I gotta wrap, guys. I got to catch a

flight to Miami. Let me do a closing

here. If you want to keep going, you're

welcome. Two. Three. Two. The plane.

Just wait. Just text the pilot and just

tell them you're all right. Listen. I'm

not burning all the allin credits, so to

speak, and all of our tokens. I'm

kidding. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'm

not flying private to everything and

then putting it on the all-in budget.

The rest of us are flying Southwest

for

your dictator Jim Pol. It's a strange

concept. Yeah. David S. I What does that

mean, Dave? When's the last time you

flew a commercial? Clinton, I haven't

missed a flight in about 15 years.

[Music]

Let your winners ride.

[Music]

We open sourced it to the fans and

they've just gone crazy with it.

All right, everybody. Welcome back to

the number one podcast in the world.

We're back. We're back and what an

amazing panel we have today with us.

Ryan Peterson, friend of the pod, is

back on the show. He's the CEO of

Flexport. How are you doing, Ryan? Did

you get any skiing in this year? I know

you like to ski in the deep powder like

I tried, man, but it was a busy year for

work and I got two little kids. I I did

a few days. Okay. So, you're Oh, yes. We

all forgot you gave control of your

company to somebody. It got a little uh

shaky, got a little contentious, and

then you took the reigns back. How's it

been being back in the pilot seat? Oh,

that was a year and a half ago. So, it's

a distant memory for in in flexport

time. That's like a decade. We've uh

yeah, really had an amazing run.

Although, these tariffs, I mean, I guess

that's why you guys invited me on. These

tariffs have kind of made a lot of

created a lot of new uncertainty in the

flex sports world. Okay, so we'll

definitely get into that. and of course

fan favorite back for his fourth

appearance on the pod. I I I was so

first of all I saw the comment I I saw

the comments last time I was on. I'm I'm

officially not a fan favorite but uh

glad to be back on and I will be I will

be representing free markets uh in uh in

this uh uh in this version. What do the

comments say about you? It was like uh

you know like uh loves Biden uh you know

to totally beta you know all the uh

lover beat soy boy you're filling in for

me though. Um I think so. Yes. I was

trying to represent uh I was trying to

represent libertarian values at the

time. But uh but I love this that the

leftists are embracing Milton Freeman. I

think it's all worth it if that's what

comes out of all of AOC AOC is going to

be a complete free market uh person

soon. Yeah, free market months are

coming soon. Embracing free market

values and the stock market, right? Yes.

Exactly. Because any decline in the

stock market is Trump's fault. So now

they're they're embracing the stock

market. Well, unfortunately

unfortunately the one day that he said

it's Biden's market, it was a it was a

green day. So that uh that didn't help

the case. I mean gosh uh well listen,

it's another massive green day already.

All that matters to me is that Uber is

the anti-tariff stock. It just does

great. It's not impacted by tariffs. So

here we go. with Chimoth. It started

already. We have TDS on both sides.

We've got Trump derangement syndrome

from Aaron. Wait, no, no, no, no. I want

to be defender syndrome from Sachs.

We've got both. Defender and

derangement. Here we go. Syndrome. Trump

bias syndrome on your part. Who? Me? Me?

I call balls and strikes. What are you

talking about? Let's get started. It's

starting already, folks. It's going to

be a great episode. Lots of excitement

with us again. Jason has the uh the rain

self-sabotage. Find every way to not get

rich syndrome. I do. What are you

talking about? You guys said you're buy

me out of this thing and I can get the

hell out of here. You know how much my

shares are in all in worth? For the love

of God, write a check.

Get me the hell out of here. I just may.

Oh god. I mean, I'm going to be a

terror. If Uber breaks 88, that's my

number. 88 is the number. You're all

when that happens. Uh, and we're getting

close. All right, let's get started

here. We have so many topics to get

through with us again. David Saxs. Hey

David, you're doing uh more episodes

now. The audience wants to know. I don't

know if we're allowed to make any

initial announcements, but people are

asking me on the streets, in the

airports, in the comment threads. Is

Sachs back?

Well, the ratings are back ever since I

came back to the show. That's for sure.

The ratings are back, show, but is

measurable back? Is Sachs back?

Well, I'm back as much as I can. Mhm.

And you are a partial employee of the

government. You can do 130 days a year

or something. Is that still the status?

Yeah, it's roughly half after work days.

Got it. And so what do you do? You have

a you have a punch clock there. When you

get to the White House, you punch in,

you punch out like Fred Flintstone or

what? Are you keeping track of these

days? How do you do it? I know why you

don't know this because you have yet to

be invited to the White House. But

that's interesting. I got not how it

works. Normal people just people just

badge in and badge out like that. Badge

it and badge. It's a natural place,

Jason. I I mean, literally, it's

interesting. There's a new private club.

It's incredible that you have thoroughly

prepared for this week, just like

always. I am always prepared.

Interestingly, I don't know if you

gentlemen know this, Ryan and Aaron.

There's a new private club in DC that uh

Don Jr. is doing and Sax is a member.

Chimat's a member. And I just checked my

Gmail. I checked all three of my Gmail

accounts, everything. No invite. You

must have gotten lost again.

Did you send a paper one? Was it like

you sent a goal card or something? Sax,

how do I get invited to this private

club? What is this private club?

Everybody wants to know. Well, we'll be

happy to have you as a guest. Okay. Do I

have to wear a MAGA hat and have the

courtesy MAGA hats at the door? If you

want to be a member, obviously there are

dues and a membership fee, and Okay. I

just didn't want to waste your time with

an offer that I knew you wouldn't uh be

willing to accept. It's only $500,000 is

what I read. Is that true?

That's true for for founding members who

have additional benefits, but there's

also a lower level that's the more

reasonable membership level. So, I think

people are getting a little bit carried

away with that number. Got it. Okay.

That's why I wanted to clarify. Yeah.

Yeah. There's like 10 founding members

who have that level and then there's a

lower level for more average member.

Chimatha, are you one of those 10? Yes.

Do you pay more if you have TDS or how

does that work? TDS premium. What do you

talking about? Jal specifically or what

are we talking about? the TDS search

charge. Asking for a friend. It's a TDS

search charge. You put the tariff search

we just we want a place to hang out in

DC. All of us have been to clubs like

the Battery or I don't know if you go to

LA like the I think places. There's

Malibu Beach House. There's Bird Street

Clubs. There are places in Palm Beach

that are really cool. In any event, we

wanted a place to hang out. And the the

clubs that exist in Washington today

have been around for decades. They're

kind of old and stuffy. To the extent

there are Republican clubs, they tend to

be like more Bush era Republicans as

opposed to Trump era Republicans. So, we

wanted to create something new, hipper,

and Trump aligned. Since I'm in the

government, I can't be an owner, but I

told him I'd be happy to be member

number one. And so, I, you know, said,

"Great, let's let's do it." And so,

we're creating a place for us to hang

out. That's basically it. We want a

place to go where you don't have to

worry that the next person over at the

bar is a fake news reporter or even a

lobbyist or something like that who we

don't know and we don't trust. Got it.

So, it's like any private club. You want

to go somewhere that's highly curated.

This private club uh movement is

happening all over the country, not just

Washington. But we're creating something

that didn't exist before in DC, which

again is younger, hip, Trump aligned,

Republican. We're uh I I actually

started a Kamala club in um in the Bay

Area. So um so we're Yep. I don't think

anyone would pay to join that though is

the problem, right? I mean, it's an open

bar, that's for sure.

Where where do where do you guys meet

up? In like Redwood City. We actually

meet up at the uh at the at the trade

ports. All right. was we're 100 days

into Trump 2.0. It's just a random 100

day thing, but everybody's talking about

everybody's hand ringing. What has it

been like for this first 100 days? How

does it compare to Biden? How does it

compare to Trump 1.0? 143 executive

orders, the most ever in the first 100

days. And they're moving obviously at a

at a different pace to uh be generous.

Major indices are down 7 to 10%.

Obviously, this trade war and tariffs,

the yield on the the yield on the

10-year, it's down about 40 basis

points. There's a lot going on. Let's go

around the horn. Ryan Aaron, you're our

guest. What's your take on the first 100

days? Is it what you expected, good,

bad, and otherwise, wins and fails,

everything. I'll go first. I think it's

a whirlwind. I mean, if you look at the

uh the John Boyd, the fighter pilot, has

this concept of the UDA loop, which is

observe, orient, decide, and act. And

the concept is that if you're in dog

fighting, if you're able to maneuver

through those UDA loops at a faster pace

than your than your competition, they

get disoriented and don't know what to

do. And I I think that that's got to be

how Democrats in Washington and maybe

mainstream Republicans in Washington.

Certainly journalists are all feeling

this like there's that the Trump Trump

administration takes action and before

anybody can respond to that they have

already done like four more things and

you're like wait I forgot to actually

follow up on the other thing that they

did that I didn't like. Uh, and so it's

yeah, it's pretty disorienting if you're

if you're trying to they they can't find

a line to fall back to and go, "Hey,

we're going to push back against this

policy because they're already moving on

to the next one, the next one." Um, so

that that's like my high level

interpretation. Obviously, I come at it

from a trade angle. I think everybody

knew that Trump was going to be he he

told us during the campaign that the the

most beautiful word in the English

language is

tariff. Don't tell them it's an Arabic

word, but the most beautiful word in the

English language. And so we knew that

was coming. I think that the the the

suddenness of it all caught people by

surprise. I mean, they told us April

1st, April 2nd would be Liberation Day.

They didn't tell us that it would go

live the next week, you know, and effect

you've already ordered these goods. So,

that's one aspect that people are kind

of disoriented about. And we're gonna

unpack. Yeah, we're going to unpack

that. Aaron, your thoughts on the first

100 days? Obviously you are a Democrat

and uh you were pretty vocally not in

support of Trump. So what's your take on

the first 100 days? Any any bright spots

for you things you you know support?

Actually Sax's world I'd say has has

been a bright spot. So especially I mean

I think we have a very clear message on

AI and uh and that that that is that's

been I think a huge net positive is um

you know if you look at the the past you

know few months uh out of all the the AI

push from the administration it's

unmistakably you know pro open source

you know pro you know bring as much AI

innovation you know to the US obviously

that the tariffs you know add a little

bit of a headwind to that. I have some

very strong asks, you know, around high

skilled immigration because I think

that, you know, AI talent is going to be

super critical to to actually win the AI

war. So, so I'd say that that

directionally has has had some positive

momentum. You know, from my perspective,

this is kind of playing out almost

exactly how I thought it would 6 months

ago. And then 3 months ago, I I think

there was some signs that maybe maybe,

you know, it wouldn't play out this way.

um just based on some of the some of the

you know kind of early groups that were

coming to the White House the the the

the sort of deep business you know kind

of centricity of the White House you

know I think it was day one or two that

Stargate was announced you know at the

White House we're going to go build

massive infrastructure the case I'd like

to make you know once we talk about

tariffs is is I think there's an

alternative universe where you just lean

into acceleration as opposed to adding

headwinds but but so that would be that

would be the case of what what maybe

could have been you know very different

is we just keep double down on doubling

down on what's working while fixing the

parts that aren't working. But uh but

that would be, you know, my my uh my

judgment so far. Chimath, I mean, you've

been talking about it here every week.

You and I have uh been talking about it

pretty consistently, so I don't think

there'll be many surprises here, but

take a second and maybe assess what you

think if you had to pick a singular

thing that's gone really well and a

singular thing you think could be

improved. What What do you got? Let me

give you my overall grade.

And then I'll tell you how I get to

that. I think the first 100 days have

been a B+.

And here's how I get to that

score. There have been two things where

I think Trump

has frankly hit a home run. The first is

all of the direct

investment and specifically the foreign

direct investment into the United

States. I think it's approaching if not

it has already exceeded a trillion

dollars from corporations and

organizations and individuals from

around the world who have committed to

bringing money into the United States.

And I think strategically that's a

legacy that will live past him. So, I

think that's been an

A+. The second is we had a very unsafe

border

situation and he ran on shutting it

down. I'm not talking about the

execution of the deportations. I'm just

saying getting the illegal crossings to

zero and he's done that. So, that's been

an A+.

I think what's going to be more

controversial are these next three

things though. But in my interpretation,

I think the tariffs have been an

A and I think that the market reaction,

the stock market is only down 4%. And

the interest rate markets are, you know,

4 and a/4%. I think those have been an

A. Now the reason I think tariffs have

been an A is because it is uncovered in

my opinion how beholden we are to a

brittle supply chain and specifically to

China who is a friend but who's also an

enemy and I think that that's going to

really severely complicate

our flexibility and optionality in the

future as they do what is in their best

interests. Okay. So where have they then

not done so well? I think the documents

have been frankly a D. We were supposed

to get the Epstein files. We haven't

yet. We were supposed to get the Martin

Luther King files. We haven't. We did

get the redacted JFK files. I don't

think there's been very good

communication about why it's taking so

long. So I think it's a very small

narrow thing, but I think it had a lot

of attention on the way in. I think

the communications of the

tariffs and the back and forth have been

a C. I think the markets were not

led in enough of a way where they could

absorb the

volatility. But if you take it all in

its totality, I would give it a B+. I

think it's been a very productive 100

days. And when you look back, I think

in, you know, 3 years, four years, 5

years. Okay, we've made some important

progress. Saxs, obviously you're part of

the administration, so I'm not sure

exactly how to ask you this, but you s

you heard some nice compliments about AI

from Aaron. I I happen to agree with

those. I actually agree with uh a good

portion of the crypto stuff, too. I

think actually getting those uh

tightened up, which are your two zones

of excellence and your area that you're

focused on. I think you've done a great

job there. So, just bestie to bestie,

great job there. What's your Thank you.

What's your take overall? You know, it's

kind of hard, I guess, to ask somebody

in the administration to criticize the

administration, but hearing everybody

else's take, what's your response,

maybe? Well, I would I would highlight

three main areas that I think are big

accomplishments for the Trump

administration in the first 100 days.

So, so number one has to be the border.

Like Jamas said, I think you have to

give the administration an A+ on this.

They've completely stopped the border

crisis. I think we all knew that Trump

would take action on this because it's

one of the main issues he campaigned on.

I think if you had asked any of us, you

know, 4 months ago, would this problem

be completely solved? Meaning, border

apprehensions completely stopped, border

completely sealed within the first 100

days, I don't think we would have

believed necessarily that it would get

done so quickly, but it has. Uh, recall

that for 4 years during the Biden years,

we were told for the first 3 years that

the problem didn't even exist. Whenever

the videos were published of caravans

coming or throngs of people running

across the border, we were told that

these were cherrypicked videos on Fox

News. It wasn't real. Finally, in the

last year of the Biden administration,

they said, "Okay, we're finally going to

do something about it." They took some

limited actions and they said that doing

more than that would require new

legislation. Well, all of that was just

gaslighting. It turns out Trump came in,

he restored remain in Mexico and other

policies, completely stopped it. He had

this line at the state of the union

which I think is exactly right which is

we didn't need a new law we just needed

a new president. So I think that's area

number one. Area number two I would say

would be the vibe shift in the culture

around wokeism and DEI. You know how

quickly we forget about this but wokeism

has completely collapsed. Uh I don't

know that anyone is endorsing in a

fullthroated way. Moreover, beyond just

sort of the cultural aspect of it, I

think we've had significant policy

changes on DEI. Trump has basically

ended DEI at the government level. He

also signed an executive order ending

the use of disparit impact for

affirmative action. This is the policy

that said that even if you have a policy

that's applied in a completely neutral

and objective way, if it results in a

disparate impact where different groups

are represented in a different way in

the outcomes, then somehow that must be

racist. And that led to essentially

engineering the results of various

populations to basically fit quotas. And

I think all of that now has fallen by

the wayside. And I think that

meritocracy and colorblindness are back.

The only hold out really has been these

universities where Trump is now taking

action against Harvard and I think that

ultimately we will win that battle. You

see that even in relatively liberal

companies the DI departments have been

cancelled and they're moving back

towards more of a meritocracy. So I

would say that that's like big shift

number two. And I think if any of us had

tried to predict that 100 days ago, we

would have thought yes, Trump will do

something about it. But I don't think we

would have predicted the total collapse

of wokeism and DEI so quickly. And then

I'd say the third area which is still in

flight is the rep privatization of the

economy. That's a term that Scott Besson

used. I think that the Trump

administration needs to reprivatize the

economy. And I like that framing of it.

And there's a bunch of different pieces

under that. I'd say number one is

Doge again ending this hogw spending. I

do think that Trump has come into office

inheriting a very weak Biden economy

that was being propped up by massive

amounts of government spending that was

not only stimulating the public sector,

but it was also gooseing the employment

numbers as well. And we knew that that

spending was unsustainable. We have to

do something about it. So, I think for

the first time in decades, we've

actually started to make real cuts in

government, real cuts in the federal

workforce. And look, we'd like to do

more, but that is a huge shift in the

conversation. There's other pieces of it

as well. I mean, President Trump has

signed a significant number of executive

orders on deregulation. There's also

been unleashing energy. He ended Biden's

EV mandate and a lot of these like green

new scam projects, offshore wind, and

he's been encouraging oil and gas

exploration. So, I think there's that.

And then I appreciate what Aaron said

about tech innovation. We did repeal

Biden's exec order on AI, which was, you

know, 100 pages of unnecessary

regulation on AI. We've ended the war on

crypto, and I think we're trying to stop

the regulatory capture that benefits

large incumbents. So, you have all these

things, and there's been other things

that that have been done on the economy

as well, but I I do think that this sets

us up for a Trump boom in the future.

It's just that a lot of these changes

take time to to play out. Okay, great.

Well done. And well, I think I think I

think we knew Sax would be very pro.

Chamas uh Chamas seems really pro other

than he wants like the alien conspiracy

files released which we'll get soon.

What is the what is the view from Jay

Cal when the where you're the the the

leftleaning guy in the in the room? Uh

you know I'm kind of independent but

yeah social liberal. You know I I look

at what all Americans believe and and

try to build some consensus here. It's

one of the things I've been trying to do

on the pod is look for where we

agree. Americans universally want the

border secured. They don't want illegal

immigration and they don't want

fentinel. So this is the biggest win I

think for Trump which I think everybody

on the panel pointed out and Sachs you

were dead right like when we were seeing

those videos some of them were 5 years

old some of them were recent. Biden

really covered up what was going on in

the border and it took years to figure

out what was exactly going on there. So

that's the biggest win possible. I I

give overall just to be brief a B

for this first 100 days and I give you

know Biden like a C minus. The second

thing that everybody agrees on is they

want to downsize the government. They

don't want waste and fraud. So I think

Doge is the other huge win. The things I

think that could be improved really just

three simple things. The economic

uncertainty is really terrible for

running a business. I'm seeing a lot of

folks in my circle on my podcasts this

week in Startups and here telling me,

"Oh, I don't know how to plan for the

future." And we're going to get into

that with this tariff stuff and the

trade war. And so, I think economic

uncertainty, we have to sort of slow

down and maybe make it easier for people

to understand what the administration is

trying to do. I think rule of law really

matters to people. People didn't like

Biden's pardons. They didn't like

covering up his mental acuity. And I

don't think people like the deportations

without due process. We talked about

that on a previous episode.

Overwhelmingly, people want Trump and

the administration to obey what the

Supreme Court says. They really want

rule of law, the third term talk. Like

eight out of 10 Americans don't like

that kind of talk. Um, and then

conflicts of interest. Obviously, people

hated the Hunter Biden stuff. They hate

the memecoin stuff. And so that's where

it could improve. crisper

communications, more thoughtful

execution, maybe less trolling. I don't

like the White House Twitter account

trolling. And then focus on what got

Trump here. You know, you all said the

same thing. What got Trump in here was

the economy. And one thing that wasn't

mentioned by everybody is the peace

dividend. And Trump is making massive

progress in Ukraine, apparently. I don't

know if it's on the docket today or not,

but stopping the wars and making the

economy boom, those are the two most

important things that he could do. Build

on that. I I totally missed that. You're

absolutely right. That's another one

where I would give Trump an A+. Nat and

I had dinner with POTUS two weeks ago.

And wait, you had dinner with Trump?

This is breaking news. Well, okay,

whatever. Yes. Well, I think it's I

think it's remarkable how much of a

Putin apologist Jake House's become. I

mean, you want to end the war in Ukraine

now? Well, you're going to you're going

to give it You're going to give it to

Putin? You're not going to stop Putin.

I'm totally in favor of what Trump's

doing in in negotiating a deal to get

more money. Oh, you want to talk to

Putin now? I've always wanted to talk to

Putin. I just don't trust him. But you

you can trust him. Let me tell you what

Trump said. So, there we go. There was a

handful of us at dinner and then he got

up to say a few words at the end and he

reminded me why I was so inclined to

vote for him, which is he talked about

his uncle

and he talked about how his uncle taught

him about the severity of nuclear war

and how people don't understand how

intense and how destructive it is and

the power of these weapons and he left

that speech at the end saying and this

is why I'm so fundamentally against this

thing and it reminded me to your point

Jason it is so easy to forget that

there's only one existential risk

save like aliens coming from the

heavens, right? There's only one

existential risk where all these issues

become fringe issues. You know, you

mentioned rule of law, border security,

foreign direct investment, tariffs, it

all goes out the window in a nuclear

war. And I was like, I am so glad this

guy's in charge because this one issue,

he never waivers.

Yeah. And I think there's all kinds of

complicated moments that could make this

an issue. And this was where my biggest

issue with Biden was was I did not know

who was in control. And I think that

Trump in the first 100 days, to your

point, I think has completely reinforced

that there are no conditions under which

he'll go to war. He has time and time

again showed find the off-ramp. And I

think that that's really healthy for

Americans to see. Yeah. And let me build

on that point with respect to to Ukraine

is we were on a glide path before the

Trump presidency that Biden had put us

on a certain path. Kla Harris gave every

indication she would have continued it.

What was that path? It was a path of

continued escalation and doubling down

in Ukraine. Recall that it was Biden

himself at the beginning of the war who

said that if we give Ukraine Abrams

tanks and F-16s or attackums or high

Mars or if we allow them to hit targets

inside of Russia, it would lead to World

War II. He actually used the word

Armageddon. So at the beginning of that

administration, they were very concerned

about how an escalatory path could lead

us into direct conflict with Russia and

World War II. And yet, despite that, at

every fork in the road where they had a

choice, they ended up doubling down.

They gave the Abrams tanks. They gave

the F-16s. They gave the High Mars. They

gave the attacks. And finally, when

Biden was a lame duck in his last couple

months in office, they did the most

reckless and irresponsible thing, which

is allow American weapons to be used to

strike targets on Russian soil. Not just

fighting in Ukraine, but on Russian

soil. Moreover, we now know from a New

York Times article that just came out in

the last few weeks that it was American

generals and American intelligence who

are planning this war. So, when you're

talking about striking Russian targets

on Russian soil, it's not just the

Ukrainians using our weapons. They're

using our targeting, they're using our

guidance, they're using our satellites.

I mean, we are deeply integrated in the

kill chain. This is the United States

being a co-elligerent in the war,

hitting Russian soil. That is incredibly

reckless and dangerous. I have no doubt

that if the Democrats were still in

office, we would be in an escalatory

spiral right now with the destination

being World War II. And I do think that

Trump has pulled us back from the brink

there. There's obviously still more work

to do. But I really appreciate the

efforts that Steve Wickoff has

undertaken where for the first time in 3

years, we've at least had direct

diplomacy with the Russians. We weren't

even talking before. We weren't even

talking before. I mean, talking is a

great thing and and and apparently we're

going to keep supplying with them with

weapons as long as they pay for them.

So, it's going to be very interesting to

see how this all hashes out over the

next 100 days or so. Let's keep moving.

I don't think we know that yet. Let's

let's wait and see on that. Okay. Yeah.

I mean, I think that's Yeah. Uh what was

reported, but you're right. We should

wait and see. Okay. Downstream tariff

impacts. We got to talk about this, and

this is why we have you here, Ryan,

since you're in the thick of it. you

tweeted a thread last week about the lag

time uh of shipments from China and when

you were on I guess during COVID you

really educated us to how the supply

chain how the supply chain

works and according to the thread that

you shared somewhere around early June

we're going to expect warehouses

trucking the entire supply chain maybe

to start to seize up or layoffs I don't

know how you would frame it Ryan but are

we asked the point of no return with

regard to the supply chain. Is there an

off-ramp for this tariff conflict war

negotiation with China in your mind?

What are you seeing on the streets and

in the purchase orders and the invoices

at Flexport? Definitely not past the

point of no return. I think we're still

right in the middle of the don't judge

the cook while he's cooking is one, you

know, like let's see what the we'll see

what it tastes like at the end is I

think a starting point here and we're

still they're still in active

negotiations. So I don't think today's

it's not static. Now the world does want

a lot more certainty and that's a big

cause of what's happened here and what

has happened is a 60% decline in

bookings of ocean freight from China to

the US. I mean so that's really really

pretty dramatic like probably exceeding

what was expected. I don't think, you

know, when they issued when they rolled

out the initial reciprocal tariff plans

on on April 2nd, it was meant to be a

54% tariff on China. Then, you know,

there's multiple cycles of escalation.

We ended up at what's now 154% tariff.

So, this is this is a lot higher than

anybody planned for. And so therefore, I

don't think anyone's planning for a 60%

decline in ocean freight. Ryan, let me

ask you a question about that. Are

people actually paying that 154%?

There's been this discussion online and

it's it's sort of unclear from the

administration and from

retailers stuff that's landing that

people ordered before April 2nd. Are

they actually paying the 154% on top of

what's landing? It's it's live now. Um

it is it was based on departure date. So

goods that departed China after midnight

Eastern time on April 9th are subject to

the tariffs upon arrival. And so now

enough time has passed that pretty much

all the ships that are arriving now left

China after April 9th when that started.

Um so yes. So what happens? People are

paying it or are people saying I won't

take delivery because it's Jason you

have you have to pay it Ryan correct me

if I'm wrong but you have to pay it at

the dock in order to get the goods

released. More or less more or less

that's true. They they allow you have a

bond in place so you can pull the goods

out before you pay but it the money's

owed at that time and then you get you

get like a two week time frame to

actually make the payment. But there are

strategies here. a lot of people are

doing that you can use what's called a

bonded warehouse and move cargo into

this warehouse uh and then you only owe

the duties when the cargo leaves that's

what I was asking like is there a hack

here to it's not that that lets you

defer things and it's very very common

right now people are searching

everywhere for bonded warehouse capacity

because in a bonded warehouse not only

you defer payment to when the cargo

leaves the warehouse but you only owe

the duty amount based on at that date so

if the duties come back down which a lot

of people are betting they will on the

China specific speific duties, you'll

actually lower your tariff burden. And

then there's another hack for this,

which is effect use a Mexican or

Canadian bonded warehouse. So you move

the goods into Mexico and then you

actually only technically import them

into the US at a future date when

tariffs are lower. So I understand a lot

of a lot of companies are doing that

right now, too. Um we're helping some

people with that type of strategy,

but yeah. Is that Sorry, Ryan. Do you

think that the government will they view

that okay that kind of hack and or like

you know like if you look at the GDP

numbers one of the craziest things was

the inventory pull forward that people

did to your point like trying to get as

much stuff into the United States before

April 9th as an example. Yeah. I mean

it's not a hack. It's a bonded

warehouses are been around for decades

and they're they're very commonly used.

I don't know that it'll be that material

in the scheme of things that it would,

you know, cause a change in the law

around bonded warehouse. So, you don't

think, for example, the Department of

Commerce will have an issue with the

strategy of sending inventory into

Mexico that essentially you're

essentially like, isn't it, it's a work?

Like, instead of paying the China

tariff, now you pay a Mexico tariff,

which should be less. Is that the idea?

Well, you can move it into a bonded

warehouse in Mexico even and not pay

Mexican tariffs either. and you just

wait until it imports. But I mean,

what's the Department of Commerce or the

customs to do? It's sort of you just

delayed importing the goods. You've

imported them in the future and you

know, it doesn't I I wouldn't even call

it a hack. It's just sort of like people

people are going to get creative here.

You know what I mean? Like that's the

job. Actually, the government should set

the rules and the rest of us got to

figure out, all right, how are we going

to compete and make money in this

environment that they've created? Ryan,

in that tweet you redid, which was a

pretty dramatic tweet painting a very

like I don't know, you know, like a

pretty dire situation. Where are we at

in terms of how uh dire this will get or

resolvable? paint us the the the best

case scenario and what you expect could

happen in that case or if this gets

extended are we going to see as you know

people are hand ringing empty store

shelves Christmas gets ruined and all

these layoffs start happening in the

supply chain take us through the two

scenarios that people are debating yeah

I mean the the the bleak scenario which

is I don't really think it's going to

happen I think that the administration

doesn't want this to be their legacy

that they like created a policy that

just like kind of tanked small business

and supply chain. So, I don't I don't

actually think this is going to happen,

but the bleak scenario is tariffs stay

at this level for 145% on China. The 10%

goes way back up to what it was

originally announced in reciprocal

tariffs. So, there's no like safe haven

for tariffs and trade just falls off a

cliff and a lot of companies go bankrupt

in our in our especially small companies

are the ones that are importing from

China. Reality is like tariffs have been

high on China for a long time. Labor

costs in China are not are not there for

cheap labor. You're there for quality

manufacturing at this point. like

there's much cheaper labor in Southeast

Asia, other parts of the world than

there is in China. So you're in China

because of the manufacturing

capabilities, the ecosystem, not just

for cheap labor. Uh and if you could

have moved, you would have already with

the 25% tariffs from the Trump's first

terms were pretty were high enough

incentive. And so that's the bleak

scenario is that small business starts

getting wiped out. The ones that are

buying from China and it's a lot of

brands like it's not just Amazon seller

selling stuff that you don't need. It's

like all the brands that you know are

like you know fashion brands, apparel

brands. I had cuts clothing on this

weekend startups last week and he said

there's going to be like if this doesn't

get revol resolved in like let's say two

to four weeks in his group chats people

are going to start layoffs and they they

can't

physically restart the supply chain in

Vietnam or wherever to make t-shirts. So

Aaron what's your thought on this as

well just bringing you in. Sure. Well,

well, first of all, I mean, Ryan has

supplied me with a high degree of doom

scrolling and uh it's just like a horror

show reading his tweets. First of all, I

I like I would feel better if the

messages out of the administration were

either more kind of consistent or that

there was a logical connection between

do we either want to raise the kind of

you know tariff revenue stream or do we

want free trade like like those things

are are working against each other

because like depending on who you talk

to they they say this is a a mechanism

to bring down income tax which obviously

then by definition means that they

expect the tariffs to sort of persist.

um which is totally different from let's

go negotiate deals that just allow for

the you know free trade to actually

increase and so are we worried about the

reciprocity or we worried about kind of

revenue stream so that's a whole whole

issue you also have this issue which is

the messaging from the government and

this is the meta point I'll make in a

second is about is about how we could

have actually accelerated into the

transformation of the economy but you

know you have folks like Lutnik etc you

know going on on TV talking about the

the end state of our economy which are

are actually probably you fine messages,

but but we haven't seen what that vision

looks like, you know? So, everybody is

kind of confused like does this mean

that we literally go into manufacturing

plants and we're like the ones literally

doing the screws on an iPhone or is it a

bunch of jobs which are next generation,

you know, jobs which is like we're

managing robots and and like shipping

and logistics grows as a result of this

and all of the surrounding kind of

supply chains, you know, start to grow.

So like like you know to like there's a

there's an underlying I mean you know mo

most people on this call have managed

teams like you do change management you

lead people to the end state that that

you want them to sort of see the

potential in and I think some something

that kind of gets missed is and the part

that kind of confuses me is like I don't

know if if to you know exactly to Ryan's

point like people are in China because

of the ecosystem of manufacturing yet

the messages you get out of the

administration are like oh you know

we're going to have fewer toys at

Christmas time. It's like, no, that's

not the big picture. Like, the big

picture is is like, like, you know, this

is supplying the parts that go into

building a manufacturing plant and

building a car that that allows us to

actually, you know, be even remotely

competitive in car manufacturing. So,

where should in your mind this all lead?

Because you have some thoughts on

American exceptionalism and maybe

skating to where the puck is going. So

for if you were to become an adviser

Yeah. on this as a technology expert and

and somebody who spent their whole

career in it, what would you advise them

to do? I'd get rid of Navaro immediately

and and you would basically say, you

know, Mia Kulpa, like oops. And like

obviously you need to like land that

with some really cool trade deals that

make everybody kind of feel happy. And

you basically say, you know what, like

let's go back to the first two days of

Trump, which is let's announce massive

deals. We're bringing manufacturing here

with Stargate. We're doing TSMC. We're

building Nvidia chips. We're going to do

a deal which is you get like 5% tax uh

rate if you build in America. And so you

just stimulate a a manufacturing boom in

in the country. You know, we

incentivize, you know, automation across

the manufacturing. We use that as a

competitive weapon to go and compete

with with the the sort of lowerc cost

labor that that that happens

internationally. You know, we we find

every incentive and tool we can. we

deregulate, you allow people to build

these plants and so you don't have to go

through the, you know, three-year EPA

process like like you you just

accelerate from from this position and

you see you see it all as upside and so

then business leaders, you know, if you

go talk to the Fortune 500 company that

actually has to build, you know,

anything right now, you give them a path

to say, listen, we're going to help you

transition away from your current supply

chain and we're going to make it even

more competitive and more compelling in

America to do that. You know, there's a

reason that Elon builds in America like

like he has he's actually made it be

more effective to to be able to to, you

know, bring automation to manufacturing,

to be able to to build locally, but he

wasn't forced to do that. And so so I

would just I would argue like you you

use as many carrots as possible in some

surgical areas. And Chimath, I've heard

your points about the like, you know,

chips, pharma, you know, AI, like in

those surgical areas, we get tough where

where necessary. Um, and and if we have

to do, you know, a couple sort of very

surgical tariffs, you know, to kind of

make make people move the the direction

that we want, that's totally fine. But I

I mean like like it's like the even

arguing the premise is hard because

because we act like we're like like it's

like countries that are screwing us, but

actually businesses are are

independently making decisions about

where they want their supply chain to

exist. They they have in a free market

they've made that decision. They don't

need the government to tell them where

where are they supposed to or where are

they allowed to to have their supply

chain operate. that that ends up with

just lots of economic distortions that

everybody on the the right would have

called, you know, the left socialists

for trying to kind of implement central

planning around supply chains. So that's

my piece. Well, no. What do you think,

Chimath, here of this sort of

reframing/offramp and sort of maybe the

positive spin on it, hey, if you want to

make t-shirts, you know, you want to

make commodity items, have at it. Free

trade, you know, reciprocal tariffs,

great checkbox there. But here is a

series of incentives and a path forward

to do the advanced stuff to do robotics

etc. Let me answer this in a different

way. Okay, a lot of those things he's

actually doing. I think this is where we

are is we're beyond

TDS. There's something that comes after

it. And I think that the mainstream

media has just lost their mind to a

degree that they hadn't even lost their

mind in Trump one. I'll give you a

couple of examples. Um well, one

example, by the way, just a shout out to

our friend, completely brazen,

ridiculous, shitty reporting by the Wall

Street Journal last night. When they

were told that this, you know, this

whole Tesla thing was a total farce,

they continued to publish it. Okay,

fine. They're they were referring to

Elon. The board Yeah. starting a search

to replace Elon and then the board said,

"Well, wait. We told you we weren't

doing that." And they didn't even

mention they communicated that directly

to the Wall Street Journal. The Wall

Street Journal said, "I don't care. I

have an axe to grind." Correct. Yeah. I

think that Trump has a strength, which

is he shapes these potholes for the

mainstream media to fall into. The

downside of that though is that that the

mainstream media then doesn't do the

other part of the job which is to tell

the things that are important. So for

example, we spent a lot of time

breathlessly talking about the MS-13

knuckles of the guy, right? Or then we

spent a bunch of time talking about how

MSNBC blurred out the names of the

placards on the lawn. Okay, but here's

the other part where then they get so

tilted. Here's what they don't report.

They didn't report that, for example,

when Trump took a shot at Harvard, he

also reinforced and strengthened

historically black colleges and

universities. Totally did not get

written. I'll give you another

example. This past

week, Bessant said that the tax bill

will allow you to fully deduct all the

PPE and all of the incidental costs of

building a factory. I heard that, I

immediately went to my wife. She runs a

pharma business. This is exactly what

she's trying to figure out. And we now

are like, how do you build a business

case if this actually gets effectuated?

The point is that

thing would create an absolute economic

bonanza if it were to get

passed. Other than people hearing it on

this pod or randomly maybe finding it on

a direct clip that Bessant puts out on

X, there has been zero coverage by the

mainstream media. Yeah. But but like

like the the uh first of all that Yeah.

Okay. MSM and whatever we want to call

it aside like the that is that is still

on the administration for driving a a

change management process that that

causes people to build on momentum and

not causes boards to basically say oh

are we going to pivot our entire supply

chain this week because because Trump

you know didn't get a call back from

from sheet like like that that is like

this is really not a a a TDS MSM issue

this if you talk to Fortune 500 CEOs did

you know about the PPE thing No, but

that's not but like I'm I don't need to

like the thing that I know but there are

many other CEOs that do they they're

controlling trillions of dollars of

capital allocation. It's an important

thing. If we had if we had Mary Bar on

this call and and we said Mary has has

you know Trump increased your ability to

execute and operate and accelerate the

the transition to the US or has he had

headwinds that make it tougher to

navigate right now? Which which way do

you think she'd go?

I think that she would give you a

calculated answer that neither is pro or

con. I think I think that answer changes

by the day. I think that if you talked

to her last week, she would say this has

been a major headwinds and then

yesterday to Chimal's point, they did

this thing where you can depreciate or

fully expense in year one capital

improvements or building out factories.

But also earlier this week, they made it

so that auto auto parts are not subject

to the tariffs. They created a huge

exemption that wasn't there everything

like they should have. By the way, This

all speaks if this was a bit planned, it

should have been there in the beginning

because these auto auto companies were

saying, "Hey, this is going to bankrupt

us if we have to pay taxes on where I

would take circling back to

communication and making a crisper and

clear, Erin, where you are right

expectation is it's my job to stay

informed." Okay. As a CEO of my company,

I try to stay informed and you're right.

It is hard because sometimes I find

myself hunting and pecking to find the

things that matter. But I do put a bunch

of that responsibility into the lap of

the people that are supposed to actually

report the facts. They can choose. They

didn't have to run that article about

Elon, which turned out to be total

and horseshit on the front page

of the Wall Street Journal. They could

have talked about what Ryan just

mentioned as the first article and said,

"Here completely changes your ro and roe

calculations for 90% of the S&P 500."

That was not the article they chose to

write and to publish. I but I also think

it comes back to my original point

around the UDOT loops that they're the

Trump is the administration is running

these very tight hey let's take an

action let's see what happens let's see

the reaction and then take another

action and Washington's used to doing

all these committees that plan

everything for 5 years or something or

whatever 18 months and then roll it out

slowly and they're going hey let's roll

it out oh crap we're about to cause this

huge problem in the auto manufacturers

and they're all telling us they're going

to go bankrupt okay 3 days later they

push an update and it's kind of it feels

chaotic But yeah, to summarize, Ryan and

Aaron, your position so we can keep

going through the docket. Hey, a little

less shock and awe, maybe a little more

predictability, a little crisper

communication, and Chimath, I think your

position is, hey, maybe the mainstream

media can play a better role here in

focusing us on what matters. That

wouldn't be my takeaway. So, yeah. Okay.

Um, my my What's your takeaway? I mean,

like like zero shaken like like not a

little less like like I like my strategy

would be 100% different. Actually, uh,

Scott Besson has an incredible podcast

from like September of last year, and he

basically said, you know, Bid Biden got

it all wrong. And I was like listening

to it. I was like, oh, okay, actually,

this is kind of cool. Like, he basically

says, deregulate the US, make it easier

to build manufacturing in the US,

increase the GDP, and then you'll be

able to take in less tax revenue, spend

less in the government. And it was like,

oh, this is actually like a glide path.

We could take we could take the fact

that we did a soft landing relative to

the rest of the globe. We're winning in

AI. We're winning in it in in you know,

you know, number of categories. We

obviously need more energy. We need we

need to bring in manufacturing into the

US. And and so you you have this great

momentum which is where we are the tech

leader, you know, in the world. Let's

like just pour fuel on that. And so to

pour fuel on that, you you do you just

do a series of carrots and and the and

the winds that build a flywheel of

positive energy. Like the reason why I

take I take a little bit of exception to

to Chimas's MSN point is that I think to

some extent Fortune 500 CEOs are not the

ones like oh my gosh like like Rachel

Matto said this like I'm going to go and

and you know worry about this topic now

like like the information coming at them

is is I'm not talking about the

information that's presented. I'm

talking about the information that's

excluded. How do you get the information

that's not published and shared broadly?

No, no, but but come on. Like like

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are not

writing reports on the fact that we

might enter a recession because of of

MSNB's MSNBC's reporting on this topic.

Like like again, but again, that's not

what I'm talking about. I'm saying like

gladhanding some highlevel

prognostication which nobody ever gets

right is in my opinion worthless. What

I'm talking about is the details. So

when you talk about something as narrow

and specific as excluding PPE or

allowing you to double or triple

depreciate something in a given calendar

year, fantastic. That is narrow. It's

precise. It's specific. It's actionable.

And what I'm saying is if I surveyed the

500 CEO of the S&P 500, dollars to

donuts, the overwhelming majority would

not have known. And had they brushed up

against that somehow in their normal

media consumption to then ask their

teams, the odds of that would have been

zero as well. So I guess then who do we

who do we blame for this chim? Is it the

administration's job or mainstream

media? But I bet you everybody knows

about the blurring out of the stupid,

you know, pictures on the lawn and the

MS-13 knuckle tattoos. Yeah. Okay. So

let's uh wrap up on this just really

lightning round here. Amazon

flip-flopped on a new tariff

notification on their websites. Trump

said he had a great discussion with

Bezos. He solved the problem very

quickly. He did the right thing, good

guy, etc. If you haven't seen this, it's

something that Teimu is doing. Here's

what Timu does uh currently today. Nick,

you have that image. If you could pull

it up of just when there is a tariff,

they explain the tariff coming into the

country. They put it as like a line

item. I thought this was actually kind

of cool. I don't know why people take

offense, Brian. This is pretty standard

stuff. So Amazon's competitor Tim Teimu

is putting in the import charges. They

don't say tariffs. They don't say taxes.

Import charges. This is like a standard

thing. This happens in other countries

too. What is this? What is Teeu? This is

like a dollar store. It's basically like

a dollar. Is it this the last place you

would ever

buy jeans? Yeah, you can buy $12 jeans.

Basically, your left sock from Laura

Piana costs less than Timu's entire

inventory of jeans. The point being, um,

I thought this was actually a plus for I

think they totally misplayed this. They

they they did it, they rolled it out,

then they got criticized. I think they

were called a treasonous company from

the White House press uh, you know, by

the press secretary. Uh, they totally

misplayed this because they should have

gone and leaned into it and said, "Yeah,

we're showing you all these tariffs when

you buy from China. If you buy from

America, you don't have to pay any

tariff and look at all these other

products." Come on. Come on. That would

have lasted three and a half seconds.

This is exactly consistent with the

other issue which is they're playing

whack-a-ole. Okay, we're going to do

something with the automakers. We're

going to we're going to try and solve

some problem with Amazon. Like like this

is a sign that that it like it's not a

good strategy if you have to do this

much whack-a-ole. Like like they they're

not like they can't cover up what Amazon

is going to end up dealing with because

there's going to be 500 other retailers

that that don't get the call with Trump.

So, so this is like that that like to me

that's evidence of of clearly this they

didn't think through the entire

downstream set of of of conditions that

are going to change as a result of this.

Sure. Yeah. I I thought this was a big

win uh Chimoth because they could then

have Amazon Here's um a mockup somebody

made. I'll pull it up here. It was

interesting. They could to Aaron's point

just show hey here's a bunch of American

companies by American when you do a

search. Ryan's point. I'm sorry, Ryan's

point. Hey, here's what it might look

like. Pull pull that um the OralB

toothbrush one up, Nick, if you got it

right there. So, somebody mocked this

up. I think this could be the hugest

win. You could have the retailers do buy

American, buy it once, buy a high

quality product from America. If you

look here, we don't have the products.

It wouldn't work. We don't have the

products.

Well, I mean, we do have for some

products, you know, Americanmade

products. Uh, you know, I buy my boots

from Danner and those are all American.

Yeah. So, we should just go back to

communism and we're all going to make

our our shoes. Like, it's like that's

like we we're in a global market. Like,

we buy from everywhere. Chamop, any

thoughts on this? I mean, obviously

there's the whack-a-ole angle. There's

buy American and be proud of it. There's

communication. Here's the narrow

question. I I got a bunch of emails from

people and a bunch of them were Amazon

sellers and I don't know Nick if you can

find it but I posted their comments and

I reshared them just to kind of

highlight the issues that they were

going through and at the core of it was

a feeling by them that Amazon had

abandoned them as American purveyors and

sellers of goods and that Amazon on the

margins had attended

to

help competitors from abroad come stand

themselves up and compete and

essentially cannibalize on price and

margin. This is my view completely and

that this is the biggest opportunity

that I think the Trump administr

administration's flying at 40,000 ft

doing macrolevel negotiations and look

and failing to see some of these micro

optimizations that are really really

real. So you in the United States you

can import goods as a foreign company.

You don't not you do not have to create

an LLC or any sort of registered entity

in the United States to import goods.

Sometimes they say, "Oh, Americans pay

the tariff." Like that is not true. In

many many cases, the foreign company

just imports this stuff and they sell on

Amazon. And when they get caught

cheating, they can they can lie about

the valuation and pay a lower tariff.

They can change the classification and

pay a lower tariff. They can import

stuff that, you know, is harmful to

children, has lead, paint, whatever

else. There's no enforcement at all. You

can't. So you're saying Amazon third

party is like a bit of a backdoor to

abuse the system, right? I mean, Amazon

is sort of just playing the game that's

on the field, but they're this is legal

in the United States is these companies

import stuff and I think it's 60% of all

of all the sellers on Amazon are these

Chinese registered. They're not

registered in the United States at all.

Just Chinese companies. Which sounds

profoundly unfair in terms playing

field. Can we just take a step back and

also acknowledge that we are talking

about a level of detailed issues that we

would never have talked about 6 months

ago. That there was

no interest in even bringing this up.

Like if if Ryan wanted to bring up the

sort of hollowing out of

American salesmanship, let's say, if you

will, because of like this arbitrage

that Amazon does for GMV. That would

have been a snoozefest. except today it

can actually get a lot of awareness and

Erin mentioned this and I've mentioned

this before but like I think that there

are four things that really matter

batteries AI pharma APIs and rare earths

that now is on the agenda I think the

the positive way to look at this is the

American economy is too complicated if

you had waited Aaron for a study for all

of the implications we would have been

waiting forever and nothing would have

happened and I think that we've made

macrolevel moves you're right and now we

are finding what the implications are in

course correcting in real time. And I

hope what happens though is when we find

these big thorny issues, I think the

Amazon thing is a is a pretty

interesting issue actually about like

American competitiveness. Now the

question is do we follow through and get

to the root cause of it and and fix it.

And those feedback loops are there. I

mean the Trump administration is going

to act on this and if then there's an

act that's coming out of Congress as

well to shut down the foreign import of

records. So those feedback loops are

there in ways that I don't I don't know

if they were there in the past. Go

ahead, Erin. We can totally chaos monkey

the the economy and just see what

breaks. I think that the you know you

you you sort of phrase the we could, you

know, do the research paper and we could

do, you know, Aspen Institute as a bad

thing, but also it can be a bad thing if

you're the small business owner right

now who has 30 employees and you just

literally don't know what you're going

to do next month. And so, so that that's

that's sort of then the argument to not

counterbalance. That's like why you do

have some bureaucracy and and you don't

chaos monkey the economy and why Rand

Paul is literally saying we shouldn't

actually let you know have unilateral

you know control over tariffs. So you

know interesting that that like dynamic

there. All right, you want to uh wrap us

up here or you want to pass? Oh, am I

still on the pod? Yeah. Well, you turned

your camera off. So, look, I spent 80

minutes debating this topic with Larry

Summers three weeks ago.

The point I made then is that we had in

this city at for 25 years a globalist

consensus on trade that distorted a lot

of outcomes. And I don't need to rehash

that debate, but I'll just recall that

Larry Summer's main argument for why

this would not work out is that the

market was down. Do you remember that?

That was his evidence. Yeah. That this

wasn't going to work. Okay? And it was

all about the market not pricing in

lower expectations. Well, guess what?

The market is actually up since

Liberation Day on April 2nd. So, what

happened 3 weeks ago was basically a

panic in the market over this policy and

the media has been trying to fuel that

panic. Now, what I said as well is we do

have to stick the landing on this. I

mean, President Trump shifted the

conversation away from this globalist

consensus and he's now redefined the

debate, but it is now up to Scott

Bessant, the Treasury Secretary, Howard

Lutnik, the commerce secretary, Jameson

Greer, the US trade rep, and so on, the

Trump trade team, to now negotiate these

deals, stick the landing. And I agree

with you to the extent that the sooner

that is done, the better because it is

good to provide business certainty. But

the idea that so far this hasn't worked.

I think again the main argument against

that was the market reaction that now

the market's not positive. So I think my

point is just we need to give this time

to work. I think it's too soon to be

judging this policy as if it hasn't

worked yet. It needs to be executed

properly. And quite frankly, Ryan, I

mean, I remember the last time you were

on this pod, you were coming on about,

wasn't there like some union deal that

was supposed to shut down all the ports

and all the shelves would be empty? That

never happened either. It did happen. It

did. They shut down for 3 days. I don't

Okay. I don't remember the the shelves

being empty, which is now the new panic

the media is trying to create. So, look,

there's a lot of pants wedding that's

occurring here that's being fueled by

the media. Well, well, I I do want I

want I do want to I just want to

bookmark one one thing. The only thing I

actually um I was more frustrated

listening to the Larry Summers and and

you conversation because I was like, why

Larry make this point like come on.

Like, what? Don't go down the WTO rat

hole. Like, that's that's not relevant.

So, here here's the other thing. Of

course, it's relevant. It's how we got

here. No, no. Like like as in like

that's 25 years ago. Like let's worry

about literally today and like what what

do we do going forward today? And the

only thing I just want to say because I

because I I do think that that you know

I appreciate your point about hey

there's like you know everybody's

freaking out whatever but to be totally

fair that some of that freak out whether

we can decide how emotional it needs to

be is the reason that then Trump walks

back the things that then cause the

market to correct. So, so we can't just

say the market's back and and like see

we didn't need to freak out cuz it was

literally I said we have to make the

deals. We have to stick to the landing.

But look, China over the last 25 years

has been able to strategically

annihilate our rare earth processing

capability and our ability to cast rare

earth magnets. We just sat back and

watched as the market basically went to

the lowest bidder which was being

subsidized by the Chinese government

which the WTO allowed them to do. And

now we have a critical dependency. Yep.

In our supply chain on China for

basically every electric motor in every

product, including cars. That was crazy.

We should not have allowed that to

happen. How are you going to change

that? So, we needed to shift the

political conversation to recognize the

ways in which free trade led to unfair

trade and created unacceptable

dependencies on the for the American

economy. Wait, wait, just I just want to

make one one point. It's more than that.

point and then I'll but this is the

national security of the United States

that that's at stake. Let's go take your

favorite pet issue. China invades

Taiwan. Okay. And we have to take a

side. Jason, my pet is hold on. Let me

just finish. And the and the and the

Chinese say here are the implications of

supporting Taiwan on this A, B, C, and

D. You don't get any pharma APIs. You

don't get any rare earths. You don't get

any batteries.

Okay, it'll it'll send life back 50

years. Or let's say China and India get

into a fight and we're forced to pick a

side. Same situation. The point is

there's all these scenarios that we

never even

considered us being able to have

strategic optionality to make the

decision that's morally and ethically

right for the United States. And I think

that we have learned through this lens

that these are huge issues. The thing

that the Chinese did that was so

brilliant, which we still don't have an

answer for is they have these national

champions. And being a national champion

allows you, and we'll talk about this in

AI, it allows you to blur the lines

between the public and private

partnership. It allows you to blur the

law. It allows you to blur capital. And

I'm not saying we have to do that, but

what I am saying is we need to have our

own answer to it. And that was never on

the table until April 9th.

All right. So yeah, but but like 100%

like do that strategy and then and then

and then don't have a mad rush. What is

the strategy? No, no, no. Because

because that's a you if you have a, you

know, Ryan, what what is the number? I

don't know, trillion of imports or

whatever, like you don't need everybody

then than then jamming the system to

build their supply chain, you know, in

the US to solve that problem

immediately. If we're sitting here in 9

months and you're saying this and there

are no deals, I would say that you're

right. what Howard Lutnik said last week

and again we may have all gotten caught

up in the knuckle tattoos and we missed

this but he was very clear we have a

country a deal is already done we're

convening parliament it's going to be

the first of many so for all we know

there's like 30 deals that are waiting

in the wings and the first one will set

the tone and and I think that Sax is

right here which is it's way too early

to declare defeat and that it was quote

unquote chaos I think if we're sitting

here in 9 months and foreign direct

investment has shriveled up and domestic

investment has shriveled up because

there is just no continuity. You have a

claim. But that's No, no, because I I I

don't I don't think that'll happen. I

don't I don't think that'll happen. I

think we will end up in like I'm I'm

with Ryan like we will end up in a good

spot because we'll iterate through this.

My my only point is there's an

alternative path that that could have

occurred. It could have been done in a

more thoughtful well-communicated

pattern instead of hey let's do barrel

rolls with the airplane. I don't

disagree with you, Aaron, and I can tell

you we've already started to see layoffs

and nobody wanted to even initiate the

barrel roll, guys. Yeah, listen, we get

it. It's like, hey, I don't want

anything to change. I think we agree to

disagree on this. We got to move on to

the next one. Hold on. This one last

point. Excuse me. Excuse me. You didn't

call me for 40 minutes. I just want to

make one final point. Eron, here he

goes. Erin, where were you with this

perfect plan? Yeah. Where were you with

this perfect plan before Liberation Day?

I was telling Kla about it. You were

telling Kamla. Okay, great. They were

having nobody nobody ties and they were

talking about this specific issue. All

the people who suddenly know what the

perfect plan is and how to perfectly

execute it. No barrel rolls had nothing

to say about this topic for 25 years.

Now all of a sudden they've come forward

with their perfect plans. I would say

that's victory for Trump. Finish. It's

like look at this. The best thing of all

of this is you've got the Liberals

embracing Milton Friedman and their

backgrounds on there. I love it. Yes. Uh

All right. Listen, we're going to agree

to disagree. We're going to agree to

disagree on this one. You know, the

Liberals love the stock market. Listen,

Sachs Kla is coming on next week. We're

going to make some cocktails. It's going

to be wonderful. You we'll ask her some

direct questions about it. But I want to

talk about AI agents. 2025 shaping up to

be the year of AI agents. Tons to talk

about here. Open AI is planning to

charge between two and 20K a month for

different levels of AI agencies would be

basically cron jobs they would run in

the background and do things for your

company that uh humans are doing right

now. You may have heard of this uh

agentic tool. Again agentic is just a

fancy word for agent which is a fancy ro

word for like a cron job that just runs

uh perpetually. Yep. And uh Manis is uh

the company in China that started this

weirdly benchmark invested in it that's

created a whole bluff on the side and

Manis' website has a really good

visualization of what these agents would

look like. So first of all I think

you're giving a little too much credit

to Manis. They didn't come up with the

agents but I do think that they have a

very good demo and it's hard to know

exactly how real it is because not

everyone's used it and it's from China.

It's from China. I'll get to that in a

second. If you go to their website, you

can see a bunch of their demos. And I do

think that what they deserve credit for

is advancing the ball on the UI

paradigm. And it's not that other people

weren't doing this. I mean, I think

notably Anthropic was doing this with

its operator product, but the basic idea

is that you've got this two-pane view

and in one window, you've got the

standard chatbot interface and then in

the other view, you can see what the

agent is doing. And that agent has the

ability to toggle between it currently

four apps. There's search, browser,

code, terminal, and document editor. And

so when you give Manis a task, the first

thing it does is create a to-do list in

the document editor. You can kind of see

it there. And then it works sequentially

to achieve each of those tasks and then

puts an X on them there. And you can

kind of see it working. And I think

what's cool about the demo is just the

way that it seamlessly toggles between

those four apps. and you can see what

the AI agent is doing, you know, and

it's browsing the internet, it's

searching for things, it's writing

documents, it's crossing things off its

to-do list. Now, I think it's pretty

easy to imagine where this goes, which

is you'll be able to connect an agent to

all of your SAS apps. So, it won't just

be four applications. It'll now be

connected to dozens of applications,

including ones that already have your

data. And it's going to know what

actions it's possible to take in those

apps. So when it creates its to-do list,

there's a much wider range of things

that it can accomplish. And in fact,

there's a new standard called MCP which

is taking off like wildfire which is

built specifically to enable agents to

connect with applications and understand

the data and understand the actions that

are possible in those SAS applications.

So look, Manis is just at the tip of the

iceberg here. I think this will become a

very standard UI paradigm. That's the

reason why I mention it. Not because I

am predeclaring them to be the winner in

the space, but just because I think

there's a lot of talk about agents and I

think it's hard to conceptualize what

that means without just seeing it

visually. A great great summary there,

Saxs. And Aaron, I want to get your

thoughts on it because obviously you're

running Box and and you have your your

finger on the pulse of this. We actually

started building one of these in our

venture firm. We have 20,000

applications a year and we have updates

coming in from investments. We are now

taking those sacks Aaron and we are

having an agent sort them and then look

for competitors and compare them to the

last update and we're looking into our

notion our kod and saying what else have

what other communications have we had

what questions should we ask about the

startup and about their strategy and

then we're presenting that in Slack to

our team. So this is coming fast and

furious and we spend I don't know

probably 15 minutes on each of those

incoming applications. You start doing

the math on that. Talk about 5,000 hours

of work. Aaron, what are you seeing on

the street? What are you doing at Box in

terms of agents landing right now in Q2

of 2025? Uh, yeah. I mean, I think I

think Sax represented it well, which is

which is, you know, you have to now

think about AI as as effectively being

able to do anything on a on a computer

or another piece of software as as a

human can do. And the little distraction

that that I think happened two years ago

after the chatbt moment was we sort of

thought about that as oh we're just

going to now you know do like typing

information retrieval and that's a new

paradigm for user interfaces let's say

so you just like talk to your software

and you like search Zillow via chat that

was sort of a little bit of a

distraction that that's super helpful

like when you want basic information

lookup or whatnot the big breakthrough

was starting to think through these

things as as full you know effectively

uh uh you know agentic systems that that

operate on any amount of data, any

amount of tools for as long as you want

to complete any task that you want. And

this is sort of the big year where

agents are starting to, you know, enter

the vocabulary of enterprises, of IT

people, of, you know, larger and and

certainly small organizations. Um, and

and it kind of requires you to have a

little bit of a of a reset moment on how

you think about AI, which is which is

it's not just now a kind of a co-pilot

that you talk back and forth with. it's

actually something running behind the

scenes that's now actually starting to

deliver, you know, real automated, you

know, kind of work for you. And so lot

lots of implications like, you know,

massive implications to what the

software business model is in the

future. You know, I I I would argue, you

know, strongly that's a massive TAM

increase um because now software starts

to go after labor spend. It completely

changes the dynamics of then, you know,

how do you build a moat in a world of AI

agents? Um uh but but I think unpack

that piece there Erin. You said

something very interesting how you how

software then is going to go over human

spend. Yes. Explain that concept. Unpack

it for a second. David and I, you know,

we we we go back way back in SAS land,

but like you used to basically just, you

know, you built you built a piece of of

software and you sell it for the number

of of people in the organization. And

so, you know, company has 500 employees