone. And there's something called the Osborne effect, which is, you know, when Apple comes out with a new iPhone for the three months before, nobody buys the new iPhone. And I think the only reason NVIDIA was able to grow through this product transition is because of reasoning models like DeepSeek, which are just so compute hungry. And this product transition does come back to the days receivables. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:18): The Cume receivables now is, like, $23,000,000,000. Gavin Baker (00:05:22): Yeah. It's never good when accounts receivables go up. But if this is the most understandable time for it to happen Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:30): In a product refresh cycle, you're saying. Gavin Baker (00:05:32): Yeah. And because Yeah. A hopper server, you know, it's a rack. Jason Calacanis (00:05:36): Mhmm. Gavin Baker (00:05:36): It's whatever it is, seven feet high, weighs a thousand pounds. It consumes 60 kilowatts, which is 60 American homes, and it's air cooled. So you cool those GPUs, and the biggest problem with GPUs, one of the biggest is they melt. You cool it with air. Blackwell weighs 3,000 pounds, so three times as much the rack. You know, it's eight feet tall, maybe five feet deep or four feet deep, 3,000 pounds, and it consumes a 20 kilowatts. So twice as much power and roughly kind of the same footprint, three times as much weight, and it's liquid cooled. So this is like an iPhone upgrade cycle. You know? It was like, it's still a pain that we went from, you know, lightning to USB C. You know? I'll grab a cord, it'll be lightning instead of USB C. This is like an iPhone upgrade cycle where to get the new iPhone, not only do you have to change your connectors, you have to put in a new generator, you have to put in a new boiler, and a whole house humidification system, you know, to kind of make it work. So it's a monumental product transition, and I think that is a lot of why the receivables went up. You know, they are recognizing Blockwell revenue, you know, while it was still kind of getting into customers' hands. If that trend continues past the July, then I would say, hey. That's reason for concern, but this is a very understandable time for that to happen from my perspective. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:06): So basically, the summary is AR, accounts receivable, builds as you go through this very complicated product transition. But then at some point, it peaks, and then you start to work through all of it, and it moves off balance sheet, basically gets recognized, you move forward. And so then that AR should shrink. Jason Calacanis (00:07:26): And just to clarify that, that's accounts receivable. That's the money owed to you by customers for the audience who might have a question with AR. Exactly. And the reason they're not collecting it is because they haven't delivered it. Gavin Baker (00:07:37): I mean, the accounting gets very complicated with these systems, but yes. I mean, they have delivered it and they recognize the revenue, but maybe the customer is saying, hey. We're not gonna pay you until x, you know, until we get them plugged in and working. I mean, who knows what it is? Jason Calacanis (00:07:55): Got it. Because it's a new thing. Yeah. But it's very common to have receivable. Gavin Baker (00:08:01): It's just that here, the accounts receivable have gone up more than sales, and that's just a function of the complexity of this product transition. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:08): The other part of what I would say is the first part of what you're saying is very similar to what Intel did to scale their chip dominance in the eighties and nineties with this Intel Inside program. They didn't really need to do it probably in hindsight, but it helped them support an ecosystem, and it helped diversify their buyer base so that fewer people had power over them. And so a lot of this, quote, unquote, round tripping from your perspective is diversifying the ownership pool of NVIDIA is what you're saying. Gavin Baker (00:08:35): Absolutely. And sending NVIDIA GPUs to people who are adopting NVIDIA's reference architecture, which they believe is the best architecture for those GPUs. Whereas each hyperscaler has their own slight tweaks to that server. That hyperscaler does it, so it looks more like their other servers. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:56): Mhmm. Gavin Baker (00:08:56): But maybe it doesn't run quite as well as the standard NVIDIA reference architecture with all of their chips, not just the NVIDIA GPUs. But the Intel Inside analogy is interesting. I had not thought of that. Thank you, Jamath. Jason Calacanis (00:09:08): Well, it he is definitely doing keynotes like Intel did and trying to brand the actual names of the units, which is yeah. It was interesting. Pentium inside. People would go and buy a computer and say, does it have a Pentium? And which Pentium does it have? And now Apple's doing that same thing with the m four, you know, series, and people are actually asking questions like, you know, so there is something to it that maybe some portion of the consumer base wants to know what's inside, right? And doesn't cost much to brand. Since we're here, let's talk a little bit about the Core Weave IPO. Core Weave is going to go public on Friday, we tape on Thursday. So when you listen to this episode, you will have the actual data on what happened with their IPO. They're going to raise 1,500,000,000. They're a Neo Cloud. Neo Cloud means not just cloud computing, but a new cloud, thus Neo. And this company has really been growing quickly. It was reported they wanted to raise 2,000,000,000, and I guess they stepped it down to 1,500,000,000.0 at a $23,000,000,000 valuation. They had 2,000,000,000 in revenue last year, so they're up 8x, and they've got a lot of debt. That's the other issue with CoreWeave that people note, almost 8,000,000,000 in debt. And one customer, Microsoft accounts for over 60% of their revenue, always a bit of a red flag there. As Chamath mentioned, NVIDIA accounts for 15% of their revenue, and they own 6%. Six % seems small enough to not make a difference. So Gavin, I guess, what do you make of this company Corweave and their timing, what it says about the markets, because hey, this is the biggest IPO we've had in a bit. I think maybe the last ones that were notable were Reddit last year and a couple of other companies got out. Obviously Stripe hasn't gotten out. So is this a major milestone? Or are they going out because they have to go out because of all this debt? Jason Calacanis (00:10:55): And then this is all against maybe a backdrop of did we overbuild and are these language models gonna require as much hardware, as we thought last year? Gavin Baker (00:11:07): So we're definitely not overbuilt yet. Like, since DeepSea came out, like, what has happened since DeepSea car one came out is China is buying every GPU they can. One of the largest Chinese server manufacturers warned last night that there's about to be a shortage of GPUs in China. The price of memory DRAM goes up every day. So we're not overbuilt today, point number one. And, you know, OpenAI yesterday said that they are gating their new image generation service because they don't have enough GPUs. So we're not overbuilt yet. Blackwell is going to be a very successful product cycle. There is a little bit of a prisoner's dilemma where you're gonna spend on Blackwell almost no matter what because if you don't, you're afraid that you see the big advantage to a competitor. You know, if you're Meta and you don't spend and Google spends and their AI is a lot better than yours, you're worried you may not catch up. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:12:03): I would say that that's already the case. Gavin Baker (00:12:05): Yeah. That's already the case. But here, this is a brand new architecture, which is a lot I mean, not only is it really different as we went through, it is a lot better. But now I would say all these GPUs, they're hard to get them working at the beginning. Like, right now, hoppers are, you know, finely tuned. Everybody knows how to work with them. Blackwell, you know, it's almost like you're you're skipping ahead. You know, it's like, imagine each one of these GPUs is a Formula one car. You know, now you've skipped ahead ten years in the future, you have to kind of learn how to drive that new Formula one car. And it takes a while till you drive it as well as the old one. Jason Calacanis (00:12:41): So any other thoughts, Gavin, on the Core Weave IPO, which, will have happened by the time people listen to this episode? Gavin Baker (00:12:47): Yeah. I would say, you know, the sentiment on x investors on x are pretty negative on CoreWeave. I think there's maybe a little bit of, you know, negativity in the market. They had to, you know, reduce the range, lower the price, And everyone is very convinced this is a commodity business, loads of debt, loads of CapEx, you know, one really concentrated customer, and that they're completely undifferentiated. And I guess I would just make a point, which is in America, if you can pick any category, any retail category, and if you can run a thousand stores in 50 different states with different preferences and have those stores well lit, clean, stocked by friendly employees with the right stuff in stock, you will create a business that is worth, you know, well over $10,000,000,000. And that sounds easy, but very few companies have been able to do it. I think what may be underappreciated about CoreWeave is it's actually really hard to run these big training clusters. Everybody thinks it's easy, but to synchronize tens of thousands of GPUs where they're melting or cables are being unplugged and, you know, you lose a bunch of training data when it happens, I just think it's not it may not be the commodity that everyone thinks it is, and it may turn out that it's much harder to do than people think. Jason Calacanis (00:14:11): Would there be analogy for that when there are, people thought AWS would never work at the beginning? They were like, who's gonna trust Amazon with their compute? And it was difficult, and it you know, developers didn't understand exactly how abstract their services into the cloud. Gavin Baker (00:14:26): Yeah. The world was convinced AWS well, a lot of the world was convinced AWS was a terrible business for the first few years. You know, when Microsoft announced they're gonna transition to the cloud, it was very controversial because you go from a CapEx light model to a CapEx heavy model. So, you know, Wall Street consensus has been wrong before, and I do think CoreWeave runs these big GPU clusters as well as anyone, and there aren't that many people on planet Earth who can run them well. And, you know, it's kinda easy. You can just look at the NPV of their contracts and the asset value. And so everyone, you know, who's kind of, you know, confidently putting out all the negatives here, like, I just think there are some offsetting positives that it's good for, you know, I think people to be aware of and consider. That's all. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:13): I think it's a good company. I I would I would second. I mean, I think it's a and it's a great business, and I think they deserve to be successful. Totally true. Jason Calacanis (00:15:22): And it's great to see a competitor to the existing three or four clouds that are out there, and, it's great to see a company go public. I mean, and A with Wizz and now CoreWeave going public, wrath of LenaCon is over. We gotta give the administration a lot of credit for maybe removing the roadblocks to M and A and IPOs or at least people perceive that. So I don't know if perception becomes reality here, but does seem like m and a is a bit on fire. Yeah, Gavin? And and people are talking. Gavin Baker (00:15:49): Above and beyond Wiz. I mean, Core Weave bought Weights and Biases, which I think is a really interesting acquisition for them that kind of kind of further differentiates them and maybe decommodifies them a little bit. But there have been quite a few acquisitions by big companies of smaller companies in the last month. And I think because none of the companies that have been bought have been public, maybe it's flying a little under the radar, but it's happening in an and I think, you know, an accelerating way. And I think this would be, you know, very good for the market and animal spirits and, you know, everything that we care about. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:22): Do you think that there's any issues? There was a a bunch of companies added to the export control list two days ago. Some were in quantum computing. Generally, a lot of it, though, was in the NVIDIA ecosystem. So I think that the the US government is really trying to make sure that these next gen GPUs don't go directly to China, but also don't go to countries that could then redirect them into China. Did you get a chance to look at that, or did your team look at that yet? Gavin Baker (00:16:44): Oh, yeah. And I think this will be part of, you know, the upcoming negotiation between America and China, but it is hard. You know? It's if we can't you know, if America cannot keep illegal drugs out of, you know, out of our own country, These GPUs are arguably dramatically more valuable per unit. You know? Like, a black well is, like, you know, the size of this, and it's just hard. Particularly, like, you know, America, we're trying to keep drugs out. Here, China is trying to bring the GPUs in, and it's kind of significantly, you know, I think harder to prevent than than, you know, smuggling of illegal drugs. Now everybody does their best. But, yeah, The United States, I think it's always gonna be kind of a game of cat and mouse until you get some sort of grand bargain. And right now, they they're allowed to sell certain kinds of GPUs into China, and I'm sure they'll be Jason Calacanis (00:17:44): Should we be doing that, Gavin? Is is this going to be an effective strategy? You know, if you were advising the president, would you say, just let NVIDIA sell them? It's a fool's errand to try to stop them because they're all going to Singapore or wherever, Vietnam, and and routing their way around. Gavin Baker (00:17:59): I think we're putting enough friction into the system that it does theoretically give America an advantage at the cost of creating tremendous incentives for China to develop their own semiconductor ecosystem and, you know, pressure to kind of, you know, necessity is the mother of innovation. And these export controls are creating an immense incentive for China to be really algorithmically innovative. And you saw that with DeepSeek, where there were some real algorithmic innovations. Jason Calacanis (00:18:35): Yeah. So said another way, if we squeeze too tightly on letting them buy the NVIDIA chips, they might make a better NVIDIA. Gavin Baker (00:18:44): I mean, I think Jason Calacanis (00:18:45): that resilient. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:18:46): I think they're doing it now. They're trying now. Jason Calacanis (00:18:47): Yeah. So that's Well, they're trying, but I guess what are the chances they succeed in your mind, Gavin, in creating something competitive with or better? And then what would that say about the AI race? Gavin Baker (00:18:57): In the next five years, I think zero. I think it's really, really hard. But over the ten years, who knows? If you're the CCP, ten years isn't that long. If you're America, Ten Years is an eternity. Jason Calacanis (00:19:10): Yeah. They're thinking in centuries, and we're thinking in decades. Yeah. That's probably correct. Hey. Let's pivot over to AI agents since we're in the AI. And obviously, there's other big topics this week, we'll get to, you know, in politics and signal and all that kind of good stuff. But we have a company that seems to be, you know, having a moment it's called Manus, M A N U S. It's currently in private beta, but they're creating agents. And we've been talking about this agentic revolution, basically little, you know, jobs going out, we used call them cron jobs back in the day, but going out and doing things for you. And it seems to be working and it's pretty impressive. What do you think about this company specifically, if anything? And are we getting to a point where we're gonna have the same ChatGPT 2.5 moment, but with agents? And then if we do have that, Gavin, what will that look like in terms of employment and how companies are run? Gavin Baker (00:20:10): Look, I do think, if agents materialize as a reality and, you know, Manus is maybe a little bit of a chat GPT moment for that, I would say OpenAI and Anthropic. Anthropic developed something called the model context protocol that OpenAI just adopted. I think it will become a standard, and it makes it really easy for an LLM like Stripe can just integrate with MCP. And then any LLM that uses MCP can, you know, interact with Stripe. And this is solving a big, big problem for agents, in terms of just making them, you know, much easier to use, much more standardized. But if agents become a reality, one, the ROI on AI and Blackwell is gonna be very high. And two, what will it's not good for human employment, but Speaker 4 (00:21:05): what will be kind of, I Gavin Baker (00:21:07): would say, the rate limiting factor is just compute. In a world where we all have agents doing things for us all day long, it's going to be a long time before we have enough compute in the ground for that to be a really, really widespread reality. And I think that's why, you know, OpenAI widespread reality. And I think that's why, you know, OpenAI was talking about pricing their first agents at 2,000 to $20,000 a month. Like this ROI on AI question, I think to me really does come down to agents in the short term. Jason Calacanis (00:21:36): Friedberg, your thoughts on these agents and the impact they could have on running businesses, employment, and just generally efficiency. We're now starting to have some standards, MCP stands for model context protocol. Your thoughts, Freiburg, on how this might impact, you know, architecting a business, which you're doing right now with Ohalo. How how might this change how people work on a day to day basis? Let's maybe give some examples for the audience. David Friedberg (00:22:02): Look, I'll take a slightly different view than Gavin. I've said this in the past, but maybe I'll try and contextualize it a little bit. I think that the big unlock with these kind of agentic systems is not necessarily about replacing the easy human tasks, which everyone kinda thinks are kind of the obvious application of them. I think what we're missing is the ability to unlock really complex tasks that are not really manageable today. I can't come up with a very grand project planning exercise with the team I have today. I have to go hire 30 people. Let let me give you an example. I wanna go build a plant breeding facility under the ocean. Okay. So how do I do that? So to do that today, I'm like, well, I gotta go hire people that understand oceans. I I understand engineering, that understand how to do underwater engineering. I have to hire material scientists. I have to hire physicists. I have to hire construction project planners. There's a whole group of complicated people I would need to kind of put together to be able to kind of execute on that opportunity. But now a smaller group, maybe three or four people or two people can say, okay. Let's use these agents to help us build that project plan and spec out every step of the process to find how much everything will cost, what workloads are needed, who's gonna do what. So suddenly, that difficult project becomes a reality. Here's another good example, the California high speed rail program that's ballooned to this hundred billion dollar. What if we had agents organizing and running that program? Well, maybe the cost of that program, the reality of that program makes it a reality now. So it suddenly becomes a program that we launch. We get it done. We build this railroad, whereas all the people, all the complication, all the confusion has and and whatever grift has been going on has led to a hundred billion dollar balloon budget with no outcome. David Friedberg (00:23:58): So I think complex projects can actually be tackled in an easier way. That actually unlocks a tremendous amount of building, a tremendous amount of opportunity for new employment, for people to come in and small teams of three or four to get hired that can now do the work of three or 400 really deeply sophisticated, highly technical people with a very small, less technical group. So I think there's gonna be a tremendous amount of opportunity in biotech, in engineering, in manufacturing, in urban design, in transportation, and on and on and on where small groups are going get spun up that can use these systems to do really complex projects. It's less about like, oh, you're going to replace call centers. Like, sure, maybe. But, like, what are we going to be able to do with these things that I can't even think about doing today? Jason Calacanis (00:24:46): Shammoth, let's level this up and just talk about the bigger picture, which is our giant rival in China. They're actually catching up, in some cases exceeding us. If they get to AI first and then are able to execute on this, given their top down controls, given the size of their population, given their advantages in manufacturing that we're seeing now with Xiaomi making cars, you know, what BYD is doing in self driving in cars, what we're seeing now with chips versus Nvidia. It's kind of getting set up that almost everything we're building here in The US, China's copying at a very fast pace and then exceeding. So what's at stake here big picture? And then I guess we'll then look at Chamath Palihapitiya (00:25:31): Look why? Jason Calacanis (00:25:32): What should our what should our philosophy be, you know, on in a geopolitical way? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:25:37): Yeah. Let's just do an economics lesson. Why does anybody invest? They invest because you let's just take a dollar. You wanna generate a rate of return that's better than all your alternatives. And the riskier it gets, the more of a return you want. Right? That's the basic idea. So if you invest a dollar in bonds, you can get five or 6%. If you invest a dollar in an early stage startup, you wanna get 50 or 60% returns. Okay. That's that's obvious. But the return that you generate is in part driven by how profitable is this company, obviously. And if you have a 300 person group of people that has to do something, it's a lot harder for them to generate profit and then to generate a rate of return than it is if you have two or three people. So the Chinese strategic imperative is no different than small startups versus an incumbent, which is to be as hyper disruptive economically as you can. So I think the big risk is not necessarily Chinese, but many of these alternatives will come from China, which is to say that where are the incumbents? Most of the incumbents are American companies. If you look at SaaS software, that's a perfect example of where there is trillions of dollars. The the software industrial complex, as I call it. Right? That's like a 3 and a half, $4,000,000,000,000 industry. It grows by 10% a year. So every year, it's adding 300,000,000,000 of, quote, unquote, enterprise value. Is that value that is being created? I think a lot of the customers would say no. So if you're a startup or if you're China, what is the most disruptive thing you could do? Well, you could take a three person team to disrupt a 30,000 person team and blow a hole right in the side of that trillion dollar economy. That's the big risk. So whether the risk comes from here or whether it comes from the Chinese, I think what you're seeing is that if these agents can scale, the OpEx, the actual load of making something will go down by an order of magnitude. And that is and maybe even two orders of magnitude. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:27:52): That is incredibly disruptive because the existing incumbents cannot compete with that cost scale. Jason Calacanis (00:27:59): And Gavin, to just bring this around the horn here, China is playing a different game. And obviously, there's other competitors on a global basis, but they are subsidizing, for example, their cars and their entire car industry. So the margin of cars here in The United States, in Germany, and Japan, that's their opportunity. They don't actually need to make a profit on it. They could just break even. There are cars now ten, twenty, 30, 40 thousand cars now being made there. So this then leads us to, my goodness, will Americans buy these? We're pretty great customer. Will Trump block them with tariffs? So let's make the jump. What would the tariff policy be if as Chamath points out here, we've got this big broadside of our battleship that they can put a giant hole through, which is our software industry, our car industry, pick an industry that they might be able to just blow a hole in because they don't need to make a profit. They just need to have jobs and break even. Gavin Baker (00:28:58): What should our tariff policy be or what is it? I mean, we know what it is for autos. It's 25 David Friedberg (00:29:02): Do we Jason Calacanis (00:29:02): know what it is? Yeah. Speaker 4 (00:29:03): I mean, it seems Jason Calacanis (00:29:04): like it's in flux. So maybe we start there. What should the policy be? What do you perceive the policy is? Because it does seem to be a moving target. We'll see what happens on April 2 because Trump keeps tweaking, let's say, adjusting in public. Gavin Baker (00:29:20): Yeah. I mean, this is so traditional economics would say, hey. Tariffs are not a good idea. We should have free trade. You know, everybody understands the principle of comparative advantage. I do think the Trump administration is pretty convicted that that approach has not worked well for America over the last twenty years. And maybe it's worked well for knowledge workers, but it hasn't worked well for kind of ordinary Americans. And I think they're very convicted in changing that and trying to bring back kind of good high quality jobs to America. I think they see tariffs as an effective way to do that. Jason Calacanis (00:29:59): Are they right? Is it going to be? Because a lot of what we're seeing in factories is automation. So while they may have been right about tariffs bringing back high paying middle class jobs for the past twenty years, we cannot go in a time machine and change that policy. And isn't where the puck's going that we're gonna have optimist robots, figure robots, pick a robot company No. But look. Here's what Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:20): here's what tariffs do. Tariffs are a level setting mechanism that fixes a historical imbalance. Look. The reality is that we have had meaningfully lower tariffs for products coming in than those reciprocal tariffs exist for our products going into these other countries. That's true. And the one thing I'll say about Donald Trump is you may not agree with the tariffs, but he's been incredibly consistent. I was on YouTube yesterday, and I stumbled into an interview he did, Nick, maybe you can find this, with Larry King in 1987. And he ran a full page ad in the New York Times talking about this exact issue and then went on Larry King, and he walked through the entire trade imbalance forty years ago. Jason Calacanis (00:31:11): Yeah. He's been on this. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:13): So this is not a fly by night thing. So what do they want? What they want is to create the economic incentives to reassure as much industry as possible into The United States. The delicate balancing act, though, is that after twenty years of globalism and a perverted version of free trade, because it's not what it is today, it's been perverted, it is incredibly difficult to do that without these whack a mole problems emerging in other areas. Right? Whether it's inflation or whether it's retaliatory tariffs or consumption taxes, all of these complexities, I think, are what has to get figured out. But the structural reason of why tariffs make sense is not necessarily to overly penalize one country over another, but it's simply to say, if you charge 5%, we charge 5%. If you charge 10%, we charge 10%. Nick has a clip. He's just just listen to this from forty years Jason Calacanis (00:32:09): ago. Speaker 6 (00:32:10): We don't have free trade right now because if you wanna go to Japan or if you wanna go to Saudi Arabia or various other countries, it's virtually impossible for an American to do business in those countries. Virtually impossible. So the fact is that you don't have free trade. We think of it as free trade, but you right now don't have free trade. Jason Calacanis (00:32:25): So Gavin, let's get back to this original question with important context. Trump has been on this for a while. But is this where the puck's going? We have the lowest unemployment of our lifetime. Wages are obviously not where we want them to be. So is the right solution to put in a bunch of tariffs, create trade wars, and then hope that people are gonna build factories and employ humans when in fact it probably will be robots. So is there another solution, like maybe raising the minimum wage? I don't know. What are your thoughts? Gavin Baker (00:32:58): Well, I think it's Chamath in that clip illustrated. He is convicted in this. It's 40 years old. Jason Calacanis (00:33:04): It's happening. Gavin Baker (00:33:05): Yeah. It's happening. And so I would say two things. Like, one, I think it's all something I'm always conscious of at, my wife, Becky, one of her college or high school re reunions. There's a guy there who'd been in her class and had been in the Navy Seals, and he deployed to 80 countries. He'd been in the Navy Seals for, like, a decade. And I said, what's the one thing that you learned? And he said, the one thing I learned is everybody in America is always trying is always focused on making America better. Have you been to 80 different places all around the world? Our only goal should be to not screw it up in America. Just don't make it worse because America is so much better than everywhere else. So the first thing is, like, you know, Chamath said the word delicate, and I think that's right. And if I had one thought for the administration, it would be every time they say the word tariff, whatever they think, Wall Street and the markets. And I would say, you know, I think a lot of business leaders are convinced that tariffs are bad. Now maybe Wall Street is wrong and the administration is right. One thing everyone agrees on is deregulation is good. So every time they say the word tariff, they need to say the word deregulation two or three times because the best way to, I think, maximize the odds of this policy succeeding despite the headwinds from automation, I think it's gonna be a long time before we have hundreds of millions of robots. You know, even between China and Tesla, I think it's gonna take a long time to make vast numbers of humanoid robots. The best way to encourage this reshoring is just making it easier to do business in America. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:41): Okay. %. Can I just add one thing? That's really, really important to what Gavin said. There's a third thing I would add, Gavin, to your list, which is we need to figure out the difference between manufacturing and IP. And I think what we wanna do is make sure that we trap the real value back in America as well. Look. I've told you guys a story before, but when I was helping to run Facebook, I was a signatory. When we were setting up Facebook abroad, we exported all of our IP to Ireland. And lo and behold, who do they sue? Zuck, Meta, and me. Pink. And we've been in this ten year lawsuit, fifteen year lawsuit with the IRS because they're trying to come back and say, hey, Facebook. You owe all of this money. Why? Because we exported all of our critical IP to Ireland, and we trapped it there. That should not have been able to happen. We can fix it. Separately, there's many companies who are abroad, who live inside the American market, who have given a mechanism, would import their IP into The United States if there was a mechanism to do so. So not only can you have manufacturing, you can also have the critical knowledge, not just of that manufacturing, but of that product, of that supply chain. Those are the incentives that these nuances, if we get right, it's really a renaissance for The United States. Jason Calacanis (00:35:58): Let's talk a little bit about maybe other solutions. Friedberg, obviously, perhaps raising the minimum wage, or increasing corporate taxes in order to do that, would that not also help us maybe build back the middle class? That is the criticism I think some other people have. We you know, Trump when he did his TCJA, as people remember the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, corporate tax rate was 35%, we put it down to 21. And now repatriation of cash from overseas as Chamath's pointing out, I think it's only 15%. It's like, everybody can kind of afford that. So would that not be another way to solve this problem of the bottom half, the bottom third not making them enough, or maybe even lowering their tax rate, which is already pretty low? David Friedberg (00:36:47): Well, I think the the proposal that I've heard from this administration that we heard from Howard Ludnick when we met with him was they're gonna cut all taxes for people making less than a hundred $50,000 a year. So get the tax rate to zero. Jason Calacanis (00:37:02): Do believe that? Do you think it's realistic now that it's a day after you do that? You you actually think that could happen. David Friedberg (00:37:07): I % do. And In what Jason Calacanis (00:37:09): timeline and why? David Friedberg (00:37:11): Well, that's the key question. This is where this becomes like a first and second derivative problem. Let's just talk about it this way. When you take money out of the economy, you wanna make sure you're also putting money back into the economy in another way to keep the economy stable or growing. So if you're taking money out of the economy in the case of tariffs, you're putting money into the government's coffers. You're reducing people spending because everything costs more now, so consumers will spend less. So what you wanna do is you wanna make sure that the money that you're repatriating is going back to the consumers so they can now have more money to spend. So that's why you wanna cut taxes at the same time that you're increasing the tariff rates. So if you increase the tariff rates, things cost more. The government is now making things more expensive. That's not good. But at the same time, if I cut your taxes and you got more money now than you did before, so you can now buy the things that you are buying even though they're a little more expensive, the economy should be able to remain stable or grow. At the same time, if you're cutting government spending, that means that the government can afford to take less taxes in, and so they can make that assessment. So these are all we've said it many times. These are all very related. And to Gavin's point, you've gotta cut regulation at the same time so that the incremental dollars flow into things like automation, onshore productions that the cost of things come down. And so, again, not a simple equation. I would call it a grand economic experiment. The analogy for me feels a little bit like there's four freight trains kind of passing by each other at very high speed, and you're trying to pass all the ingredients to make a sandwich between the windows of the freight trains. You're trying to get them all over so you can make this delicious sandwich and get to this golden age. David Friedberg (00:38:53): That's the configuration that it feels like they need to kind of assess as they're and they're iteratively Jason Calacanis (00:38:59): They have to thread the needle is I think your point, and it's really hard to do. And you use the phrase experiment. Gavin, you said before, hey, don't screw up this amazing country and what we've got here. This sounds like a very high risk, high dexterity maneuver. It feels like a fighter plane, like trying to land on a very small aircraft carrier. Can they pull this off? Can they get to the tariffs working at the same time inflation not spiking, not impacting employment, getting rid of people's taxes. Does this sound too complex to you and too much too fast? What what is your honest thought, Gavin, as you watch this as a capital allocator? Are they going too hard too fast, or is it worth pursuing this experiment as as Friedberg framed it? Gavin Baker (00:39:47): Look. Scott Descent is probably the single most respected or was the single most respected macro investor in the world. Like, he really understands the markets, how they flow through to policy, how policy flows back. He's an extremely smart, talented guy. They have a coherent theory. You know, I thought Howard and Scott did a great job in the last two episodes. Jason Calacanis (00:40:10): Absolutely. Yeah. Gavin Baker (00:40:11): Kind of explaining the theory. And the one thing I would just say having, you know, we all watched the first Trump administration, he is adaptable. He adapts to circumstances, and the midterms now are whatever whatever they are. You know? In in political terms, they're they're fifteen months away from, you know, the Jason Calacanis (00:40:30): Around the corner. Gavin Baker (00:40:31): Yeah. Around the corner. So I think they're trying to do a lot as quickly as they can. But I also think that if after a few months, it's, you know, six months, nine months, it's not working, they will adapt. And I think that's one reason there's such an emphasis on reciprocity. You know, in Vietnam came out, and they lowered their tariffs on American goods, and that's that's good. And so I think the out is, oh, you know, maybe it's not going quite the way we hoped. We're gonna declare kinda, hey. We have a series of grand bargains with these countries. Declare victory. Maybe tariffs on American goods are slightly lower. Tariffs here are slightly higher, feels more fair, and, you know, move on to kind of firmer ground of kind of deregulation, balancing the budget, cutting government spending, and cutting government taxes commensurate with the spending cuts. So I think they're trying the risky stuff first. And if it doesn't work, they will tack quickly. Jason Calacanis (00:41:34): Yeah. That was my perception, especially after hearing percent on the all in pod. Great job, guys on getting those long form. And I think this is where the administration is strongest. When they do a long form discussion and you hear their thoughts about it, it doesn't sound as crazy as when, you know, all due respect to the president, when the president is like, I'm gonna go easy on them. I'm gonna go hard on them. You know? And it's like a reality TV show and who's gonna fired this week. You actually have two incredibly thoughtful, I will point out, Democrats, lifelong Democrats around Trump. And I I think that's like a really I had this crazy observation, Gavin. I don't know if you noticed it as well. You know, Trump lost his reelection campaign, and he filled his whole cabinet with a bunch of Republicans. This time, he's filled his whole cabinet, and everybody around him is a Democrat. And he's gone to a really unique concept here of how to solve The US's problems, which is get the working man and woman a higher salary and lower their taxes. This this could be like an incredible grand bargain that Besant, I think, is the architect of, and Letnick is, you know, the communicator and and, executor of. Do you think they have a chance of pulling this off? What do you if you had to handicap it? Gavin Baker (00:42:43): I hope they do. As an American, I hope they do. I think they for sure have a chance of doing it. They have a solid theory of the case. They need to execute well. I would say Doge's efforts are important. You know, if you can really cut a trillion dollars of kind of waste, fraud, and abuse out of the government government spending, that's good. You know? We should all agree as Americans. You know? Maybe Democrats, they want more government spending. Maybe Republicans want less. But for whatever given level of government spending, we want it to be as efficient as possible. Because if you're a Democrat, that means more services. If you're a Republican, maybe that means a smaller government. So I think they have a solid theory of the case. I think there's a reasonable chance it will succeed. But if it doesn't, I think they will tack quickly. And the one thing they can't afford is a recession. If they're focused on the defes deficit, a recession blows out the deficit. So they will be ultimately sensitive to these market based forces, you know, rates, stock markets, the foreign foreign currency markets. Jason Calacanis (00:43:43): Chamathi, you want to maybe wrap this up for us here and move on to some of the other topics of the week? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:43:48): John Arnold had a post this morning on x. He was saying the deficit this year is gonna be 1,900,000,000,000.0. His best guess for 2026 was 1,900,000,000,000.0, and he was just kind of asking his followers what they thought. If you listen to Howard last week, what he said is, I'm gonna raise a trillion dollars, and Elon's gonna cut a trillion. Now if that comes to pass, then we have a balanced budget. If you ask the sharp money on Wall Street, their numbers range from 170,000,000,000 to 300,000,000,000 on the revenue side. So let's take the midpoint of around 200 to 250,000,000,000. David Friedberg (00:44:29): K. $2.50. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:30): If the sharp money is right, that means that tariffs and all of that stuff will only really raise a quarter of a trillion, which means that there's gonna be even more pressure on Elon. He's gonna have to find not 1,000,000,000,000, but 1,750,000,000,000. Again, assuming that that $1,900,000,000,000 deficit exists next year. So that's the math. It is a $2,000,000,000,000 bogey, and they have to fill it somehow. My intuition is that the waste, fraud, and abuse is probably meaningfully more significant than we think. When we were there, we heard about one consulting firm. 95 plus of all of their revenue, multibillion dollar revenue, comes from time and materials contracts with the United States government. We heard throughout the week, I've reposted it on X, $65,000,000,000 is paid out to consulting organizations beyond just that one in these time and materials cost plus contracts. If you start to add all of these up, today, we just heard that the $2,000,000,000 grift to Stacey Abrams was canceled, and they're now starting a DOJ investigation into how those dollars got given to her. All of these things start to add up. It may be the case that if there's an upper bound on tariffs, that there will be more than a trillion. And Elon kind of fills in the gap, but I think it's possible. Jason Calacanis (00:45:55): They are looking Gavin also at military spending and maybe cutting that 8% a year every year for a couple of years. That's where big dollars are are sitting. And obviously, nobody wants to touch Social Security despite I do have to point this out for my best as you guys did a great job with that interview. And I just wanna say FTMZ for trying to spin it as, know, Lutnick was trying to take away people's social security. They've literally took an hour plus interview. They clipped it to try to make it seem like he was saying the opposite of what he said. He was saying the fraudsters will be the first to respond, not my mom. My mom would just, you know, call eventually and say, hey. Can I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:40): She would assume that there was good intentions? Jason Calacanis (00:46:42): Yes. Whereas the fraudsters would be like, oh, man. I gotta get here. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:45): I think it's great. Know what? Can resist Jason Calacanis (00:46:47): Swisher did the same thing. No. Let me finish my little thing here, because Tramath, because I don't want you guys to have to defend yourself. Listen, I couldn't make it. You guys did these last minute interviews, Mazel Tov. David Friedberg (00:46:56): We missed you. Jason Calacanis (00:46:57): Thank you for saying I would have loved to be there. I will be at the next ones for people who are saying like, oh, there's some conspiracy. There's no conspiracy. I had ski week. These guys went to do business or whatever they were doing and to see their friends in DC. And these things happened very rapidly and I wasn't able to get there. Bottom line, these were great, substantive, long interviews from Democrats. One of them, a gay Democrat, by the way, the highest ranking gay Democrat who's ever been in an administration, the left and the media should be giving praise to these interviews. They should be studying them and they're doing the exact opposite. They're trying to spin them into something they weren't. It's a gift what the All In podcast did to the American people by showing them a long form interview with the administration explaining these details. Don't spin it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:44): Think it's great. Think it's great I'm sorry I'm Jason Calacanis (00:47:46): pissed off about it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:47): No. Piss me off. I don't think you should be pissed off. I think it's wonderful that these people lie. I think it's incredible that they've just put it out there, and it just further erodes what's happening. I think if once Bobby puts a nail in the coffin of pharma ads on TV Jason Calacanis (00:48:02): Bye bye, Anderson Cooper. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:04): Bye bye all these guys. I think it's great. Jason Calacanis (00:48:06): I'm so pissed off. I'm sorry. Like, when I see people live like that Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:10): They should be lying. They should be lying. They should it's great. They're because they will not exist in David Friedberg (00:48:14): the gaps. Jason Calacanis (00:48:15): You're you're a neutral third party. Go ahead. Gavin Baker (00:48:16): No. I'll just say three really quick points. Like, what Howard Lutnick literally said was if we can find a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse, we don't have to raise the retirement age. Everybody's talking about raising the retirement age to 70. Yes. If we administer these programs more efficiently, we can keep it at 65, and, you know, that's good for everyone. The second thing is it's just interesting to me there's so much doubt about this when the inspector generals of, you know, both Biden and Obama, you know, said there were hundreds of billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse. And I would just say someone in my immediate family has had their Social Security, their identity stolen, and someone is using their Social Security number to collect unemployment benefits in Alabama. And this has been going on for two years, and they've been unable to stop it. And so, you know, you don't wanna rely too much on anecdote, but I think this is really happening. And then just the third thing I would just say is I do think, you know, no one has ever raised no president has ever raised my taxes more than Trump did. And I think they are pretty convicted in their focus on normal working class Americans and making their lives better is actually genuinely their north star. You can disagree with the theory of the case. You can disagree with, you know, the the way they're communicating it, but I think their intentions are good. Jason Calacanis (00:49:39): Absolutely. And you know what? He even said in the interview, if you if you really listen to it, he said he was disgusted by the idea that you would even raise the social security age. I think we should, by the way, any rational person, think the majority of people say, Hey, maybe it should go up a year or two. Maybe we should have a little austerity here on the margins. But no, of course not. We can't talk about that. And the thing this administration could do better is communication. Those two long form interviews was a great step in the right direction. They should do more of those. And dough should do a better job of explaining this waste and fraud. They're doing a good job. I give them like, you know, a B plus, but there's more work to be done here. And there's waste, there's overspending, there's fraud and there's abuse, right? These are like different categories. To get to the fraud that takes building legal cases. All that stuff's gonna have to be referred to people. We have a justice system here. It's gonna take years to figure out if somebody actually stole. But waste and overspending, we're gonna find that pretty quickly. So it's a process people. And I for one trust the process because we're overspending massively. Let's get to some other conversations here. I think maybe we start with Gavin Baker (00:50:51): J Cal, on Doge, I just think it is it is whether it's a semiannual or quarterly, something that is like the Doge report, and everything's been audited and triple checked. These are the three categories. This is what we found. I think something like that would be very helpful. Jason Calacanis (00:51:08): I think they need investigative journalists. I'm I'm happy to help with this. I'll do a Doge pod. You know, listen. I'm not part of the administration. Everybody knows. I was a never Trump or I'm independent blah blah blah. Disclaimer. Disclaimer. Disclaimer. I would totally go in there. David Friedberg (00:51:19): Are you still in the for Jay Cal? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:21): Why do you keep saying independent and then you throw yourself a label that says you're not independent? Jason Calacanis (00:51:26): You're dependent. Telling people I I was a never Trumper. But if Trump is gonna surround himself with moderate Democrat Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:33): you truly independent? I like to think so. Jason Calacanis (00:51:36): I I try to be independent, call balls and strikes here on the program. I'm not gonna bend the knee to the administration. I'm gonna I'm going critical of Trump coin. I'm gonna be critical of these deportations, which we're gonna get to. And I will say critical things. But I would go in there and I would do the Doge pod with Elon or whoever in the group is and go point by point through these things to explain it to the American public. Let's keep moving here. We got such a full docket. I wanna talk about SignalRate. Text Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:59): our bestie and talk to him about it. I think that's Jason Calacanis (00:52:01): a one. Maybe I should go in there. Because listen. I don't even consider this like a Trump administration now. Consider it as a Democratic, moderate administration. Everybody around Trump now is a democrat. I think I might be in. I might be in. You guys look like you had a Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:14): good time. Jason Calacanis (00:52:14): You guys look like you had a good time last week. Gavin Baker (00:52:17): Kinda wanted include it. Jason Calacanis (00:52:19): It looked like fun. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:20): Did you vote for Trump? Jason Calacanis (00:52:21): I don't wanna bring in my vote. I did not vote for Kamala. Let's keep moving here. I'm gonna keep dropping things. Oh my gosh. Not vote for Kamala. I couldn't vote for her. She said I don't wanna say it, but anyway, let's keep going. I I don't wanna vote for somebody who was selected. I wanted to vote for somebody who had a primary, and the Democrats disgrats the odd for not having a speed run primary. Signalgate, that's the biggest story in America right now on Monday. Alan Turing. This is incredible. What a day. No. Mean, listen. I'm gonna call balls and strikes. Right now, 70% of what they're doing, I agree with. 30%, I don't. I'm gonna get to the 30% on a human rights basis. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:52:57): I think you just admitted you voted for Trump. It's really incredible, actually. Jason Calacanis (00:53:00): Anyway, let's keep moving here. I'm from the great state of Texas. I'll leave it that. Signal gate. Signal gate. Signal gate. On Monday, The Atlantic published a story titled the Trump administration accidentally texted me their war plans. Somehow, Atlantic editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg was added to a super high profile signal group with our Secretary of State, our Vice President Tulsi Besant, the CIA director, the Secretary of Defense. How is this possible, folks? They added a journalist, the editor in chief of the Atlantic to their war planning signal group. They shouldn't be using signal, obviously, to do this stuff. And inside this group, they discussed the plans to strike Houthi targets across Yemen. Nobody noticed. Nobody checked that the editor in chief of The Atlantic was in the group chat. They included the exact targets, the actions, the timing of all of this. It was apparently cut and pasted from some other system by Hagsef, our secretary of defense and former Fox commentator. That's not a dig. It's just a fact. Speaker 4 (00:54:09): I am not saying it as a dig. Chamath, Jason Calacanis (00:54:12): people are losing their mind over this. I could get into all the details. I think most people know it because it's taking up the whole all the oxygen in the room and the media in the group chats. Number one, what's your general take on what happened here? How stupid is this? How ridiculous is it? Does it matter? Go ahead, Shimon. Start us off here. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:32): I think that what folks have stopped talking about entirely, which I think is just worth touching upon David Friedberg (00:54:38): Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:39): Is what is actually going on that necessitated this group chat to be created in the first place in such haste. So I have a couple of images that I pulled just to explain what this issue is. So the problem that we have is that somewhere after the war with Gaza, Iran continues to fund these Houthi rebels in Yemen. And what do they start to do? They start to invade and flood into the Red Sea, and they start to block up the Suez Canal in different points, making it very perilous for freight traffic to get there. So what do folks do? They're either forced to go all the way around the Cape Of Good Hope or risk attack through the Suez Canal. So what do you think happens? Well, the traffic through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal falls off a cliff. And then you would ask, well, why is that important? Well, the problem is that because of that other chart and this chart, prices start to skyrocket. So if you're trying to ship things, even going into The United States, prices start to rise 40%. Going to Europe, prices are rising 304 hundred percent. If you add that altogether, as Gavin said earlier, we're in this very delicate moment where we're fixing all these parts of the economy. The thing we can't have is productivity go down. You can't have a recession. And so if you have a bunch of input prices that go up or trade slow down, now you're bringing the likelihood of a recession to the forefront. So that's one thing. The second thing, which was included in the group chat, is it turns out that nobody was in a position to fight off these Houthis except The United States. The British, the French, all of their naval capacity wasn't strong enough or adaptable enough to fight these folks off. So The United States had no choice but to attack these guys and reset. And so what happened? Now all of a sudden, traffic is reset. Right? Volumes are back up. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:43): By the March, which is where we are now, we're back to where they were even a year ago. The price of shipping is now contained. The inflation risk is contained. The productivity hit is contained. Jason Calacanis (00:56:57): It's just important to understand. So that's the context Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:00): of why they did the attack. Jason Calacanis (00:57:02): Great. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:02): I find it crazy that we still actually, for 95 articles though, Jason, on signal, we have only less than one article on this. So I just wanted the smart people to listen to our pod to actually understand it. The second thing the second thing I'll Jason Calacanis (00:57:16): say is the bill to Europe because this is really a European problem because okay, so We have the whole Pacific Ocean. We can accept when things through, and Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:24): you know Jason Calacanis (00:57:24): the ports in Texas or Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:25): you know what is. So the point is we're on a shot now. Yeah. So the point is we're on a shot clock. People had to act quickly. Here's my big problem with signal. I think it was a up. I think I think I think it was an important set of decisions that had to be made, but I think the using Signal was a mistake, but there's very one narrow reason why. And we've said this in our group chat. The Signal desktop app is total and complete garbage. Speaker 4 (00:57:51): Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:52): And when you build apps, somewhere along the way, we were all told, all of us as app developers, oh, you need to have an app on every endpoint. It needs to be available for Android. It needs to be available for the iPad. It needs to be available for your phone. It needs to be available for the desktop. And the problem is now you'll have a computer at home. You'll have a computer in your den. You'll have a computer at the office. Some IT person comes and helps you install this stuff. And now all of a sudden, instead of having one attack vector, Gavin Baker (00:58:21): have Right. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:24): So this is insanity. Jason Calacanis (00:58:25): So it's a mistake. It's a stupid mistake. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:29): I think it's a mistake. And so I think like, let's give it two Scaramucci's. I think we'll forget about it. Jason Calacanis (00:58:35): Give it a Scaramucci or two. Should somebody resign? Should somebody be fired? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:38): No. No. No. I think these are mistakes. And I think I think by the way, sorry. The other thing is John Ratcliffe is very clear. There are very clear procedures that they inherited, which is no administration's fault, but there's some security IT person that writes these things. It's approved. And so rewrite those things to be more normal. Jason Calacanis (00:58:55): Friedberg, your thoughts here. Do you have a take? David Friedberg (00:58:59): So I think this issue will become one of whether or not government officials can use signal and apps like it for communication. This is a controversy that's been around for some time, but it's actually being tried in the courts right now. There's, I think, four active cases. So the Federal Records Act was originally passed in 1950, and then there was this amendment related to electronic communications that was passed in 2014. And the Federal Records Act says all government officials and employees have to create, maintain, and preserve adequate and proper documentation of activities, transactions, decisions, policies, and other business. Jason Calacanis (00:59:43): That's the law. David Friedberg (00:59:45): That's the law. And it says adequate and proper documentation is defined as records that clearly document the government's decisions and actions, and that can be preserved and retrieved for accountability, transparency, and historical purposes. And then we have the FOIA laws, which allow you to, as a citizen as a journalist to go make a request. Jason Calacanis (01:00:01): Freedom of Information Act. This is to have a functioning democracy. What you're talking about here, Friedberg, is people who work for us should not be able to end run their communication. And that's the law. David Friedberg (01:00:12): Yeah. The FOIA provides access to government records because our taxpayer dollars pay for the government to do its work and therefore access. So the question is, is the particulars of the communication that's taking place amongst these individuals in this case and in the daily work done by government officials that's like this where people are updating one another or talking with one another about things, does that have restrictions around preservation of records under the Federal Records Act and the amendment that came out in 2014? And so there were a bunch of lawsuits. One is the Competitive Enterprise Institute against the OSDP, the Office of Science and Technology Policy in 2016, where using email accounts and communications that weren't properly archived or preserved was challenged by this institute. And the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the officials who use private email for official business must copy or forward email communications to government accounts to comply. The citizens for responsibility and ethics in Washington act sued the Trump administration in 2017, and this is ongoing in multiple forms right now in the courts where there's a lot of procedural complexity. But the courts have generally said that they emphasize that these officials are obligated to preserve official communications and that failure is violating the laws. Then there's judicial watch versus Department of Homeland Security, and then there's National Security Archive versus Mike Pompeo, the state department in 2019, which is also still in the courts. And I think from these cases and this particular incident, there's gonna become much greater kind of, call it, clarity and also a better understanding of the consequences of what communication do you need to preserve records of and what communication are you allowed to have off the record that Jason Calacanis (01:01:56): you go out pay? Friedberg? I mean, we get it. There's a what do you personally think? Like, what David Friedberg (01:02:00): do you So I Jason Calacanis (01:02:01): David Friedberg, the sultan of science, think? David Friedberg (01:02:03): I think it is counterproductive to have every piece of communication foible and kept in the public record. I think that's a mistake. And I'll tell you why. When you're making a business decision let's say you're making an HR decision. The management team's sitting around. They're talking about a particular candidate or person at the company. Should we give this person a raise? Should we terminate someone? You don't wanna have a record of that that employees can then go pull up and see and understand because it will have a really effect and a dampening effect on the types of conversation, on the authenticity of the conversation, on the productivity of the conversation that you will be able to have if you're forced to say this is always gonna be in the public domain. Sure. And so I do think that this idea on, like, how did you make a decision and what was the action that you took, those to me feel like they should be recorded and they should be foible. But all of the background material, all of the noise, all of the dialogue that leads on to that Jason Calacanis (01:02:57): the equivalent this would be David Friedberg (01:02:59): I do not think that should be foible. And I think that you need to justify the actions and the decisions that you're making as a government official, but I don't think that you need to have a record personally of everything that led up to that action or that decision because I think that that will be really deeply unproductive. Jason Calacanis (01:03:13): Let me give a take here. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:15): This is a serious issue. Jason Calacanis (01:03:17): They shouldn't be doing it for obvious reasons. It's very easy to hack personal phones, and they do have a way to do this, which is called the SCIF. And there's other places for them to have secure communication. And as you point out, they work for the American people. They should be a record of this. They're breaking the law by doing this. So the administration should not be breaking the law. Obviously, we don't want them to do that. Also, PEGSA clearly took a report of the attack plan, cut and pasted it from some server somewhere and then pasted it over. This is a known vector. Your clipboard is what it's called. And this is an attack vector that anybody who's in IT or has basic security training knows that you can get your clipboard hacked very easily. They need to take ownership of it. And this is one of the things that this administration and this group does very poorly. Instead of taking ownership like Chamad said here, just take just own it. No big deal. This is a, you know, a chance for us to learn and iterate on the security protocols, yada yada, we apologize. Let's move on. They attack. And this is Trump's like playbook. We have to attack the journalists. So what did they do? They attack the journalists. They take no ownership. And the second thing, which is administration really has an Achilles heel floor, is on top of just not taking ownership and attacking the hypocrisy. Because this was the entirety of the anti Hillary movement was, oh my God, she did this exact same thing with her email. And Republicans had a long list of, oh my god, here's hold on, I'll finish. You'll get your chance, Shammaf, to defend your boys. The point is it's complete utter hypocrisy, and it's distasteful to attack the journalists, which you added. This is incompetence. It's a mistake. Own it. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:00): Well, hold on. Jason Calacanis (01:05:01): And then every single person's phone has to get dumped now. And so they're not doing a good job communicating what they're gonna do to make sure that somebody hasn't gotten onto everybody's personal phone. Why are they doing this on their personal phones? As, Sharmav, you very much pointed out, these are attack vectors. They should be using the phones issued to them for these communications, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:22): not their personal devices. Me say Jason Calacanis (01:05:24): a couple of things. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:25): The first thing is I think you're wrong about the fact that they don't have an adequate claim with this journalist. I think it's fair to ask, what is the ethical standard that that journalist should have had? If you're added to something, you know it's inappropriate. The guy just sat there lurking. You don't know how it was added, Jason. You're speculating. It could Jason Calacanis (01:05:48): have been Oh, sure. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:49): Hold on. It could have been injected. Okay? It could have been injected into a laptop. Nobody knows yet. This is why I think just admit what happened was a mistake. I think they did that. They're looking into it. Let them look into it. I don't think you need to have scalpels and heads and all this other stuff. But I do think it's important to say, why was this guy lurking about? Okay. What ethical standards should he have at? Clearly, he had none. And by the way, this guy is No. Jason Calacanis (01:06:14): No. That's ridiculous. You're so wrong in this. It's my opinion. Figure out okay. Your opinion is wrong in Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:20): this case, for sure. He Jason Calacanis (01:06:22): tried to figure out what was going on here. And then when he did figure out it, he contacted them and removed himself. He didn't stay on there indefinitely. If he did that, that would be wrong. But for him to be added to something, he may have he may have been being attacked himself. And the other reason you're wrong is they went on the attack immediately, and they denied that there was anything wrong. They did not take ownership of it, and that's why we're having this debate right now because they don't take ownership of these things. Gavin Baker (01:06:49): Marco Rubio did say someone made a big mistake. There were no consequences. We learned. We're gonna do better. And he is the secretary of state. So someone in the administration did say that this was a mistake. Jason Calacanis (01:07:02): Yeah. And the other guys attacked the journalists. So that's what I find distasteful. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:05): But hold on a second. Trump said it was a mistake too. I don't think these guy it it is. It's a mistake. So fix it and move on. But the point should be, what is the mistake? The mistake is the security protocols that these guys rely on. I don't I'm gonna just go out on a limb. As expert as they are in policy, I think they're inexperts in technology. So there is probably somebody that is responsible for how all of these folks communicate, how all of these folks get software installed on their multiple devices. Okay? How they get new devices. I'm guessing that it's not them. I think that Jason Calacanis (01:07:44): that's their personal devices. I think that's the problem. Why why is anybody in government using a personal device to share plans? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:52): How do you know that? Jason Calacanis (01:07:53): For tech because they said it was their personal devices. They've said it. This has been established that they did this on their personal devices. That that that's totally established now. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:01): Okay. Jason Calacanis (01:08:02): So and they have skiffs for this. So I I just don't understand why they don't Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:06): just use this But, again, I'm saying the bigger issue is that they had to operationalize quickly. They weren't in a position to be together. Importance of the issue is getting lost. It was an important issue that has real consequences. Jason Calacanis (01:08:19): Shamaq, they're all within 10 feet of a skiff at all times. Their their SUVs are skiffs. Their offices are skiffs. Gavin, do you have any final thoughts before we move on to the Yeah. I would just say Lesser. Gavin Baker (01:08:28): The contents were interesting and that there are a couple of things. You know, there's all this, you know, oh, the Trump administration is, you know, cozying up to Russia. I mean, you know, trying to blow up these, you know, this post World War two alliance with Europe. There are two things. One, they said we are the only people on our side of the ledger who can deal with the Houthis. And our side of ledger, meaning, like, recognizing kind of Europe, you know, traditional alliances. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:56): The good team. Gavin Baker (01:08:57): The good Jason Calacanis (01:08:57): team. So I thought that Gavin Baker (01:08:58): was interesting that just for all the rhetoric, they're conscious of who's the home team. And second, they made it was very clear to everyone in that chat, and JD Vance raised it. 3% of America's trade goes through the Suez Canal, 40 Percent of Europe's trade. So we are really doing this. It will help us a little bit, but it will help Europe a vast amount. And we're doing something that helps them that they cannot do. Now, hey. They're asking that they wanna be paid, but I just think it made me think that behind the scenes, a lot of this rhetoric about, you know, The US and the European schism is overblown, and we're still helping them. That was interesting. Jason Calacanis (01:09:40): Yeah. I think it's important note. Okay. Let's move on to our final two stories. The Trump administration has deported 238 alleged gang members to a pretty severe prison called Secot, C E C 0 T, prison in El Salvador. Here's a clip of them being dragged out of The United States and put into this extremely notorious prison. This was all done under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This allows the president to detain and deport individuals without due process from, quote, an enemy nation during an invasion or, quote, predatory incursion. It's been used before, but only during actual wars. FDR used it to deport thousands of Germans, Italians, Japanese during World War two. The Trump administration is claiming that the gang members were sent to The US intentionally calling them a hybrid criminal state. Not surprisingly, most of them were not all of them had criminal records in The US. This was confirmed by ICE. And obviously, some number of them appear to have been misidentified as gang members or terrorists. Can tell you, you know, coming from a law enforcement family. And just looking at the statistics, out of two thirty eight, you're not gonna bat a thousand. So maybe you get a couple of these wrong. Former pro soccer player, Jersey Reyes Barrios. He fled Venezuela after being tortured by the government for protesting. He's a refugee. He has been mistaken for a gang member, according to his people, because he's got an arm tattoo supporting his favorite club, Real Madrid. And there is a social media post that ICE officials believe featured him making gang signs, but it was actually the language for I love you, according to his attorney. Second example, a shoe salesman and social media influencer, Norberto Rodriguez. He fled Venezuela for Colombia out of desperation because he and his family were starving. He's a father of three. Jason Calacanis (01:11:37): He was also suspected because of a tattoo, which features playing cards and dice. His family says he got to he got it to cover a scar on his forearm. And third and final example, stylist and makeup artist Andre Hernandez. He is being represented by the Immigration Defenders Law Center. He claims he has no criminal history. He sought asylum after fleeing Venezuela, where he was persecuted for being gay. Again, his arrest was based on tattoos that his attorneys claim are not gang affiliated. This has caused The US District Judge to pause these deportations. The administration has apparently continued these deportations and they're even gloating by doing videos, highly produced videos, threatening people with the prison in El Salvador, again, the Sikhat. Your thoughts, Chamath, on this extradition process, if any. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:36): I mean, as long as there's a mechanism for these mistakes to get rectified, Seems like the overwhelming majority of these folks should not have been in The United States and were part of illegal criminal organizations. Jason Calacanis (01:12:53): Okay. So there should be a mechanism. Gavin, your thoughts? Gavin Baker (01:12:56): If innocent people were sent to a prison, like, that's a terrible mistake, and, you know, that that happens. And it shouldn't happen, and, hopefully, it gets rectified. But I guess my bigger thought is a little bit you know, the this administration, as we discussed, they have a really ambitious agenda. They want to fundamentally change America in ways that they think will be better for kind of blue collar normal working Americans. And things like this, you know, signal gate, if you if they made a mistake and sent innocent people to this prison, there's only so many of those mistakes they can afford before they lose kind of the mandate necessary to accomplish their goals. And, you know, hopefully, it's you know, we're we're we're in whatever. We're not even into the, you know, third full month. Jason Calacanis (01:13:47): Sixty six days. Gavin Baker (01:13:47): Sixty six days. We're into the third month. But Jason Calacanis (01:13:50): We're 4.5% of the way through the second term, and it feels like Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:56): Six Garamucci's in. Gavin Baker (01:13:57): Yes. Jason Calacanis (01:13:58): Six it's brutal. It ain't easy here. This is such a good point, though, Gavin. Continue. Gavin Baker (01:14:02): They just execution matters. Like, if they they to accomplish their goals, they need to execute at a high level and communicate clearly and effectively. And just if innocent people were sent to, you know, this prison, mistake. Signal gate. Look. You know? Hey. Maybe it's a big mistake. Maybe it's a small mistake depending on where you sit. I thought Marco Rubio's response was good. But just like I think execution is important for them to accomplish their goals. Jason Calacanis (01:14:33): Great. Friedberg, any thoughts here? David Friedberg (01:14:36): I do not agree with sending people to prison or a detention center or that due process. I felt similarly about Guantanamo Bay because I don't think it matches the rights and the values that The United States should stand for. I think it's different if you believe that they're here illegally. They're part of a criminal enterprise, and we don't wanna try them in courts here. Then we should ship them back to a port of departure somewhere else in another country. Maybe it's back to Venezuela and let their courts try them. But I will talk a little bit about this El Salvador motivation. As you guys know, the El Salvador prison that they set up for putting the, the gang members in had a radical impact on living standards in the country. In 2015, the homicide rate per capita in El Salvador was 103 people per hundred thousand. So one out of every thousand people were murdered every year. They introduced this aggressive policy of rounding people up without due process and putting them in this prison. And through that action, they were able to reduce the homicide rate per capita below two per hundred thousand, which is what it was last year, 1.9. So it had a radically positive effect on society, but, obviously, at the cost of a value that we in The United States hold dear, which is the the value of due process and and the importance of due process because all it takes is one innocent life being locked up. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:56): I'm sorry. You're saying El Salvador, there was no due process? David Friedberg (01:15:59): There was no due process. And so there are plenty of stories. If you watch the documentaries on this prison, there are plenty of stories of people that later were released when they were found to be completely innocent and randomly rounded up or or caught up in a sweep or something that they shouldn't have been at. And there was actually one fascinating interview I saw of one of the guys who spent over a year in the prison was completely innocent. But he said, you know what? It was worth it because the government's been able to clean up the streets. I gotta find this clip, but I was really, like, shocked. I couldn't believe that a guy that spent a year in this prison actually had something positive to say because it was such a profoundly Jason Calacanis (01:16:32): say that to get out. Who knows? You know? David Friedberg (01:16:33): Well, it was such a profoundly difficult place to live in El Salvador, and we've all heard these stories. But I do think that there's an a cue being taken by this administration that there's a way to kind of very quickly resolve to a positive outcome with respect to immigration and crime. But I do think Gavin's point is right that we do have to have some boundary conditions, particularly as it relates to human rights that we do value here in this country. And as long as there's a court trial, as long as there's a judge, as long as there's some sort of it doesn't need to be a jury of peers, but as long as there's some evidentiary hearing to make the determination that someone is, you know, likely this criminal, it makes sense. But, again, I'm much more in favor of if there's gonna be forced movement of people, I don't think that they should necessarily be moved into a prison as much as move to a port of departure and have them tried in another country if there's a crime, or we try them here and put them in prison. Gavin Baker (01:17:27): I agree so much with what you just said. Due process is important. Like, America, like human rights are a core American value. Ed, it was great you acknowledged that, like, the outcome in El Salvador was good. Homicide's down ninety nine point nine percent. Lots of lives saved. And just you know, there needs to be a balance between these. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:48): Yes. Then let me ask you guys a question, very pointed question. If you guys could implement an El Salvadorian style incarceration system tomorrow, and it would have the exact same effect on American crime. So David Friedberg (01:18:02): Yeah. Cuts it by now. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:04): With and and and I'll give you there's a four or 5% error rate. Would you do it? Would the benefit of the safer society be outweighed in your minds by the error rate or not? Jason Calacanis (01:18:19): Absolutely not. Most David Friedberg (01:18:20): people would say yes because it they would view it wouldn't affect them. And then the two to five percent of people who have family members who are, innocent get locked up. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:28): I get that. I'm saying, what do you think? David Friedberg (01:18:30): Yeah, I wouldn't compromise that value. Jason Calacanis (01:18:33): Yeah, we don't want to compromise that value. It's incredibly dangerous. Yeah, incredibly dangerous. We've been riding on a bit of a high. And I think there's a couple of things here this administration could do better. And communicating when they make a mistake and then human rights is such a core part. I believe me, Jason Kalacanis, believes that there is a sadistic nature to this administration. It is an Achilles heel for them. And when you see them doing videos from these prisons and saying, this is gonna happen to you, and this prison is known for torture, and this prison is known for just absolutely the most abhorrent issues in the world, this is the sadistic nature of this administration that I think they need to drop because it is going to derail them, and people care in this country deeply about human rights and process. And there is a constitutional issue right now because Trump and this administration is disobeying the court when they say, hey. Let's slow down here. There is no cost, zero cost, to Americans sending these people to a way station and investigating each of these cases to make sure we don't send a gay hairdresser to El Salvador, another country to be tortured in prison, if that is in fact the case. And it is against all American principles to not have due process and to have innocent people potentially go to jail. And what all Republicans should do is hear and say, this is going to derail the administration. These are the things that will build up over time. And people, just pragmatically speaking, people in America who are rooting for this administration to do some good things like I am, When they do stuff like this, and I represent a large swath of people, it loses them votes. And this is why they I predict. This is why they will lose the midterms if they continue to do this type of stuff. That's my position. It's not virtue signaling. Jason Calacanis (01:20:21): I've cared about human rights long before the All In podcast existed. I my first job was working at Amnesty International, and this is a giant mistake by this administration. Gavin, you had some thoughts? Gavin Baker (01:20:31): This whole debate is a question of ins versus means. And it's like, we all agree that the homicide rate down ninety nine point nine percent in El Salvador is a good outcome. It's a good end. And this is one of the great philosophical questions, and it's you know, we can debate it endlessly. And there has to be a balance between the two. Human rights are a core American value. And I agree, I think, with a lot of what David said. But I also think if you are, you know, going back to that homicide rate, the Trump campaign, you know, they spoke to the mothers and the families of people who were brutally murdered or raped and murdered by, people who were illegal immigrants and were convicted criminals in their home country and were known convicted criminals and somehow still were not apprehended and then committed terrible crimes that were very similar to the crimes they committed there. You have a lot of compassion for the victims too, but all they have to do like, one of, I thought, Elon's best moments, and I think, you know, it's what Doge is doing is great. These are brilliant people working hard for free to do things that have never been done before in the government in terms of efficiency and kinda modernizing IT. But, you know, Elon said at one of the at the first press conferences, listen. We're gonna make mistakes, and then we're gonna quickly correct them. So to me, I think all the administration needs to say, and I do think more due process to David's point is good, is like, listen. If we made a mistake, it's terrible, and we're gonna fix it immediately. And it just it bring gives you so much credibility when you say that. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:22:14): Agreed. But isn't due process happening? How else would you guys know that three out of the 238 were miscast? The fact that you know that means the process is working. I I think the question is The What about the other 235 people? Jason Calacanis (01:22:30): Their families talk to the press. This wasn't from administration. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:22:33): The point is it's it's there. So whether it's the Freedom Project or whether it's the Southern Property Law Center, my point is there are resources. Is it bad when this happens? Absolutely. My question is, do you just blow the whole process up? And then what do you do with the other 235 people? Jason Calacanis (01:22:46): You'd hold all 238 at Gitmo if you wanted to in humane prisons and process them and then have their attorneys get to look at their case. Or you could give their cases to you could be public with their cases and say, here are the cases. These are the people we're deporting and why. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:02): Right. So your specific issue is where they're being sent. Jason Calacanis (01:23:06): Yes. You Chamath, they're being sent to the David Friedberg (01:23:08): most sadistic prison in the world. Chamath, do you wanna answer your question about, like, the 5% trade off? Like, if you sweep up 5% of the people being innocent, whether it's worth that trade off for crime? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:21): Did I get an answer? David Friedberg (01:23:22): You well, you asked me a question, but I wanted to hear your answer. Like, what's your point of view on that? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:27): I think that that's probably what happens today in America's prisons. In fact, it's probably more than 5%. Gavin Baker (01:23:34): But, I guess, the question is, Jamath, what is an acceptable you know, it's a little bit like the trolley problem. You know, there are many variations of this. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:40): I think the important thing is I think that that a bit above our pay grade, but I don't think it's above the president's. And I think that that was part of what he was elected to do is make that call. Because I don't think he hid behind any rhetoric. He was very clear about what his intentions were. And to your point, he did bring the, you know, Lake and Riley Act. I mean, they were very explicit about what their intentions were. Gavin Baker (01:24:04): Yes. But, man, it just feels like a little more due process being a little more careful with the signal. But I also just going back to what we're four and a half percent into the administration. I'm not saying that, hey. Mistakes were made, and it's okay. Tennis and people were sent to this prison. That's terrible, and I hope it gets rectified quickly. Jason Calacanis (01:24:22): If there was some concession here, hey, if we made a mistake, we're going to fix it. That would be a lot better than putting out promotional videos, lauding how brutal this prison is. That would go a long way with me, but we're seeing the opposite. They're releasing videos that they're producing. We'll play one here for you to see. David Friedberg (01:24:43): By the way, I I think an important point about this and perhaps, like, the key part of the strategy of the administration is that this isn't the beginning of a continuous process, but they're sending a signal which they expect will cause people to naturally emigrate out of the country that are committing crime or at risk of being caught for being associated with gangs and while being in The United States as a way to kinda chase folks out. So I think that there's some calculus in what's going on here with respect to the risk and the actions being, hey. Look. If we do this to the first two hundred and forty people and even if three or four innocent people get caught up, there's a net benefit ultimately because it will reduce the immigrants immigrants kinda coming to this country that are parts of gangs, and perhaps some of them will choose to go home. Gavin Baker (01:25:37): You know, they clearly believe that this is that this is going to save innocent lives in America. That is their clear belief system. Jason Calacanis (01:25:47): Well yeah. And and everybody wants that. Here's secretary Christy Nomem from the prison itself. Speaker 4 (01:25:54): Here at Sikhat today and, visiting this facility. And first of all, I wanna thank El Salvador and their president for their partnership with The United States Of America to bring our terrorists here and to incarcerate them and have consequences for the violence that they have perpetuated in our communities. I also want everybody to know if you come to our country illegally, this is one of the consequences you could face. First of all, do not come to our country illegally. You will be removed and you will be prosecuted. But know that this facility is one of the tools in our toolkit that we will use if you commit crimes against the American people. Jason Calacanis (01:26:27): Harsh words. She's trying to make it a deterrent, clearly. All right. Another amazing episode of All In is in the can for Kevin Baker, David Friedberg, and Jamal Palihotepatea. I'm Jay Kal, Jason Kalakanis, and we will see Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:42): you all next Greatest signal. Jason Calacanis (01:26:45): Motherfucker. You motherfucker. Did you see that? I love you. I mean, I can't even take it I love you. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:50): I love you. Jason Calacanis (01:26:50): I'm sorry I'm passionate about some things. I'm passionate about some things. Look at this. Gavin Baker (01:26:54): I can't tell how much of the tension is real versus, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:57): I love I love Jason. Jason Calacanis (01:26:58): I'm an avid detention. We'll let your winners ride. Rain man David Sack. And it said we open sourced it Speaker 4 (01:27:10): to the fans, and they've just gone crazy with it. Jason Calacanis (01:27:25): We should all just get a room Speaker 4 (01:27:33): and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless. It's like it's like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.