And, This is Secretary Leon Panetta

time overseas. But one thing that continues to evolve in a very remarkable and meaningful way here in our own state of California, in Los Angeles is the deployment of close to five thousand military personnel that last count was four nine and forty six formerly National Guard, now federalized and active duty US Marines that have been deployed to

the streets of Last Angeles. But mister Secretary, what's remarkable to me, and this is where I want to begin with you, is only a very small percentage have been mission tasked. The rest, quite literally are sitting around waiting for assignments. Thousands and thousands of former National Guard men and women that were working to do drug interdiction, working on the border on behalf of the state, including many of them working for other state agencies in law enforcement,

have been federalized. And I'm curious your thoughts about what you've seen in Los Angeles, your own reflection as a former secretary of Defense, former chief of staff, did you ever imagine thousands and thousands of men and women being federalized against the wills of a governor of a home state.

foreign adversaries. And throughout our history, we've been very clear that the role of the military ought not to be used for law enforcement purposes. And I believe in that because, frankly, we need the military to protect our national security. The President just used our military to conduct an attack in Iran. That's what the military is about, that's what they're trained to do. Uh, And we have to respect that role.

And if we if we do anything to politicize the role of the military, it basically weakens our national security and weakens our national defense. So I think that there are some real concerns about the political politicalization of our of our military, and particularly the activation of our National Guard here in California. It raises real concerns about whether or not politics are being played. Uh. I really do believe that this country deeply trusts our military because they

protect our national security. I hope we can stick to that role. Well.

were there on the scene quite literally. They had prepositioned these rattlesnake teams, they were doing some defensive work on vegetation management before the fires erupted, and thousands were deployed within hours and days to protect and support our law enforcement, obviously our firefighters, but also keep the peace. They're extraordinary young men and women, and to see them used in this way is remarkable as much as it is demoralizing, not just for those of us in positions that we share,

but for them themselves. I mean, this is not what they signed up for to be in this position.

And that's what the National Guard is all about. You know. Obviously, governors like yourself I have a responsibility to be able to activate the National Guard when they're needed, as you did certainly with regards to the fires in California, and certainly with regards to other areas where you feel it's necessary. And that is what the National Guard is for. When a president comes in and basically activates them for what I believe are more political purposes than purposes related to

protecting the public's interest. As I said, it undermines trust not just in our way of government, it undermines trust in the fundamental role of the National Guard in our military.

So I'm very concerned about this. I think we have to continue to hold the line, do the right thing, make sure that we're making the right decisions, and ultimately I think we will we will get back to using the National Guard the way they're supposed to be used, because that is what the men and women in the National Guard, that's why they joined, is to be able to be deployed pursuant to the law, not against the law here here.

This is, by the way, not about California. The order that initiated this as a national order, the President of the United States now can move freely on the basis of this action to do the same on a whim with any modest protests that law enforcement local law enforcement can easily address, and now can look to weaponize the Guard.

But I'm curious, I'm sure saw the President's speech at Fort Bragg, so much attention a few days later was placed on the military parade, and I'm curious your thoughts on that, And I think good people can view that through very different lenses. But the Fort Bragg speech, I think underscores with Secretary some of your comments. In this case, not the National Guard, but men and women in uniform, active military personnel, hooting and hollering booing, former president, the

current governor California, other elected officials. At the same time, I'm the President of the United States, as he was giving a speech, was selling Trump campaign merchandise. I don't want to tee up a softball for you, but I imagine again it's a former CIA director, not just former Secretary of Defense and chief of Staff. And for a member of Congress, you ever seen anything like that?

he's demeaning their role. And you know what bothers me is that I believe the President of the United States, as commander in chief, is responsible for protecting our national security. And the way you protect our national security is by deploying our men and women where you need them in order to ensure that we protect our democracy. That's why they're there, that's why we train them, that's why they

go into the military. This is a volunteer force. They go in because they want to basically help defend this country. I've looked into their eyes in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, and these are young men and women who are prepared to fight and die for our country, and they will respond to the order of a commander in chief when necessary in order to help defend this country. The president

needs to respect that role. The President of the United States needs to respect the role of our men and women in uniform, not use them for political purposes, not politicize their mission, not have a political rally at a military post, but give them the respect that they're due, which is that their primary role is to defend this country from foreign adversaries, and not use them as if somehow he's an autocrat who would just basically use the

military to protect his power. That is a misuse of the responsibility of commander in chief.

in reverence. You look at Congress today, you look at the lack of oversight, checks and balances, You look at what I would refer to as the appalling silence on issues like those we just discussed. What's your assessment where we are and how the hell do we get out of this moment?

that they would limit power. And the way they did that is by creating three separate but equal branches of government, each a check in balance on the other. And for two hundred and fifty years, that system of checks and balances has worked pretty well. It's been threatened, it's been challenged, but it's worked pretty well. And we are now in one of those periods where system of checks and balances

is being tested. And my concern right now is that the institutions they created to provide that check and balance, they themselves are being tested. Congress, unfortunately, is not standing up and really being a check in our system right now.

They're basically standing back and giving the president a free ride, a blank check with regards to everything he's doing, rather than serving as a check, rather than having the hearings that have to be done, Whether than rather than standing up and saying no, we cannot abuse the Constitution of the United States. We swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. We have to stand by that.

I was a believer in that, as somebody in Congress who swore that oath, and I think that's what Congress has to do. That's not happening. We understand that. So the only check that's happening right now, we certainly aren't getting a check by the executive. The only check that's happening right now that's effective or the courts, and I give them a tremendous amount of credit for their willingness to stand up and to be able to uphold the

rule of law. Unfortunately, as we all know, it takes time for the courts to act, and a lot of damage can be done in the interim. So I really think it's important that our system of checks and balances work, and probably the only way that's going to happen right now is the American people, because the American people are the ultimate check in a democracy. That's in the constitution, their ability to vote, their ability to vote for elected

leaders is the fundamental check in a democracy. So I remain hopeful that ultimately we will get through this because our forefathers believed that we cannot afford to centralize power, certainly in the presidency.

the future. And I think in so many ways we saw that on the same day that the President was celebrating, and I certainly appreciate celebrating with the kind of reverence they deserve. The United States military in a parade same time, though, millions of people showed up in a not King's rally, sort of reinforcing the framework that our founding fathers tried to correct, our least counter and I think it shows that, you know, democracy is still alive bottom up, if not the moment topped down.

of course, they had their politics. You know, they fought each other in election, but when it came to big issues, they worked together. The message we always got is that Republicans and Democrats have to work together in order to govern the country, and we did. We did during the Reagan administration, a Democratic Congress passed Social Security reform, it's the third rail of politics. We passed it with a

bipartisan vote. We passed immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform, bipartisan, bipartisan vote. We passed tax reform. We dealt with the budget. We were able to frankly pass agreements to help bring the deficit down and discipline the federal budget and balance the federal budget, not only balance it, but get a surplus. That was done because parties were willing to work together.

Today we are at a time when there's a lot of partisanship, a lot of division, a lot of unwillingness to be able to govern together, and the result is that Washington is dysfunctional and that is hurting our democracy.

You have a lot of receipts on that list. As personal as personal as it is to you, not only as a former member of Congress some of those line items you just listed, but also you were achieve a staff of Bill Clinton when we had that balanced budget. You worked with Nuke Gingrich across the party lines. You proved, not just asserted that we can work together across our differences. But the question that I'm continuing to sort of be vexed with is what the hell happened and when did

it happen? And who's responsible? And when did things start to collapse? I mean, at the same time it seemed to be peak partisanship. You guys were working together in the Clinton administration. You took over it. I'll say with love and respect to former President Clinton, but it was rather dysfunctional office at the time he got shellacked in

the mid terms. You've described the former President Clinton is being depressed in terms about his standing, and you came in and you were part of that turnaround, and you also advanced a different frame, a close fist talk about turnaround with an open hand, to partner with a Republican speaker, and produced those results. But was that the moment things were advanced or was that the moment was not a setback?

And then, as you all know, in politics, it can come back to bite you, and it did in the midterms, and the President lost the Congress to the Republicans, and he was depressed about, you know, where his administration was going to go. And I having been through these changes in my own lifetime, I told the President. Look, ultimately, every crisis provides an opportunity. This is a crisis. It does provide an opportunity. You need to sit down and try to see if there are areas where we can

work together. Unfortunately, at the beginning, Newt Ginrich took a position he was going to push for his own budget, cut Medicare and cut some other vital programs. The President dug in, and what the Republicans did in response was to shut the government down. The government was shut down.

This is the first time the government was shut down for almost two weeks and had backfired on the Republicans and a new Gintadge then to his credit, decided maybe the better approach would be to actually try to work with the president. The President took him up on that. They were able to work together. We did some things on the budget, we did some things on healthcare. We

were able to get things done. But that was because there was a willingness then to try to see if we could govern together, to get back to the basics of governing together, that's what needs to happen. I mean, I think in some ways, I'm really offended that the President of the United States did not give a heads up to Congress on this military strike that took place

in Iran. That's the responsibility of the President to be able to inform the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, the Gang of Eight, as to what's happening with regards to our National Security Command. Chief is deploying our men and women into harm's way. He's got to be willing to make sure that both Republicans and Democrats on the Hill are aware of what is happening. And unfortunately that didn't take place, and I think it's a real slap in

the face to how our democracy should function. You know.

curacy of a heads up. But I'm curious on that and going back just briefly, and I want to move off it, but I am fascinated. I mean, we talk about this dysfunction, we talk about Tip O'Neill and all the wonderful stories of O'Neill and Reagan working together across their differences. You've amplified that as relates to ephen Clinton

and Gingrich. But was there a moment? Was that moment, despite the fact that you were, they were able to persevere and those two personalities, remarkable personalities, historic personalities, Clinton and Gingrich were able to finally find some common ground. Was that the beginning of the end?

created some bad feelings. And look, Democrats made their mistakes as well, and when both sides decided that rather than working together, they would get into their own trenches and basically throw grenades at one another, that really was the beginning of the end in terms of governing. I mean, the problem is for the last twenty years. Look, tell the students at the Paneta Institute that in a democracy,

we govern either by leadership or by crisis. If leadership is there and willing to make tough decisions that basically reach across and try to develop consensus and compromise, we can avoid crisis, but if that leadership isn't there, then we'll govern by crisis. And I have to tell you, for the last twenty or twenty five years in Washington, they've largely been governing by crisis, and that undermines trust

in our basic system of governing. And that's why, very frankly, Washington is so dysfunctional right now.

of Defense and CIA Director, I'm curious your reflection. You know, there's been it seems to me, an assault on knowledge, particularly at West Point. Recently there was reports not specific that books are being banned Baldwin. You know, other books, well known authors, historic facts that appear to be being censored West Point. My gosh, these are the best of the best, these remarkable young cadets, and I'm just curious.

You know, you were part of they're sort of pulling back and don't ask, don't tell women in the military and being able to lead, you moved in a very different direction in your leadership roles. What's your reflection of where we are now in this sort of assault on all things quote unquote wokeness or dei or even un historic facts.

and that's what we want for our children. And I think to get there, we have to embrace our freedoms, not destroy our freedoms, not destroy our openness, not destroy our ability to learn from one another. We may not like what others say, but the ability to listen, the ability to have a say, the ability to enjoy different points of view is what is what our freedom, what the American dream is all about. I had, you know, young young people who were who wanted to serve in

the military. That's a good thing. We ought to give them that opportunity to serve. And that's what I tried to do as secretary. You know, regardless of their race or color, or creed, or or sexual preference. The fact is they wanted to serve this country. And you know what, they did a damn good job serving this country. And that's true for our men and women in our academies,

whether it's West Point or Annapolis or others. Their ability to embrace everyone who wants to serve, to embrace our freedom, to embrace openness, to embrace what our society is all about, to embrace what democracy is all about. These are young people are going to put their lives on the line to basically protect our country. They need to know the importance of why they're going to fight and die for their country, and that's why they need to be exposed

to all kinds of views. And that's what the Academy has done in the past. I regret that they're getting all worked up about their approach now with regards to books and what have you. I mean, this is a throwback to the age of witches in Salem for God's sake, So it really is, it really is important, and listen, we'll get beyond this. I do not consider this any

kind of permanent faith it's going to take place. I think this is just a moment in time, and we've seen many of those in two hundred and fifty years. This is a moment in time. But ultimately we we are going to get back to the values of our democracy that made us strong. There is no other way that this country can survive.

There was a plan. They're executing a plan. I mean, I don't imagine I appreciate all the work you did as omb director, but I'm not sure you had an agenda that was this thick and this prescriptive and laid out that goes to assault these institutions. Assaults are norms and traditions. Why do you remain so confident that we can withstand we acknowledge? There's only one other branch of government left, the courts at the moment, and obviously the

court of public opinion. Perhaps that may be the answer.

is being done. But you know, I really believe I guess this goes to the heart of why I feel the way I do, because, you know, in my fifty years, I've witnessed a lot of different people come into office, a lot of different views that we brought in. But there were you know, for eighty years, going back to World War Two, whether a president was Republican or Democrat. There were some fundamental values that every one of them had and shared, and that was not only you know,

American world leadership. They also respected the values of our democracy. They also made very clear that this country was going to respect the rule of law in our constitution. They also made very clear that we would work through our democracy in order to make change. Every president wants to make change, but most presidents make change by working through

our constitution and through our democracy. Look. Bill Clinton, when he became president of the United States, made the decision that we were going to try to achieve almost five hundred billion in deficit reduction. But we did that through the budget. I sat down with the president, we walked through the budget. He made decisions about what programs are to be funded, what programs are to be cut, and we put that into a budget, send it to the Congress.

That's the way you're supposed to do it. And we were successful. We passed that budget, and yes, you know, we were able to achieve five hundred billion in deficit reduction, but we did it pursuant to the law and pursue it to the constitution. Why this president comes in and throws all of that out The window, gets Doze, gets Elon Musk, gets whoever else to suddenly engage in this kind of vigilanty approach to democracy basically undermines our democracy.

Doesn't strengthen our democracy. See, it undermines it. You undermine the power of the Congress, which it has the power of the purse under a constitution, it's the Congress that decides what is funded and what programs are protected, not a group of vigilantes. So look, the courts have been finding that that is the case time and time again. I really do believe that ultimately, the American people do

not want a king as president. They want a president who understands that his oath to the Constitution has to come first. That's where the American people are at. And yeah, you know, presidents can say or do whatever the hell they want, but ultimately it's the American people who rule in this country. And I honestly believe that whether they're living in a red state or a blue state, they believe in American values, and they believe in the rule

of law, and they believe in the Constitution. That's why this country is going to survive.