Before the Handoff: What to Expect Leading Up to the Presidential Inauguration

In the immediate aftermath of the 2024 US elections, global leaders are recalibrating their political strategies and vying for President Trump’s good favor. But what can we expect over the course of the next two months before Trump takes office, and what’s the broader outlook for global stability?

Join Jack and Julia for a discussion about how President Trump’s second term is already resonating and impacting policy decisions on both the domestic and international fronts. On this episode, we’ll consider:

• The new US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and what, if anything, government leaders can learn from business leaders
• If “America First” implies “America Alone” and if Washington will be able to reestablish a bipartisan approach to foreign policy
• Implications for China as a global economic powerhouse, and the possibility of ceasefire agreements in Eastern Europe and throughout the Middle East

Devine, J. (2024, October 11). Opinion: Trump or Harris? Whoever wins will lose wars without bipartisan consensus. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2024/10/11/trump-harris-china-russia-iran-monitor-election/75555336007/
*Mentioned 0:07:34:70

Transcript

Julia

Welcome back everyone. As promised, we've returned after the US elections and there's no shortage of topics to discuss. But I've been amazed by the flurry of high level phone calls and meetings and international business shifts that we're already seeing as global leaders respond to and prepare for President Trump's second term. Jack, in your experience, is it normal to have this much activity in the months between an election and an inauguration? 

Jack

Well, I think there's two aspects of your question. One, which we've touched on in the past, is most Americans underestimate their own country's influence around the world. I mean, they know we're big and powerful, but they really don't have a grasp of how other countries are so attuned to what's happening in the United States and how all their agendas are crafted around a new administration. All of them are jockeying now, no matter whatever they believe, if they believed Harris was better than Trump, it doesn't really matter. At this point they know Trump is the person, and they're trying to find every way they can find to establish relationships with him and his team and to particularly with President Trump elect, who is transactional. They're looking at how can they cut a deal, in other words what are they going to have to give up, and what do they get? And so they're really preparing. And I think the amount of activity is not unusual in that regard. Where I think there is a speed is on the nomination process. I think that's faster. And that has produced a lot of publicity. It's not unusual to produce for publicity, but I think this is unusual. The extent of it. 

Julia

Well, Jack, I know you want to talk about global players and how they're going to act over the next two months. But that point brings me to a question. I have to ask you, as both a former high-level government official and at this point, a long term business leader, what do you make of Trump's new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) that's going to be led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. Do lessons from business leadership apply to government leadership? 

Jack

Well I think there's a couple really interesting subset issues as you torture me with these questions that have embedded in them. You know, it looks like an innocent question, right? 

Julia

I mean, it was just one question. 

Jack

Yeah. But you start to peel it back. And for example, I would say this isn't the first time there's been an experiment with management. I remember when Al Gore was vice president, he set up and management teams were established. And I think it was, you know, management by objective. And every government department was looking at it, and it seemed to be a fad at the time, but I think there's an underlying theme where I do believe that there's a lot of room for, first of all, cutting out pork barrel and every congressman adding bridges to their plans and negotiating. But I think there's built in inefficiencies with bureaucracies and sometimes they have trouble dealing with it. This is an experiment for me when I'm looking at it. Did you actually come from the outside? No, that's not to say that the business world doesn't have a lot of things to bring into the government, and they do. People don't realize this, but if you look at the Defense Department today, so much of the modernization of warfare is brought in from the private sector. So there are these relationships. But this is the first time where you'll have an external look at it. I have some cautionary things…

Julia

When you were in charge, did you try to change the Agency in any way? I don't want to divert us too much, but were there any examples when you thought, gosh, this would be better run, you know, in a certain way than others? 

Jack

Well, I'm kind of proud of the fact that I've always felt strategic thinking about your organization is really important and where you are, and I found a paucity of it throughout the government. So I did spend a lot of time torturing people to death to play in the strategic view of how do we organize ourselves for the future. And I thought I was at the cutting edge, but I would say going back in time, however aggressive I thought I was, I should have been twice as aggressive, right? Because even in the process of an aggressive movement for reform it somehow gets bogged down in the bureaucracy and you lose some of the momentum. So you have to double the ante. But reform is extremely difficult. I've talked to many senior officials that had higher positions than I had and about the intelligence community, and I would recommend certain things. And they often said the same response. And that was, Jack, this is too hard, right? We've been through trouble. We're going to take it piecemeal by piece by piece. And at the end of their tenure, I'd say, well, how did it work out for you? And they said, well, not so well. It's really someone that wants to go in and bring some major change. This isn't- I want to be really careful because we may be entering this phase now- you can't go in with a hostile feeling towards the government. That it's useless, it's not functioning. You really have to have a collaborator view about, let's modernize. And sure as hell the Defense Department -it's not their fault, war has changed, right? - they were well prepared. They're the best in the world. But right now, you need people looking about, well, what is war going to look like and how fast is it going to change. And they have to start planning for the programs five years out. So efficiency, really there's a modernization part and efficiency sort of go hand in hand. The best - this is where I think you end up happening- someone will just arbitrarily say, well, cut 20%. You're going to - I'm not going to make a bet. This is a bet among all our audience, right? That despite, you know, that there's too many left hand monkey wrenches being sold and but that that efficiency program, well intentioned and maybe they'll find some big issue. But at the end of the day, if you really want to cut, it'll get frustrating and fix an arbitrary percent. And that's how they'll reduce it.

Julia

Well there's also more to process here regarding the intersection of tech and government more broadly. But let's get back to the global response to what just happened in the United States. Jack, a couple of weeks ago, you published an Op Ed in USA Today* that discussed the need for a bipartisan approach to US foreign policy, regardless of which party was going to assume the presidency. Given how polarized party views are - on the extremes at least - in terms of our foreign policy objectives, do you think that a bipartisan approach is still possible? 

Jack

I call this my Johnny Appleseed op ed. Now, what I forgot was Johnny Appleseed had a tin pot on his head. So I know all of my friends and not so friendly folks will characterize me having a metal pot in my head. But what Johnny Appleseed did is went out there and tried to plant seeds that would grow. If you're asking me, do I think there's any hope tomorrow for bipartisanship, I would say. I'm not optimistic about it, but it has to start somewhere. Leadership has to come together. We have to. We really do need a much better foreign policy rooted in a bipartisan – somewhere, it has to start. What inevitably happens is you're eventually forced into it. The adversary becomes so formidable you can't play games anymore. I think we're looking at that today. When we look at Russia, China, North Korea and Iran playing today, you can't look at them in isolation. You have to look at them as a bloc, and they're coming at us in the Global South everywhere. And we're kind of missing the boat by chopping it up in little pieces. But the only way we confront this is as a united country with clear vision, focus on what we're doing. So I'm putting the seed out there, urging it and what I find- and I'll finish on this so I don't want to go on too long- I think the American people are begging for a sense of unity in our country. I really think they want bipartisanship. I think politicians will find themselves surprised if they go out there and try and drop the pablum. And start talking straight to the American people and looking for bipartisanship. You know, the old Vandenberg, Senator Vandenberg, “stops at the waterfront.” So I think it's long overdue. So, yes, it may sound like I’m being pollyannaish here, but I believe in it, and it's not a novel idea. This country had bipartisanship on foreign policy for many years, effectively. 

Julia

Right. But it does seem that we have reached unexpected or unprecedented levels of polarization. But let's get back to this idea of an increase in US isolationism. There was a sharp focus throughout the Trump campaign about promoting American industry and tariffs on Chinese goods, and fracking and drilling more American oil and gas. But in many ways, we've increasingly been doing these things, actually under the Biden administration. And in your view, Jack, does this concept of America First? Does that mean America Alone? 

Jack

Listen, let me self reveal I'm an American exceptionalist. I believe this country is exceptional that some reason out of 7 million people, we found the best leaders in the history of the world to put together a system of checks and balances. I mean, it's so thoughtful, so rich with so many of those presidents and members of the that era that we are really, truly exceptional. We have an exceptional system. So I don't have a problem saying American first at all. That doesn't mean self-interest. It means here's a system. And if we ever got it wrong, in the idealistic world, is we try and share it too broadly when people aren't ready for it, we try and force it on people. But yeah, I think we should be looking to the US as a model for how we do things and we have a responsibility in that. But you hit a number of, again, the subset of questions about fracking and tariffs and all those things are not necessarily isolationism right. They can be useful if you're an internationalist. I think isolationism is that really cute expression. It was valuable in the pre-World War One period, and I know we'd all like to be back all by ourselves, just farming and having ourself a wonderful time, but that those days are gone. It's like, oh, I don't like technology. Look what it's doing. We can't stop it. So today we are the power. We're out there internationally, and if we don't play, you're going to leave the playing field to others. That will bring danger to our doorstep. So I'm not too concerned about the banter about isolationism. Let's see how it's applied. I think the world will make us - if we decide we want to be experimental - I think the world and the conditions will force us not to do that. So I'm not I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep by the sloganeering around that. 

Julia 

Interesting. So let's move on to what we might expect to see…

Jack

Could I just step in for one second? There is an area where I think it's worth looking at internationally, where you're going to see bipartisan, where you see an opportunity for bipartisan support. That's around a very important subject. It's China, and how are we going to deal with it? And this is what I said earlier. Sometimes the situations force you into it. Why are we being more bipartisan? Because I think people are getting serious about that issue. So I see some optimism about that. But that too has to be handled with style and grace. I'll let you define that.

Julia

Well let's talk about China for a second then. I mean we could talk about the implications of the US presidency on Taiwan. But I'm also interested to hear how you think that the tariffs might impact geopolitics. Should we expect to see China weakened by these new policies. Or does China kind of have enough business relationships outside of the US with other players who are also looking to avoid or to not put all of their eggs into the US basket, that China is going to be able to kind of eat our lunch, take advantage of this, of this shift. 

Jack

Well. Eat our lunch. Okay, I'm going to respond by when America sneezes, the world gets a cold. So my point is, China may is certainly out there trying to carve a world for itself. We helped contribute to that. I mean, I think we have to look in the mirror. And how did China become so powerful? And we opened the floodgates for investment and growth. We helped grow China. Now, if you were working in the mills in South Carolina, you may not have thought that was such a great idea, but American bought into building China. You know, history has to be written a hundred years later. Maybe it's 200 years later. But when we look back at what we've done, we've created a very formidable adversary, has different life views about how different views about government. And so I think this is the challenge - we have a real struggle. And I think as, as the situation, and I think the Chinese are worried about this, that the more this situation unfolds, the more vulnerable their economy will come. The Vietnamese of the world or Ghana isn't going to feel the lack of economic investment by the United States. So I think China has its hands full. And I think this is why when we look at Taiwan, it gets more complex than some people think. So I think the fact that you have bipartisan support, and trying to you know, everyone agrees it's the we look over the future, they're competing with us. So what do you do about it? Well, one thing you usually don't do is make your competitor get stronger. 

Julia

Or at least not intentionally, right? I mean, the optics of the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Latin America, what's happening on the sidelines of the G20… It looks to me that there's a lot of interest in leveraging connections with China, especially given the fact that countries aren't really sure what the next US administration is going to do in terms of China, but in terms of other issues and the way that that might impact them. This concept of America first meaning America alone, does that mean that we're going to stop supporting and funding a lot of these allies or like minded countries around the world? And on that note, let's just dive into Ukraine. In the next two months, and I'm not even talking about what happens after Trump assumes the presidency, but just in these next two months, what should we expect to see on the battlefield in Ukraine? 

Jack

I can't leave you off the hook with the ending of the last run on what's going to happen and, you know, going it alone and so on. I don't think the world's going to allow us. That's what I come back to. So, you know, let's get the rhetoric aside. What do you actually going to do and let's start watching what we, what we're going to do. And you know what? I'm reading a great deal about it. And my sources around the world. I know China is not the greatest partner you want to have in life. If you would look at the places where they've invested, you know. It's not like everyone's going around and say, let's dress like the Chinese. Let's watch China movies. Let's what do you want to emulate? So I just want to say that China has made great progress because we went to sleep about it. Russia increased its power. Iran increased because we fell asleep about this part. And I wrote to this in Spymaster's Prism back in 2022, actually, even earlier in Good Hunting, so I think there's a different path that I'm looking at. 

Julia

But I would I disagree there, Jack. I think that people like China as a partner quite well, I think that China comes with very few obligations. They're not looking to have demands on human rights or labor rights or, you know, various domestic policies of the countries that they invest in. And I think that's very appealing to a lot of countries. 

Jack

You know, I think you should hold that idea, and I think we should see how it plays out in the next couple of years. 

Julia

Well, it’s playing out with massive investments in Latin America and lots of mining contracts in Africa and dam construction in Pakistan? I mean, we're seeing it. It's working. I don't know how durable it is, but for now it's working. 

Jack

I don't know what working means. We're getting into semantics, and that is when we look around the world. Are we saying that in Latin America they're going to line up with China? I don't think so. But let's allow that these are possibilities, right? We need to look at them. It's just that I'm not as sanguine about China's future. I think there are lots and lots of problems which I see being recorded in the economic arena and elsewhere, but they're not naturally good allies. Even Russia and China, you know, we're looking at a strong relationship, but they at their heart there's xenophobic issues on both sides. So I would just say it's much more complicated. I think we have a really good playing field. I really think the world would- again, you know, like I said, first, we're American exceptionalism. I think the world would rather do things American style than the Chinese style. But let's see, let's see. I also think they're missing an ideology. I mean, what do they believe in? Right? Communism. If you ignore the fact that they're really serious communists, you're missing the boat. But let's go to Ukraine because I think that's something the audience is going to be interested in, in terms of what you think your question is, what's going to happen in the next two months…

Julia

We've already seen, in just the several weeks after the election, President Biden authorized - after years of hesitation or caution- authorized the use of US-made ATACMS into Russian territory. So the long range, missiles there and President Putin, Russian President Putin seemingly is ramping up his offensive into Kursk and amassing more North Korean troops. So we're already seeing a lot of movement here. What can we expect over the next few weeks?

Jack

I think it remains to be seen. Right? Because there's yin and yang in this build up. So the ATACMS and I mean, this is going to put great pressure, people think the missiles fly 500 miles, they go 200 miles. So you're talking about pushing back the enemy in close. And it's not coincidental that they're firing where the North Koreans are, which we’ll come, will come to in a little while. But, you know, as we as we look ahead, I think Zelenskyy is - he's talking today- it’s the thousandth day of combat, by the way, today, a thousand days since Russia invaded. And you say a thousand days and Russia is still you know, we're still talking about them overrunning Ukraine. Right? But this has been a long war. They tend to run- you run out of time. I'm getting this sense one way or the other that this is coming to an end. The next two months are tricky. You have winter months. You now have the long range missiles being put at the disposal or authorized for the Ukrainians. You have the Russians bringing 10,000 North Koreans, which I hope we do talk about, that, they're trying to ramp up, they're trying to have more gains than usual. Why? Because you get ready for a new administration and a possible negotiation. I think both sides are actually ramping up to better improve their position for negotiations. And I don't want to be overly optimistic, but I do think there's a moment now, and I think there's one in the Middle East, and that is there's a moment when people say, enough is enough. Let's figure this out, let's come to some deal. Any deal, just get a deal done. I think we're heading into that mode. It's not necessarily the healthiest one, but I think that's where we are.

Julia

Well in terms of -  since you you'd like to discuss the North Korean element - I mean it's hard to get a grasp on from over here exactly how many troops, how well prepared those troops are, what they're being used for. I mean I've seen estimates ranging that now there's 100,000. Do you have a sense of what's happening there or the implications? 

Jack

I remember once in Latin America, the NSC director came to the hotel that I was, in the town with the head of South Com, and they sat down and said, Jack, we went to invade a country. And I said, well, how are you going to do that? How are you going to go? Well, we're going to bring Gurkhas in. We're going to bring some South Koreans in. And I said, I sat there and said, let me imagine how you run a war. So let's fast forward to North Koreans. Think of the communication system in the command office. Right. You know, they're speaking Korean. You're trying to figure out trying to give orders. Where are they? How do you run this thing, by the way? You know, Koreans have not been to war in 50 years. This is not combat ready seasoned- is this more cannon fodder? It's going to be interesting how you mobilize it. What does it say to the world? You can't get it done with Russian, the big Mother Russia and all that. You have to rely on North Korea. What a message. And wait till they start to take hits. This is something that, you know, you start wars in foreign countries and you take heavy losses, it has impacts in your own system. What are the impacts? It's too hard to predict. But you lose thousands of North Korean soldiers. You alienate some. The generals do not like losing troops. They really don't. Not without cause. Not without, you know, in a meat grinder. And so what happens? You know, even Kim Jong Un’s stability- he may be biting, he may be walking into something, he doesn't know what lies ahead. But on the ground, I mean, it isn't easy to assimilate Navy, Army and Air Force Americans, let alone trying to take foreign nationals and make it a fighting force. So it's going to be a novel experience that, it might prove quite embarrassing. Yeah, that's not the right word. It's really much more dangerous than embarrassment. Right. It may be an embarrassment, for Putin, but it also is dangerous. 

Julia

We’ll definitely be tracking that. And turning now to the Middle East, just to wrap it up in our “what's going to happen over the next two months”, it doesn't seem like there's any kind of immediate ceasefire on the horizon for Gaza, but there does seem to be some movement regarding possibilities in Lebanon. How do you see this playing out over the next few months before Trump is at the helm? And who would be most interested in securing that ceasefire agreement right now? 

Jack

I think we have to realize that Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas are on their back heels. There's another part of your body that we could say they're sitting on, but they're in trouble. I mean, this is not going their way on the battlefield. No prospect of changing it. In other words, there's no way they're going to roll back. You have an army that cannot make forward progress. Any sensible group of people would say: we've got to figure a way to slow this thing down. So I think there's great momentum towards finding some deal. Okay, I'm not talking permanent peace. I'm not talking permanent ceasefire. I think President Trump is coming into a period where there may be positive opportunities. Just because Iranians are in such bad shape, there's going to be a minimum requirement on the part of the Israelis, and that is they have to have that northern frontier secure. So there's no deal with Hezbollah unless they put that on the table. They've killed most of the leaders of Hamas and many of the Hezbollah. So the setting is about right for ceasefires. I know there's people on both sides that want to keep on fighting, but it feels to me this is about that tolerance level. There is probably a deal to be made primarily because the Israelis have done such a superb job on the battlefield, and the Iranian forces and their allies have shown themselves to be weaker than anyone had anticipated. So there's a point where you have to regroup. I think we're heading into that. But the next couple of months it'll be fighting back and forth, trying not to escalate it, but not not heading to ceasefire. And they're going to clear the Northern Territory. If they don't, that's not nothing's going to happen until that's taken care of, in my view.

Julia

And is there an incentive to get that done before President Trump takes office or not? 

Jack

Do you mean by the current white House? 

Julia

Yeah, but well, the white House has been trying to get deals for a long time. Let’s talk about it from the Israeli perspective… 

Jack

I was being facetious, 

Julia

…by the Iranians or the Israelis, Hezbollah…who wants to wrap this up before Trump?

Jack

I think everybody has their mind set around the world. This is why they call it a lame duck. It happens to Republican governments. And it's no big thing is going to happen here. You've got to figure, you have to sit there and say, I'm trying to cut a deal with the new administration. Am I going to do something to undermine it? So I don't I think … the chances are not good. Not good. I do think there's this overall air, I mean, this is maybe voodoo on my part, but both in in Ukraine and the Middle East, you know, we're about there. Haven't we got about where we need to get this sort of back out of this. And Trump as president provides an opportunity for Putin to look better making the same deal he could make today. And I think Iran is looking for a way to save face. We're not really beating up the Israelis because we decided to have a deal. So I, you know, I don't want to be overly positive, because I don't think - certainly in the Middle East – it’s long lasting. By that, I mean, I'll settle. I think. Give us some peace. Give peace to the people of the Middle East. Try and make it work. But there's such ingrained differences that it's hard to imagine. As I corrected a paper, I was working. “Enduring peace.” Enduring is not likely. Long peace. Let's hope for a long peace. But enduring. There's too many, too many subset issues that it's not going to be settled this round. 

Julia

Thank you Jack. Well, that was fascinating, another somber conversation…

Jack

I hope the audience appreciated how far we're separating now and having more fun. They enjoy you sticking your finger in my eye. And I think this is really good- much more entertaining- I'm enjoying it to no end. I mean, it tells you how crazy I am. I'm finding this really fascinating that we're finding -and I think the audience probably has lots of disagreements with us as well. So I think this is fun.

Julia

Great. Thanks, Jack. Talk to you again soon.

* Devine, J. (2024, October 11). Opinion: Trump or Harris? Whoever wins will lose wars without bipartisan consensus. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2024/10/11/trump-harris-china-russia-iran-monitor-election/75555336007/