We are here at the UBS Australasia Conference is Sydney on day one and really excited about this conversation. Coming up. Joining me now is Michael Rogers, who's a senior advisor at Bondi Partners. He's also the former commander of the
US Harber Command and the National Security Agency Director. And as we were just chatting about in the break, nothing going on, nothing pertinent to your wealth of experience out all the image we jest, but if we get your reaction to the election results, and what do you think, having worked under both Presidents Obama and President Trump, what do you think Trump two point zero is going to look like in terms of his approach to security and cybersecurity.
So clearly President Trump won by a clear majority, not a landslibe, but still a clear majority fifty one percent or so of the popular vote. I think what the election shows, particularly in his mind, is he now has a mandate for change. That his election as a result of broad dissatisfaction, that universal, but broad dissatisfaction with the policy of the Biden administration. And I suspect President Trump's view is I now a man need to change and
I will do that. He'll probably focus, as he's indicated so far economic lines. He clearly has a different vision trade tariff policy, his view as prices have gotten out of control in the US, he wants to change that. He clearly articulated concerns about, Hey, we've got to get tougher on the border, We've got to control the flow of illegal immigration. I suspect that's going to be a priority.
And then he has also said, Hey, the world more broadly outside the United States, it's in a worse situation than it was when I left, and I'm going to try what I can do to address those issues, whether it's Ukraine, China, Israel, and the Middle East. So no small amount of challenges at all.
And he's he's been quite hawkish in terms of indicating that would he take a heart line on Iran and China for example, And the security risks are so complex. In his last term, there were worries about President Trump at that point wanting to put in place his supporters at the top of the CIA, for example, and other intelligence agencies. Do you want worry about the politicization over components perhaps for these agents.
Look, I was one of those individuals. I'm in the Mueller report because twice he asked me to do something and I told him I wasn't going to do that because I didn't think it was appropriate. I told him why, and to his credit, he said, Okay, Mike, I understand. So my view is if everyone does their job, we're going to be fine. We have a series of protections, checks and balances in the US system, and trying to make fundamental change is not impossible, but it's really difficult.
Now.
Clearly, I think when President Biden or President Trump che's we starts this term on the twentieth of January twenty twenty five. Number one, H'll have already been the president for four years, so he's got a steep learning curve behind him. He'd be very focused on I've got experience here. I know exactly what I want to do. Secondly, he truly believes this in his mind, this idea that parts of the government are resisting him, that don't want to
follow his direction. I always tried to tell him, sir, they're all you know, we're all professionals. We take an oath to the Constitution, and we serve professionally. Whoever is a duly elected leader of the United States. But I think he'll be inclined to make sure that his supporters are spread across a much greater spectrum of leadership within the government, not just at the cabinet level, but below
that as well. That will be a difference, I think from the first time, where he just didn't have the time really to do that as much. I think he'll start out that'll be important to him this time around.
What was it like working for him, Because you've spoken about in the past this idea of access and that being a bit of a risk to President Trump in the sense that you know, he wasn't a man for consensus or necessarily sort of research. But he liked to have these conversations I know, and it often dependent on the last person that had access to him.
So to his credit, he would often say to you, look, I'm a business individual, I'm not a politician, so I'm not interested in the twenty five years of history on this issue. What I want to understand is what's the problem. Why are we here today, and what do you want from me? What is the recommendation you're making now. Part of the challenge with him began He tended to be a person who tended a great store by the last
person he spoke to. So it's interesting to watch the people around him try to make sure they were the last person that he spoke to. Others have comment on this, It's not unique to Mike Rodgers and my impression having
worked with him for two and a half years. On the other hand, I do believe that, you know, there'll be a system in place around him that he'll be able to hear a broad range of views now which he decides he wants to pay the most attention to look as in any president, that's going to be up to him. So you know, the other thing I think we need to remember is number one, he thought being
unpredictable was a great strength, was an advantage. He actually liked being perceived as unpredictable, so we got to remember that. And secondly, he's an individual who liked generating a response. Many politicians in my experience, I'm not a political individual, but having worked with many of the leaders in my government, their view is, hey, look, let's not do things that say things that are going to spark turbulence. They're going to generate a lot of banks. He's very different in
that regard. His view is, hey, I like generating a response. He almost enjoyed it.
I thought my.
Perception was, And so I tell people, look, you're gonna have to get used to the idea that what he says and what he ultimately chooses to do may not be the same thing.
Which would be comforting to some people. Right. Do you see the risks to national security as being the same, perhaps exacerbated than they were four years ago. You've spoken, of course about misinformation and what's happening online. What is the biggest sort of risks for you?
The security environment clearly has gotten worse or tougher on a global basis. I mean, we're now dealing with conflict in the Middle East in multiple dimensions, both activity directed against economic things like shipping in the Red Sea from Iran in Israel to directly exchanging attacks against each other, as well as the ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, none of which to me appear as if going to end any time in the immediate like the next few
weeks or months. So the world's got a lot more contentious, a lot more complicated. Technology and information playing in ever greater role, and you're watching how more and more nations China Russia around are using the power of disinformation, of misinformation, deep fakes, the role of technology to make us believe that what we are seeing, what we are reading is real or accurate, when in fact it's not. It is
created out of you know, it's not real. It's some person's attempt to technically try to convince us it's real that The information dynamic, I think is one of our biggest challenges, particularly in free democratic societies, where the ability to express our opinion is so foundational, and the idea that well, the government doesn't censor, we allow people to read, view,
consider and they will make their choice. That becomes increasingly difficult when we've got nation states and individuals, you know, trying to use those technologies and those freedoms against us.
As it worked is deregulation, which is what we're looking at with a second Trump administration going to potentially make that worse. I don't know.
I think it varies by the specific situation we're dealing with. And I also, before we start making blanking assumptions about he's going to do this, he's going to do that, let's wait and see. I'm the first of that. I don't know what the answer is, but I just caution us against making a lot of blanket assumptions this early.
You're here in Sydney, and I do wonder to kind of end this conversation, what do you see the risks the challenges are for middle nations like Australia.
Well, first of all, we all, regardless of size, we all live in this hyper connected world. Our economies are all intertwined. Our relationships, our friendships. You look at aucust, you look at the great history. Are two nations the United States and Australia have together.
Yeah.
So the thing I always would say to my Australian teammates is, look, you're a great nation with a great history. One of the things that makes you great, you're a democratic society that is willing to do hard things. I just I have great respect for countries like that, you know, the selfish image of Americas.
We're like that.
We're willing to do hard things. We're willing to do the things that we think are right.