INTERVIEW: Vivek Ramaswamy Talks DOGE, Elon Musk, Trump, Biden Pardons, Running For Governor of Ohio + More

Wake that ass up in the morning. Breakfast Club morning.

Everybody is DJ Envy, Jess hilarious, Charlamagne the guy we are to Breakfast Club lay the ross of filling in for Jess. And we got a special guest in the building. Yes, indeed, Vivic Ramswami welcome.

How you doing man, How you feeling?

You know, I would say pretty good, except for my two year old, who usually sleeps really well when he comes to New York City. The kid does not sleep, and so when he doesn't sleep, my wife and I don't sleep. But other than that, the noise, excitement, excitement, you know, yeah.

He loves it here.

He was.

He was happy this morning.

But twelve am to about four am, yeah, we were up playing trucks man.

But all good doing well.

This is your first interview on what you said like a month.

Yeah, I've been't I haven't been. You know, a lot a lot going on, but I haven't been out on media. But you know, people are gonna be hearing more from.

Me starting now.

Why not you called me, uh over the weekend, I told you happened to be in the city. So this worked out well?

Well, we'll tell us a vic what happened with dog.

Yes, the congratulations on it job, Thank you man, I appreciate It's not my job right now.

I'm moving on to my next No, it was.

It was.

It was a slightly.

Different vision from where we started to where we landed.

And it's not that it's you know, one's right.

Or wrong, but if you take a look at where we began, right DOJ is going to be an outside body to the government. One of my core areas of focus throughout has been the constitutional and legal basis for shutting down the bureaucracy and the federal government and downsizing it. That's what I focus written my books on, et cetera. It evolved in more of a direction of a technology project using a technology first approach, and so Elon and I were on good terms, we have good personal relationship,

So it was true there was an exclusive report in the Washington port that said you were pushed out because your vision didn't align with Elon.

So I would say that we arrived at it pretty mutually, and mean, I think when it came the doge was in the government.

So there's actually a law, it's called the Hatch Act.

Boring stuff, but you literally can't run for office while you are in employee of the government.

Unless you're the president or vice president.

I've been committed to this path of likely running for governor of Ohio for a long time. My plan initially might have been to do those at the same time, once it became clear that was impossible to do at the same time, once it became clear to me that that was the right next leadership destination for me, felt like the start of the project on day one was the right way to start that next chapter.

That's why we did it.

Now, you did say it. The last couple of months, you've been focused on getting Trump in office. So now that he's in office and we've seen the last couple of days, what are your thoughts and do you still stand by everything that he's done.

You know, I really think he's off to a pretty good start.

I mean, you think about most presidents, they take a little bit of time to get warmed up.

He didn't go through the warm up phase. He got started right away.

And I think there's a reason for that, which is very few presidents have actually been the president before and then they come all the way back then. Grover Cleveland was the only one other one who did it, so he in some ways is coming in for a second term. But I actually do think those four years of being able to reflect on what actually mattered to him were actually pretty good. So I like a lot of what we've seen in that first week unleash energy production. That's

I think it's just a.

Good thing for the country. If you travel the country and you ask most Americans, do you think there's too much red tape or do you think there's too little red tape? I don't think there's anybody who would tell you that I think there's too little red tape.

I think there's a lot of.

People, especially business owners, small business owners, that tell you there's too much red tape. Trump has gone pretty aggressive even in the first week and saying we're rolling back

What don't you like if there's one thing that you didn't like that you've seen so far that he's done.

So, I will say in the first in the first week out the Gate, I like pretty much everything I've seen. I think that there are some areas where I could imagine over the next year I might have some shades of difference in opinion. There's really nothing in that first week. All of this stuff struck me as very common sense. And when you think about what's going to actually make

I think it'd be pretty hard to pick.

Something that in that first week that I would say wasn't strictly good for the country.

How is eliminating government diversity programs like DEI beneficial to anybody other than it's great white males.

Oh, I think I think there are some ways in which is not even beneficial to straight white males, which I'll tell you about in a second. But I think this culture of reviving merit in the country is a very American idea. You and I have talked about this in some of our some of our discussions here in the past. I think is America is a country where you are not judged on the color of your skin. You ought to be judged on the content of your character and your contribution. The best person ought to get

So I think that's a good thing.

And the only thing I would tell you that you might be interested in for the angle you mentioned is I also think there has been a culture emerging in the last few years, a culture of excuses amongst people who say, oh, I didn't get that job because of DEI. And in certain cases that may be true that certain people, maybe a white male was denied a job because somebody else got the job because of racial or gender preferences, but there's also a lot of instances in which that

But do you trust people, don't like, do you trust people enough to say, hey, you know what, I'm not going to be prejudiced against this person because of their identity.

I mean, we all have it. Let me say something. We all have our innate biases, right, we're human beings. As I said, we're human beings.

We're not God's were flawed and people have their innate biases.

But the question is is there a perfect system? Though there's not, But what's the.

Least imperfect system, and I think the least imperfect system is one where we aspire to at least think of our country through the lens of merit. And what is merit? I mean we I banded this word around a lot. I actually got a tough question when I ran for president as a college kid. I was talking about waxing eloquent about merit from the stage. Is what is merit? What is meritocracy? Made me think for a second, you have to define what you're talking about.

I think a meritocracy is a system.

That recognizes that not everybody has the same God given talents. In fact, it recognizes that everyone has different God given talents. That's true diversity, that's a beautiful thing. But a meritocracy is one that says, whatever your unique God given talents are, you get to achieve the maximum of your potential without any system standing in your way.

To me, that's America at its best.

And so are we going to be perfect as human beings? In realizing that? I do, of course not, because we're human beings. But does that mean that we shouldn't at least do our best to design systems that aspire to it?

No?

I think that a step forward is and I'm done. I'm mostly I'd like to be mostly done. I think I am done with the DEI debates. I think we've turned the debate, turned the page on that. I'm interested in a forward looking conversation about what is equal opportunity.

Actually, I think.

That in the debates we've had about equal opportunity versus equal results, the DEI side of this often has fallen into equal results camp and people would say, oh, well, we want equal opportunity, and that was a conservative response. But now we have to confront the hard work of what does that actually look like like? What actually does equality of opportunity whichever acknowledges doesn't exist today?

How do we actually do that hard work?

And I think that that's a good result of going past the group quota DEI regime to have an honest conversation about the fact that we don't have equal opportunity across the country early education. Do we have equal opportunity when it's public schools organized ac quoting to zip codes rather than actually giving every kid access to the best education they can have.

That's not equal opportunity.

But we haven't been able to have that conversation because we're having the cosmetic discussion about dei or quotas or whatever. Now that we're done with that, that hard work can begin across the board. And I think that that's a conversation where a lot of thoughtful voices on the left and right can now roll up our sleeves and say, we've preached the message of equal opportunity, how do we actually get there?

And I, for one, am game for that discussion a.

Way to get there? You don't think that.

I think it has proven not to be the way to get there. I've obviously been an opponent of it for for four or five years. I'm obviously going to have biased views on this from what I said, But what.

Is it exactly the policy?

Because you need diversity to get there, you need equity to get there, you need inclusion to get there.

Yes, So I think part of what happened is when you when you started using the.

Capital D capital E capital I.

Here's what happened is I think in the name of diversity of thought, right, because that's where you want diversity of thought in an organization, the capital D diversity actually ended up saying that certain viewpoints aren't welcome, that we actually sacrifice true diversity of thought in the name of equity, which is measured in terms of outcomes.

I think we.

Actually sacrificed true equality of opportunity. And then at a certain place, and this is really where it took a dark turn to me, is in the name of inclusion, we created a culture of exclusion where and viewpoints we're not welcome in an organization. And what that does is it causes the bottled up emotion to fester. Okay, that doesn't lead to good places. When you tell somebody shut up, sit down, and do as your toll keep reviews to yourself,

Are we perfect? No we're not.

But whatever residual racism or prejudice might exist, let it slowly melt away. As we've been on the course for the last sixty years of heading in the right direct and then let's have a substance.

I think we've been in the right direction obviously in compared to nineteen sixty. I don't think that it's really debatable.

We were so so now we're having a healthy discussion where I think, you know, I think that the rise of even well intentioned DEI programs, even from those who had the best of intentions, I think did in retrospect, I think we can say set us back.

Not the rise of MAGA and Trump's executive orders from last week.

I think the executive orders were last week.

We're about with this's what we're talking about. So it's the circle here, which is does ending the DI programs. Do we think that's a step forward for the country or not. I think it's a step forward for the country. Is that the destination? No, it's just the beginning of a real discussion about equal opportunity that lifts all Americans up.

And why would you have a conversation about equal opportunity if they don't even want to have a conversation about diversity, equity and inclusion. You get what I'm saying, Like, I understand where you're trying to go with them, but you can't have one without the other, I think is the point. And how do you do that? It seems like that'sh your disconnect even with Doge Right.

No, I think it a couple of different couple different topics there. Look, are we a country where we want equal opportunity every person to achieve the maximum of their God given potential? Yes, we do. Are we perfect in realizing that?

No? Or not?

Do we think that group quota systems are the right way to achieve that?

I'm of the view the answer is no.

And I think the last few years show us that it hasn't even been effective in actually empowering the people it was supposed to empower, while it's created a resentment of.

A lot of the people who felt deprived. So I think we got we just got to go to post We've got to go to post DII world. That ship, in my opinion, for the better, maybe in other people's opinion, for the worst. That ship is sailed.

Now let's look to the future and say, what does equal opportunity actually look like.

I'll give you.

I'll give you one of the areas I'm most passionate about. I think equal opportunity to a high quality early education makes a difference. There's a lot of focus on college and what the college composition needs to be.

You missed the boat.

If you're doing this after somebody's already eighteen years old and in twelfth grade, the.

Cake is baked.

This starts young, I mean early childhood. Achievement trajectories are set in preschool, set in first grades, set in second grade. There's a massive disparity set at that point in time based on the quality of schools that somebody in the inner city is relegated to because they don't have the choice for better opportunities versus somebody who's in a suburb with a better public school or access to a private school.

That is an injustice.

I think anybody who's really concerned with true quality of opportunity in this country that's not dealing with that problem doesn't actually care. It's just they want to pontificate, and I don't have a lot of patience for that, so I think that you know, it becomes a buzzword that goes in one ear out the other when you say it this way. But universal school choice, it's like people

Best possible education.

Some of the stuff gets boring, and part of part of the people is people don't have patience for the boring stuff. But the boring stuff is what matters. Even summer break not even a very political topic, right, Summer break, especially early on, is something that actually causes the educational achievement gap to widen because people who are well to do families tend to have programs that enrich their kids, and so there's a well known phenomenon where when you come back in the.

Fall, you have some regress for the kid.

That regress is small or non existent for people who can actually afford the right kind of summer programs or educational programs for those three months. For kids who come from poorer communities. It's massive. Multiply that twelve times over. By the time you get to twelfth grade, you have just different levels of preparedness. I don't care what kind

To international centers? Was that at a eighth grade level? Eighth grade level? In eighth grade?

What are what percentage of eighth graders are performing at what should be an eighth grade level according to international Developed World standards sixty twenty five percent, twenty five percent in the United States. So that's just unacceptable. So we're talking about equality issues. Now, let's just zoom out and talk about overall achievement issues. Our educational system is not working. There is a deep failure, and we can debate the causes and yeah, well, and people, you know, I think,

In the United States.

And that doesn't start in high school, it doesn't start in college. It starts young. And so I just see an opportunity right now where we can make the choice to enter a new golden age in America. You can make a choice to say this is our Sputnik moment. Right you look at just the news of today.

I don't know how much you've.

Taken a look at it, but deep seek coming out of China right completely mop the floor with respect to a cost by which they were able to get to apparently similar maybe even if not in some ways better AI production than a lot of capital that's gone into achieve the same thing for computing power investment in the US. These are good opportunities for us not to be ashamed or to be angry, but to wake up and say we should have the humility to admit that we still

For this country, have the ability to have humility to say, Okay, here are the ways we still need to improve. And frankly, I don't think that that's up. It's not a preacher to the left or to the right.

I think it's just a wake up call for all of us, and that's kind of what I'm interested in delivering.

I think people just get nervous when there's no systems in place like what d I should have been if it was done the right way, because then there's you think that there's going to be no trickle down because what you're talking about to affect people before they get to eighth grade, you have to have people that were able to go to these schools, were able to have your certain experiences, come back to the communities, teach, build

You can't trust white supremacy. Yeah.

So it's like even when you like with the Dulge thing, right and you back and a way. Now I'm be listening to you, I'm like, oh, it sounds like y'all didn't agree because morally you want to do right. I don't know if I believe that Elon Musk in a Trump cabinet wants.

To do that.

Well on that front, let me just say I think we all share an opposition to bureaucracy. And by the way, you think about how bureaucracy hurts even the least well off among us, it actually hurts the least well off among us the most. I don't want to get too much in details unless you're interested in this, but take housing costs in the country, right, Why are housing costs spiking? It's because of bureaucracy. And red tape that's stopping new

So that I think is just a strictly good efficiency and elimination of bureaucracy. I think is good across the board.

As it relates to getting serious though about addressing root inequality causes in the United States, I think a lot of people enjoy being on one political side or the other without actually rolling up their sleeves and doing the hard work of getting to the root cause. I think the root cause starts with education at a really young age in a stable family foundation from which those kids are able to grow up and have access to the

Equality of opportunity in the US.

What does that mean. That means that literally you have to provide money to the families who are stuck in a bad public school to be able to opt out of that school. Transportation included, the ability to pay tuition included. That is an investment that we make both in the overall future of our country and an equality of opportunity. I think we should be more vocal about standing for that. I certainly for one plan to be by.

The way, A lot of this is done not at the federal level.

A lot of this is done at the state level, which gives you a sense of where or part of the reason I've been drawn in my own journey to say, if I actually care about addressing these issues and not talking about them, there's actually a lot more than a governor is able to accomplish on a practical level than even somebody sitting at the federal level.

And so that's part of what I feel.

Are you able to have these conversations though, because I mean, you know, you do get to the root of these issues. But when you try to do it and you criticize the US for its cultural emphasis on mediocrity over excellent, Maggie and conservatives lost their mind, and a lot of people say, that's the reason you got pushed out adults.

Yeah, so I will tell you this is I would rather.

Speak the truth and lose than to pander to an audience, to tell them what they want to hear.

It's like an old expression. I think it might have been Thomas Soule who said this. Actually, you know him.

Very smart man. I think he's doing it to this. If you care about somebody, you tell him the truth. If you care about yourself, you tell them what they want to hear. I would rather speak hard truth and take the chance of losing an election than to somehow win by just saying what you're supposed to say. Now, my view on this is America is an excellent country. I mean, America is defined by the pursuit of excellence. And it's an interesting question about American identity. Right, if

Right?

What is the American identity? I don't think it comes down to the national identities of other countries, of a cuisine or an ethnic lineage. Even our land is relatively different, right, Our land today is very different than it was just two hundred and fifty years ago, than it was even one hundred and sixty years ago. Then we added Alaska, then we added Hawaii. Maybe we're going to add some more soon. So I think that America is not defined

We don't live up to that. We don't live up to them often.

We often don't live of course not.

But I would rather live in a country that has ideals and falls short of them than a country that has no ideals at all.

So you could say we're hypocrite. You can only be a hypocrite if you have ideals.

So I would rather as as a nation, be hypocritical and have ideals rather than not have ideals and therefore not be a hypocrite.

Right. And so that's a tough message, and it lands in different directions.

Right.

I would go so far as to call it my battle against the woke left four years ago was a tough message. In people on the other side had resistance to that message. Of what I still consider to be tough love, but love at the core of it. I'd say the same thing with respect to my more recent commentary.

But Magan conservatives didn't want to hear that at all.

And it seems like when you chastise others for cultural concern, it's wildly accepted. But when you attack saved by the Bell and white culture, you got sidelines.

I'll tell you this is I'm consistent three to sixty degrees. This is what I will what I'll give you all that.

You shocked by the response, you know, I like taking it back like.

Damn, you know, if I think about it, I've been around American politics for a little bit. Did I know the message that I was delivering was going to make some people upset?

I did.

My goal was not to make people upset for the sake of making people upset. My goal is looking at our country and saying, how do we light a fire under the feet of our nation to be able to aspire to be the very best again and do it consistently as you said. You know, I've talked to the woke left for years, and if I put the word woke in that you know message several times, many of the people say people were cheering for a long time when I delivered the same message in a different way.

Even when the victims are magnet and Conservatives like victims. When you put the.

Look that I'm against it, I'm against any kind of victimhood most most of the time.

For the last four years, if I'm being honest, I think the dominant strain of victimhood has been a left wing victimhood. But there is I wrote a book called Nation of Victims a few years ago that had chapter called conservative victimhood.

We're not a nation of victims. We are victors, not victims. That's who we are at our very best. That's the American way. And I do think that when you think about what are those.

American qualities, hard work, self determination, self reliance, not victimhood culture that gives you a greater claim on the government. And you could see this across the political spectrum. I don't think that we win this country back by greater dependence on our government. We win this country back by greater in dependence from it, through reviving our self confidence

Right?

The number one person or the number one factor that determines whether you achieve your goals in life, not saying it's the only one, But the number one factor that determines whether you achieve what you want in.

Life is you. Let me no doubt about it.

And so it's not it's not your race, or your gender, or your sexuality, or the climate or the weather, or somebody from some other country.

It is you.

All the things won't play apart. But I agree it.

Yeah, i'd say didn't play a part, But I said, the number one is you, and so that's the culture where whether it's in some ways it was the same message delivered slightly differently and got a very different reaction. But I believe I have been deeply consistent in delivering this message.

For a long time. And the reason why is and by the way, on the justtion you brought up one B, H one B is a broken system. Right.

So the funny thing about this people say, O, why didn't you criticize H one B and his tweet. I've been saying this about a hundred times, maybe for the last couple of years, probably hundreds of times. It's broken in a bunch of boring ways. They use a lottery instead of picking the very best ones. It's got an indentured servitude problem where if a company sponsors you and you come from another country, you can't leave that company,

That's us.

Of course, that's the best.

But let me ask you, what were your thoughts on and you claim to be an honest person like that when Donald Trump signed off on the people that tried to overdo the.

Government signed off. Here's here's my view.

And then I want to ask you what did you think when Joe Biden pardoned, you know, his son and his family members as well. So let's start wait with Trump.

So here's my view.

They try to overdo the government, which is totally against law.

So let's time. I've turning the page. I'll give I'll give you, I'll give it to you, give it to you straight.

Okay.

I think that there were many people there's a rabbit hole. We could have an hour on this, and I don't really I don't really think it's even all that relevant anymore. There were a lot of people who didn't do a thing that was wrong that ended up being ensnared in getting locked up, getting prosecuted for peacefully without any weapons,

Like if you look at the first.

Thing that came out from the Inspector General's report only came out a few weeks a couple weeks before Trump took office. How many FBI informants and affiliated people were in that audience.

It didn't smell good, and that came out.

You said that two years ago that was considered a bad conspiracy theory. But now they came out with the Inspector General report saying that they weren't transparent with the public. There was enough that the government did that smelled rotten there that in the interest of just turning the page, you know what I think would have been the best outcome for the country. Here's here's something that would have been the best outcome. But I think we got to

That would have been I think the best case scenario for the country. People we had, we had the.

They were some of them were insurrectionists.

And I mean there's actual people who are denying pardons because they said, no, we committed a cross.

Yes, there was a woman who did a hosted that interview, so we did really horrible things. People died.

I heard her interview, and so to that, you will say there.

Were people who were.

Decision and peaceful, but then we've seen people that have the gates ran up in there, running in people's.

Office as well.

I think had the best reason.

And what jade Van said this before Trump did the part, and he said that we're going to look at every We're not going to pardon all the January sixth insurrections. We're going to look at it on a case by case. He's a case by case and see who needs to be part and who doesn't.

And that's what I That's what I had said for the last couple of years as well. I do think that when we're also moving quickly with respect to Trump talking about a new golden age for the country, that's what we all want, right, We want a country where the issues were focused on is what affects people in their everyday lives. The conversation about lifting people up economically and educationally.

I think it is in.

That spirit to say that we're just turning the page and moving the nation forward. I understand the decision to do it not on a case by case basis, but on a blanket basis.

I understand when.

It's coming up actual criminals. Like one of the guys got out and went right.

Back to just by definition, just so we're talking about the same thing. By definition, anybody who gets a pardon is getting a pardon, many of them. Anybody who gets a pardon after a conviction means they were convicted, right, So there are hundreds of president of pardons. Biden I should most more pardon than any president has in his final month leaving office. Every president issues pardons. But part of the reason the president has a pardon power is the job of the president is actually.

To look after the country.

The job of a jury and a judge in a case is to look after that individual case. But a president is a steward of a country and to say what's in the best overall interest in the country. That's why the president is a pardon power. So everybody who a president has ever pardoned is by definition of criminal.

I'm gonna be proven right now. I expect I will.

There was a lot of fear mongering over the last couple of years, and some people still have the fear that, Okay, Donald Trump is going to go after his political opponents and whatever. I can tell you solidly that just ain't gonna happen, and you can roast me a year from now if we're wrong about that is not gonna happen.

And I think that that's that's the spirit of that decision. All that fits together.

Is to say, we've had a kind of a toxic chapter over the last four years as a country. You have a guy who is all kinds of unprecedent things have happened, right who himself was the subject of four prosecutions by the government, has been censored before that while he was leaving office, and the President of the United States couldn't even speak all that. Let's not really negate it. Let's turn the page. Let's move forward. And I think that is something that if we stay true to that promise,

I could say it's created by the me or whatever.

But to say that, oh, now Donald Trump's going to prosecute as political opponents, Now, it's not going to work that way. The way it's going to work is we're moving forward to say what actually lifts up all Americans. It's part of why you had a coalition, which I thought was pretty cool.

This time around.

You got a lot of former independence black voters, Hispanic voters, first generation Americans. It was there was a different kind of coalition. It wasn't yesterday's Republican Party. That I hope gives us a shot at unifying the country. It gives us the best shot I think we've had in a long time.

I'd love to see it.

Let's talk about how do you how do you advocate for ending birthright citizenship when both your parents were illegal and non citizens were legal.

They were legal. Yeah, that's right, that's right when they gave the country. Yeah.

So my view, and I've been pretty consistent on this, is that birthright citizenship should not be granted to the kids of.

Illegals in this country.

Therese, birthright citizenship means, just to get everyone on the same page, it means if you're physically born in the country, you're automatically a citizen. And that's been part of the long standing tradition of the country within certain guardrails. So I'll give you one that nobody contests. Let's say you're the kid of a Mexican diplomat. All right, it's a guy who's legally physically in the country, but he is the ambassador from Mexico. Or Panama or whatever country to

Nobody thinks. The answer to that is yes.

If you're a diplomat from Mexico or a government official from another country, but physically the baby happens to be born here, you're still a citizen out of other country. And goes to the fourteenth Amendment, it says, are you subject to the laws and jurisdiction thereof, then you're a citizen.

That's what it says.

So by similar analogy, if somebody who's an ambassador from Mexico or is in this country legally but doesn't enjoy birthright citizenship because they're still subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the other country, then the question is if somebody entered this country illegal, or let's just say it, take another one, if somebody is a foreign invader to the country.

Right, Let's say you have a foreign invasion of the country but includes a pregnant woman and she.

Happens to have a baby here. Nobody thinks that baby enjoys birthright citizenship. So then the question is if somebody broke the law when entering the country. Right that they're active entering the country was a violation of our laws. Are they really subject to the jurisdiction and law in the same way if they have their kid in the country, that kid does not automatically enjoy birthright. That's in my position, I think it's a reasonable position.

Why is it that moving forward, you would want an administration to pick and choose, like when they give opportunities. So for instance, like what if I'm here.

Illegally, I have my kid here legally.

No, I'm here illegally, Okay, hypothetically if I'm here illegally, right, I did whatever I had to do to get here just because of whatever my circumstances are. I'm not committing crimes while I'm here. I'm working the best I can, just trying to raise my kid. My kid is doing amazing.

So on things.

If you look at President Trump's recent commentary in some of his interviews even leading up to take an office, he himself has drawn a distinction between people have been here for a really long time and established roots versus people who have come super recently to the country. Right in the Dreamer's Program, you talked about how people have been here for a long time. We could have our own debates about what my own views even are on that, but let's just take start with the easy.

Low hanging fruit.

If somebody is a criminal, should they be if somebody commits a crime while they're here and they entered illegally, should they.

Be automatically deporting? I just want to and then we just go straight down the way.

Yeah, we're not going to argue that point because that's that's kind of like a that's an easy point, though. I know, I think where I'm getting confused with you as like you, even if.

It's a few years, I would say the same thing.

So if somebody has come here and it hasn't been that long, So we're talking about, you know, double digit millions of people who have come here illegally under Biden's tenure, those people have not established roots in the United States, right, those people should have followed a different route and by the way, there are millions more who didn't come here, who did not come here illegally because they were trying

And I think most people are in favor of it to say that that's fair.

So why our House Republican is divided on this because it seems weird that you would want to fight the in birthright citizenship now, especially when you've made so many scries or dispanding vodists.

So I'm not following we necessarily what the House Republicans are divided on per se. But what I will tell you is I think most people if explained right, because I think the problem with this is it can become a pretty emotional conversation. If you just objectively look at the low hanging fruit that we all agree with, that's actually pretty far from where we are today.

If you look at somebody who entered this country illegally, does their kid automatically get birthright citizenship?

Going forward?

We can't even change the past, right, because those are the rules of the past, But at least going forward we will say that anybody knew who entered this country illegally and their kid's born here doesn't enjoy birthright citizenship without even a change to the past.

I think most people agree with that. Somebody who entered in the last eighteen months, pretty recent.

This is what you're sitting the back.

It's millions of people illegally should think about.

Illegals abusing birth right citizenship. That's what that's what you're I mean.

I think I think somebody who comes here illegally and has a kid here, that kid should not enjoy birthright citizenship, especially if the government has said so.

So in the past you could say it was vague. That's a separate debate. But going forward, to lay the marker down and say, going forward from this date forward, somebody who enters the country illegally and has a kid here, that kid does not automatically enjoy birthright citizenship, I think is a very reasonable position.

So that wouldn't that be you know, since your parents were not.

Citizens, they were legal So it's one thing if you you apply to the government, you followed the legal process. There's a lot of paperwork involved, there's a vetting, and I'm saying I'm saying in that that's a separate point in the deportations. So in the deportations, let's just start, aren't there. Okay, If you look at how many people came into this country illegally, illegally in the last eighteen months, okay, the last year and a half of Biden's ten year alone,

And this is not dehumanizing anybody.

Frankly, if any of us were in the position of somebody sitting in Guatemala or Venezuela or Colombia and the US government's given you a wink and a nod, who knows, maybe many of us would do the same thing to have a better life for our family. So I'm not blaming anybody other than the US government. But now the US government can be clear to say that no, we're not open for illegal entry. We have a sealed border, there's no funding for sanctuary cities, there's no welfare or

What if your country's not accepting you back, like we' seen you what Mexico we s.

I think those countries need to start accepting them back. And that's where the US has leverage to say that we all got to play by the same set of rules here because a lot of those countries, for example, in Central America right there's this area called the Dairyan Past. It's like a jungle area which used to be closed. Now there's a massive north and flow migrants.

Many of those countries are recipients of US foreign aid. What does that mean.

It means we're literally given our taxpayer money as aid just as a check to those countries. It's a free check, free money to those countries. I don't think we should be given free money to those countries unless they're also at minimum doing their part to also seal their borders. So we have levers to be able to have a

Right.

We let other countries walk all over us agree, and I don't think that standing for American interests. And by the way, American interest doesn't mean some segment of America people agree with me. I'm talking about all Americans interests, regardless of skin color, regardless of political affiliation. If you're American, we're going to stand for your interests because that's what an elected leader of the United States has responsibility to do.

That doesn't make sense.

So I think that a lot of this is common sense. A restoration of common sense is the path back to American greatness.

I agree with what you said about people being jelly spine under the Biden administration, But do you think it's smart for Trump to start a trade war on day six?

So the thing about the thing to understand about Donald Trump if you look at his first term, the thing I love about the second term is you don't have to do a lot of guessing about Donald Trump like you would with a new president you had a first term. He is a tough negotiator on the international stage, right, And so I believe there's there's probably three camps on this issue of tariffs. If this gets to uh, we don't switch the subject any time, let me know, but

World to one for America.

If we're going to be a trading partner and you're going to be a long run economic partner in the United States, great, let's play by the same set of rules.

That's fair game.

That's different from and I will admit there are a lot of people on the left and on the right who prefer the other camp to say that, okay, we should make sure that only things are ever made in the United States, even if it could better advance the interests of American citizens to be able to have access to broader goods and bring costs down if the other country's played by the same set of rules, I don't.

Think that we should be we should be.

Penalizing ourselves and shooting ourselves and notes what the expression has cut your nose.

Despite your face. I don't think we should do that.

But if you look at Donald Trump's record, I'm not talking about rhetoric on social media or with some supporter somewhere of Donald Trump might have an opinion. If it's a big coalition here, a lot of people have a lot of different opinions. But Donald Trump has been super pragmatic as a businessman on these trade issues.

And sometimes when you're.

In negotiation, you got to be able to play a hard card to be able to get to the place where you want to get. So I have no problem with that as long as the place where we land advances the interests of all America.

Because how are you going to make things more affordable, like housing when you've got tariffs on everything?

Yeah, so I think. Look, I think the question is if another country I think you probably agree with me on this, If another country applies a tariff to the United States, do you think that we should apply the same tariff in return or not?

Yes?

Yeah, I think yes. So's it's that simple.

The only thing that's a slightly a little more complicated was just a slight wrinkle to that is sometimes the other country may not be applying a strictly speaking tariff, but it functionally is a tariff because their government supports their industries, so they may make them state sponsored industries with their own taxpair dollars. But we don't do that here because we believe in true competitive markets and capitalism.

That is like a tariff because effectively it props up the other country's company to make it look like it's better than the US company, when in fact the company isn't actually that much better. It's just using their taxpair dollars to do it.

Oh and by the way, we're often giving foreign hate to that very country, which allows them to have extra taxpayer dollars to spend. So that's the only wrinkle. Is either a tariff or a tariff like unfairness. That's what we've been on the receiving end of for a long time to make.

Things more affordable for people with are on average.

So I think what's going to happen, What typically historically plays itself out is that that other country then says, oh crap, we're actually going to be screwed in a lot worse off. Let's now play by the same set of rules, because we're not going to be getting away with arbitrage in the United States of America anymore. If we got away with it for a little while, we're not going to get away with it anymore. And then both countries are actually able to have a cleaner trading

I think most of that pretty hapen. Most of that happens pretty quickly. If you study the history of these trade deals with.

The companies quickly with Columbia, ye sure, in history historically, and if you look for one hundred years, the way these things play out, it happens very I mean it happens.

It's relatively instant for correcting itself.

The one exception to all of this, which you know, I favor, I think is important to us, is with respect to China.

That's different from other countries.

Not Japan or South Korea, or India, or the Philippines or South America. China is in a different category where I don't think we should put ourselves in a position to rely on China for anything that is critical to our national security.

Take our own military. It's crazy.

The following is crazy fact, the number one supplier to our Department of Defense of semiconductors is actually China. Our own military industrial base cannot exist without a Chinese dependent supply chain. That doesn't make any sense because the whole reason you a military industrial base is to potentially protect yourself against an adversary. It makes literally no sense if you depend on that very adversary for your own military

Yeah?

Yeah, exactly if oh yeah, question for you on trade war, like why do we even because for instance, with Columbia, right, I saw a Boocari Sellers tweeted in response to Tim Scott. Tim Scott came out and supported with Trump did with Columbia. The car Sellers was like with Biden, we didn't have to do that, like they accepted four hundred and seventy five deportation flights under Biden, more than one hundred and twenty and twenty twenty four alone. Basically, like, why did

Well, I think different countries are to have different relationships, right, and so at certain points you want we want a president who will play hardball for the United States when necessary. Okay, we just that's what we want. We don't want some sort of limp spined US president that gets rolled over, because the person that's getting rolled over is the president.

It's us.

So if somebody else is trying to stiff us, right, trying to roll over us, you gotta double dish say, if you're gonna hit me, I'm gonn hit you back ten times harder. Metaphorically speaking, I think that's okay for the president to take that mentality. And by the way, under Biden, part of the reason why is you have to way more illegals that were of the kind that they actually wanted to get out of their country. That we're actually finding their way into ours, and so each

Often it is a trade off.

Often it is a trade off between somebody who is going to be well liked or well feared.

On the global stage.

I would rather have a president who is well feared on the global stage than one who is well liked. Where it's possible to do both, that's the best. But when you have to make a choice, I want my president. I dont care what party he is. I want my president to be one who is feared rather than loved by adversaries or even allies who are looking after their own interests.

And that's why elected. I think respect follows somebody who stands for his own interests. Actually, in the short.

Run, somebody who loves what you do may not actually respect you, right, And I think Donald Trump's this way with respect to other leaders. He respects other leaders who looks after their country's interests, even though he's going to play hardball with them along the way. I'm the same way is think about the people in a business negotiation who roll over versus people who actually will hold the line when necessary for their interest. I respect that, even

And then here's also one area where the US is different than other countries. It's a little bit.

You know, people in other countries may take issue with it, but probably not because it's true. What hope to do the rest of the free world have if the United States the shining city on hill still doesn't shine. And I've talked to leaders from other countries over the last year. The way they've framed it to me is the US has a choice to make. I mean, you guys, decide which one you're going to be. Are you actually going to remain the leader of the world and proud of

I got a few more questions, Chucky, you always so generous with your time. What did Trump say when you told him you wanted to leave.

Those It was it was a pretty good mutual discussion.

He was very supportive, and uh, you know, I think Donald Trump and I we built a good relationship since I left the race.

I think it's for me.

I've always been somebody who I need to stand for my own vision for the country. I met my best when I'm standing for my vision for the future. And I'm excited for that, and Donald Trump was super supportive of that. We had a good time at the inauguration together, and I think we're gonna be working together informally for a long time to come.

One of the executive orders that happened, uh you know, was was DoLS was rebranded as the US Digital Yeah Service, which was an Obama air group, which is basically created to keep the manage the Affordable Care Acts website.

Right, That's where it started, okay, but.

Now it determines best practices for the government's use of technology.

That wasn't your initial vision.

So look, there were there were a couple of different visions in approach, and I will say that Elon and taking a technology first approach, he's the best person to take that technology first approach, no doubt about it. You know.

My what I've always been drawn to in my books and a lot of the articles I've written. In my own campaign for president, a lot of my focus has been on using the constitutional landscape and using the legislative landscape to bring down spending to curb regulations. I think the best way to do that is from the perch of elected office. And I think that when you think about who's going to drive change through technology in the government. Nobody better than Elon to do that.

But it seems like the Trump administration, at least some of them, like Steve Mann and the Susie Wilds of the.

World, they don't. They're not fond of him. It seems.

Look Steve, Steve Mann is I'm not.

I'm not a big palace intrigue, you know, person stuff. I'm an ideas guy. I believe in a vision for the country.

I want to think about how we're going to best be able to improve the country. I don't really I don't. I'm not super I don't.

I don't really think the personality driven stuff is something that's super.

Of interested me. But I can tell what I see.

What I see, certainly for what I was part of, is you gotta coalition here that is unified in wanting to restore American greatness, even with a diversity of views underneath that coalition, right, because you can't have both a big tent coalition while also having everybody having united views on every small question. And so I think that was part of what was cool this last year. I mean, I ran for you as president with slightly different views on certain things.

And Donald Trump.

I endorsed him when I left the race. You got the likes of Independence, you got you know, Bobby Kennedy, you got Tolsi. You got a bunch of other people, Elon Musk, a bunch of people who each have our own distinctive spins on what the right emphasis should be for the future of the country, but came together in what is a you know, I think, a big tent coalition, which means there's always going to be some levels of diversity of thought and opinion in that coalition.

I think it's actually a good thing. I think that makes a movement stronger.

And so they only catered to a billionaire class, which issue, which is why it's so interesting.

I think got so many working class.

People to you know, God, Yeah, I don't think. I don't. I don't think that's true. I don't think it's a sin to be a billionaire the country. No, I think so.

I think that's part of the coalition. I think it was very different if you look at the stage at inauguration. By the way, I'm a big fan of indoor inaugurations.

It was a great it was war. It was good to you.

I don't know if you watched it, you know, But if you look at the people who are I was, I was on stage with the diversity of people who are on that.

Stage, guys, all the billionaire.

And imagine that four years ago, many of those same platforms had censored and silenced the account of that same president. I think that's progress. I don't think that's a bad thing.

I think there may be some people across the country who say, well, that's a bad thing and we need to we need to go religate country.

That's what some people say. But I think Donald trumps around the country. I think that's the hard truth of the matter.

And I think that there are things, there are views that everybody in this coalition who supported him may have that may be slightly different what Donald Trump actually does. Because he's done a good job of building and melding together a pretty diverse coalition of independence, libertarian minded folks. You have some folks who were certainly got the American working class, union folks, you got minorities, You have people

So I think this is a good thing.

The more questions, how you how is the Trump administration where reduced food prices when they're.

Deporting the people who are picking the food.

Because he's that first day out and we ain't seen no prices drop yet.

Well, come on, it's been a couple of weeks, right, it's been not even a couple weeks, it's been a week. People who are actually picking the food, well, I mean deporting the people. Well, we maybe we should have a system, and I think you would agree with me on this.

That's a separate question.

You want to deport people and there's only fourteen million people live in the country illegally rid of.

Let's let's just talk about bringing down food prices for a second, because I think it's an important point.

I would also add to the list, by the way, housing prices. I would add to the list energy prices, especially electricity costs. I would add insurance costs. How things going to be tough, Well, here's the number one way to do it. Increase the supply of everything. It's the laws of supply and demand. If you have constricted supply, you have higher prices. If you have more supply, prices

More of it.

That is automatically going to bring prices down. That's at least the first and easiest step we can take. Some of this is at the federal level, but keep in mind, not all of this is stuff that Donald Trump can do. Some of this is a lot of this is actually

A lot of that is at the state level, which is part.

Of why, in my own reflection right, thinking about having an impact on the country, you want if you're doing this public service thing, you'll tell you there's a lot about it that isn't super pleasant at all times. So if you're going to do it, you might as well have the biggest possible impact.

You can have.

And the way I look at it is Donald Trump, He's got it covered at the federal level. I'm rooting for success, and I expect success, but it's not gonna be a one man show.

At the end of the day.

He got fifty states that have also have to tackle these very same problems, and especially when it's questions of affordability, questions really into education.

Education is all driven by the states. I think the States is where it's.

At in terms of actually the need to drive real change. And so at my sites accordingly, and yeah, I've tried to and I'm going to hopefully stay true to not just talking about this stuff but to actually translate it to action. And I do think that this is a lot of the issues. We're talking about bringing down housing costs, that is not a part.

Of an issue.

There are a lot of Republicans who are pissed off about high housing costs, a lot of Democrats who are pissed off about high housing costs.

And it is not a nature made problem. It's not a law physics. It is a man made problem. And a man made problem has a man made solution. And Donald Trump can set the tone. But those regulations, most of them are actually at the state level.

Same thing with respect education, determining whether or not that poor young kid in the inner city, black, Hispanic, or white can go to an actual good school isn't determined by the federal government. It's determined by actually those state laws. Same thing with respect to food restrictions, the constraints on nuclear energy production, a lot of those are at the state level.

And so I'm.

Actually excited about making sure that we're not just looking at this as a one size fits all solution.

I supported Donald Trump pretty heavily.

I dedicated a significant part of my last year to getting him elected because I thought he would restore that sense of spine, that sense of greatness to America. But it's never one man show. It's never one man coming down from the White House to save us. It's never been that way. In fact, our founders envisioned this system of federalism to be led by the state's bottom up as well, and so I'm excited for both of those to work in the next couple of years.

Do you think you will push out of those because Trump rolled back the DEI initiatives?

No, the contrary, And you know, I would say, just to be super clear about I have no problem with you framing or whatever. It was really just an actual mutual decision where you look at here was one vision on approach, here's a different vision on an approach that's great. There's no right or wrong answer with a technology driven approach and a technology first approach, there's no better person than Elon to run with that. With a constitutional law focus,

Yeah, I don't believe you.

I think you either got pushed out you know that it's going to implode. I think that you know Elon is going crash and burn it. And you're a smart guy, and you said, you know what, let me get out of.

Dodge and go do my governor Ohio thing.

So look, I know.

I knew that the right step for me in the long run is elected office and to pursue the vision that we're talking about here, to actually translate that to action of my own terms, that's what I've been called to do. It was clear that I could not do that and serve on Doge at the same time, even for logistical reasons.

It came to be in the government rather than an outside body.

I was proud to be able to spend the first couple of months offering my contributions and setting it in the right direction with its focus now with its digital technology focus. No better person to do that than Elon in the way that he's going to lead it. And I am hopeful that there's going to be a lot of stream lining of government bureaucracy that comes out of that, and I'm pursuing my next steps.

At the state.

We're on, we're all on very good terms, and so I wouldn't want to speak for anybody else, but I will say that they are very supportive of of the decision that I made to pursue is my next step.

All Right, you've been here a long time and.

You hit me up every weekend and said, I cannot wait until you unhit your horse from this Maga wagon.

And you can tell me I got my horse hitch to one wagon. And I'm not being corny about it. I really mean it. It is the America Wagon.

I love this country and I will you know what, I would rather fight to this country for the principles I believe in and stand for and lose than to win by checking some box along the way. And this next step for me, I think is going to be it's going to be really good.

You don't want your horse hits to the Maga wagon.

My horse is hitched to the America wagon. And I think, and I think making America great again, by the way, I'm all in for that. I'm all in for making America great again. If we're doing our jobs four years from now, we won't be saying make America great again, We'll just say make America greater. That's who we've always been. So I want to turn Maga into mag Okay, so we don't have to make America great again.

We just have to make America greater.

And I think it's good to have the humility to say make America great again. Acknowledges we're not perfect right now, and some people just.

Great because they've never experienced the greatnesstead.

Of let's make America greater than it's ever been. That's what I'm all in for.

You're going to be able to really do that as governor, you're gonna have that is that just for you to be there and be quiet until you figure.

Out, well, I'm not gonna be quiet. I'm not very good at that, and uh, you better believe that.

I'm gonna have a lot to say at every step of this way. I don't believe in being shackled, and I think that the ability to lead a state but also to be able to revive this culture of victory over victimhood in America, that's what I care about. We're victors, not victims.

That's who we are. And I don't care where that comes from I've been from my first book Woking all the way through everything I've done ever since.

I'm against victimhood culture where victors were exceptional. We believe in excellence, we believe in we believe in being unconstrained as a people and as a country. Well, if I'm going to be a leader in that country, I'm going to be pretty unconstrained at every step of the way too.

So that's why I look at it.

Big Grumaswami.

Good luck in Ohio, and uh, how are you going to take care of our Haitian family over there that you know?

Trump said, Well, I visited a number of them, Uh, in Springfield, and I think that I spent a lot of time in Springfield growing up.

Actually any of them, we didn't. Oh yeah, no we did not. We hung out.

We hung out.

It was it was the daytime where we hung out. But I would say that I will say that it's understandable where you have a tiny community, that it's really small population in Springfield that has had its population dramatically transformed. I don't blame anybody. That's what I said when I went visited Springfield. I don't blame anybody in that community. I don't blame the people who live in Springfield for

I'm done with that.

I want to go in and actually be through action, make a difference that you want to see. The best way to do it is from elected office, and I prefer an executive office that involves actually being an executive rather than just being one among a chorus of one hundred.

I'm just ready to see you.

But I think you're a smart dude, and I listened to a lot of your interviews and I watch you a lot, and I'm like, yo, you know, the VIC says some things that I can get with, but I'm just.

Yeah, you might, I'm not.

I'm not going to be constrained by anybody. And you know what I eve my you can watch me over the next year. You know, wining some election. Most politicians their goal is to get re elected. I don't need to get elected anything. We live a great life, We live the American dream. This is my way of giving back. What's the point of going through the motions if you're just going to be hamstrung by what you say and

All right, it's Vivick Ramaswami. We appreciate you for joining us.

Continue man, It's the Breakfast Club. Good morning, Wake that ass up in the morning.

The Breakfast Club.