[00:00:00] Announcer: Secrets and Spies presents Espresso Martini with Chris Carr and Matt Fulton. [00:00:27] Chris Carr: Hello, everybody, and welcome to Espresso Martini. Matt, how are you? [00:00:31] Matt Fulton: Hey, Chris. I'm good, I'm good. How are you? [00:00:33] Chris: Yeah, good, thank you. I am chugging along. I've only had three coffees today, so, uh, I probably will have my fourth after this recording. [00:00:41] Matt: Thank you. Yeah, I'm, I'm just at one. I'm just at one. [00:00:44] Chris: Okay, fair enough. Well, we've got a jam packed episode today. So on today's show, we're gonna be looking at a conspiracy theorist who's close to the president, a senior FBI chief resigns with a warning, Trump's tariffs risking global financial meltdown, the FBI raiding the home of a prominent computer scientist, and Japan developing new missiles designed to repel an invasion. So, Matt, we're gonna talk about Lara Loomer and these NSC firings. This is one you picked out, so I'll let you tell us about that. [00:01:12] Matt: The turmoil inside Donald Trump's national security ranks has entered a new and frankly surreal chapter, driven by an unlikely figure: Laura Loomer. The far-right provocateur and self-described "proud Islamophobe," once banished from Trump's campaign plane, walked into the Oval Office last week with a list of supposed disloyal officials. Hours later, at least six national security staffers were out, including NSA director Timothy Haugh and his civilian deputy. Reports suggested up to 10 firings across the National Security Council, not over performance, but over perceived ideological impurity. The NSA, America's largest and most sophisticated intelligence agency, tasked with countering foreign cyber attacks and thwarting terrorist plots, was effectively decapitated on a whim. No input from the secretary of defense. No warning to the director of national intelligence. Just Loomer, a conspiracy influencer with a viral following, handing over a hit list and the White House obliging. [00:02:10] Chris: Hmm. [00:02:10] Matt: With Chinese state-backed hackers already embedded in critical US infrastructure, Maine's Senator Angus King warned the firings risk "catastrophic consequences," calling Haugh "our most able general on the front lines" of the cyber war. Trump, now in his second term and unbound by re-election politics, praised Loomer as a patriot. This, despite earlier efforts by Trump allies like Lindsey Graham and Marjorie Taylor Greene to keep her at arms length. So that should, that, that should tell you something about, about her if even Marjorie Taylor Greene is like, No, maybe she's got a few screws loose. Um, Loomer, emboldened, has launched a new vetting firm promising to purge so-called traitors from government. One of her recent targets, an assistant US attorney in California, was fired just hours after she attacked him by name online. What's playing out is more than palace intrigue -- it's a dismantling of US cyber defenses in real time. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, already weakened by the Signalgate scandal, now seems to be taking orders from a fringe influencer. And with Loomer reportedly vetting names for the State Department next, the question isn't just who's in charge, it's whether anyone serious is left to stop this slow-motion sabotage of American national security. [00:03:23] Chris: Well, yet again this is another example of a lunatic connected to Donald Trump's administration. You know, as you've just said, you know, Laura Loomer is a conspiracy theorist who believes 9/11 was an inside job. She believes that the deep state used weather weapons to disrupt voter turnout in Iowa, and most concerningly, it's alleged now that she has, you know, president Trump's ear and is involved with suggesting people who should be fired from essential roles in the National Security Council. Um, also an anonymous source, uh, close to the Trump administration told that the US news outlet Semafor that they were a hundred percent concerned about, uh, Ms. Loomer's proximity to Trump. "Regardless of any guardrails the Trump campaign has put on her, I don't think it's working," the source was quoted as saying. And um, and then North Carolina senator Thom Tillis said on X, Laura Loomer is a crazy conspiracy theorist who regularly utters disgusting garbage intended to divide Republicans. And you know, she was connected to Alex Jones and Infowars and Project Veritas, and just looking into this, one side note about Alex Jones, do you remember last year The Onion, um, supposedly bought Infowars? [00:04:35] Matt: Yeah. [00:04:36] Chris: Now, do you know what happened since then? [00:04:38] Matt: It's, um, it's, it's gotten tied up in court approvals over the, over the, over that, that auction, that, that sale to them. I'm not sure of more details beyond that. [00:04:47] Chris: It's been blocked now. So, no, The Onion don't own Infowars. Infowars is still active, I checked it this morning, and a judge has also blocked any further actions against the website. So, that's not good for misinformation either. Um, so, yeah, it's not good at all. So these, these firings, you know, indicate that all branches of the US government and its national security apparatus are locked in this battle over loyalty to the Trump administration, which is concerning but not surprising, as this was something Trump was attempting to do in his first term, positioning loyalists into key positions, and now it looks like they're expanding that to the workforce at large. And I just saw yesterday, and I don't know whether this is good or bad, um, the FBI Instagram account said that, uh, recruitment's gone through the roof and I'm wondering who they're recruiting at the moment. I really am concerned now, um-- [00:05:37] Matt: That's true. [00:05:38] Chris: So, uh, yeah, yeah. It, it's, it's, um, you know, the shine is falling off all of the, uh, you know, institutions like the FBI, et cetera, because of all this -- if, if for some, there was a shine on them in the first place -- but I've always felt that the, you know, the FBI, CIA, et cetera have, you know, some relative prestige in their field. Um, and now, you know, putting more and more idiots in charge of things who don't know how these things work and people who believe weather weapons are real, this is dangerous. You know, as you said, there are key people being moved away from very important things with regards to national security, and I'm just worried now it's only a matter of time before something slips through the net and something terrible happens. [00:06:21] Matt: Yeah. [00:06:22] Chris: What are your thoughts on this? [00:06:23] Matt: Yeah, you know, this is, um, this story in the last week has sort of gotten overshadowed by "Tariffmageddon," are we, are we calling it? [00:06:29] Chris: Yeah. [00:06:31] Matt: Um, but uh, you know, when the news broke last Friday, that Haugh and his deputy were fired -- so he, Timothy Haugh as the, his, his, his role, his position was both director of NSA and commander of US Cyber Command, that traditionally they're dual-hatted for the same roles, right? Um, when the news broke last Friday, that, that Haugh and his deputy were fired, there was a real concern that they, that they were fired because they'd refused to carry out some, like egregiously uh, illegal order regarding surveillance, you know, the cyber domain, et cetera. Um, and when it became clearer, I think it was, you know, the next morning when, when, when it became clear that you, that, that, that that wasn't the case, um, that it was only Loomer, you know, demanding it because he was appointed, um, under Biden -- and I think that's kind of, I think that's kind of the depth here is he was appointed by Biden to the role, which of course, you know, the NSA director and the commander of Cyber Command isn't, it's not a political appointee, you know, it's just the, the, the seat opened up and Biden was president and it was filled with a, you know, qualified, uh, flag officer and, like, that's it, right? But because it happened under Biden, then, you know, they must be disloyal. I really think that's, that's the, that's the depth of it here. [00:07:52] Chris: Yeah, it chimes with what, um, Shane said a few months back, especially with the new hires. Anybody hired, um, you know, recently that happened to be in the Biden administration, they all blanketly, the Trump administration blanketly saw those new hires, anybody who wanted to join CIA, FBI, et cetera, as political appointees. You know, political, uh, joining for political reasons, which is ridiculous because there are people joining for the mission of the agencies. [00:08:15] Matt: Yeah, but so when I, when, for a moment, I saw that as a relief that, Oh, okay, it was just something as stupid as the man was appointed under Biden and that's why he has to go and not, you know, they refused to carry out some horrific illegal order, I, it was relief for a moment, but I still hated myself that, that sort of like where we are. Because he's appointed under Biden is just an incredibly dumb, dangerous reason to dismiss him alone, but it's at least clumsy and, and less malevolent form of, of, of dangerous. Um, few questions I've had about this are, so, like, one, How did Loomer get in the building, into the Oval Office, into the White House to begin with? Um, Susie Wiles, the, the White House chief of staff, is supposed to hate her. I mean, she, she banned Loomer from the campaign plane, um, in the aftermath of the, of that first debate fiasco. Well, the second, the first debate with Harris, I should say, um, fiasco. Uh, the second question I have is, you know, what evidence did she offer that these obscure NSC staffers and then, you know, the commander of the NSA were disloyal, and how would she have come into that evidence? [00:09:29] Chris: How did she even form the list of some of the people? That's the other interesting one. [00:09:33] Matt: I don't know. I don't know. [00:09:34] Chris: Because I'm assuming it requires some knowledge, doesn't it? [00:09:37] Matt: Yeah, she's chronically online and always kind of, you know, howling about conspiracies and these, you know, plots against Dear Leader Trump around every corner. [00:09:48] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:09:48] Matt: Um, I don't follow what she's saying and I haven't looked, just because I'm not -- I'm just, I'm, I'm just, I don't, I don't care. Um, yeah, so I don't, I, I don't know. I mean, these are, it, it's, it's, not a secret who's on the staff of the National Security Council and everything, but yeah, what, what evidence she had where she got said evidence is a, is a question of mine. Um, one of the NSC aides who were fired was, uh, um, previously a senior aide to Rubio, um, in the Senate. So I would like to know what Rubio thinks about this whole, this whole situation. Um, and you know, why as for, as for Waltz, why any NSC principal or foreign counterpart would ever have faith in his, in his authority on, on anything anymore is a question. I don't know how that works. Um, and then the other thought I had is, is this in some way related to internal squabbling over, over a potential strike on Iran? Um, we didn't really have time to get to this with, with Shane, uh, last week, but that's been sort of a divergence in opinion between Waltz and Trump recently, reportedly. I mean, so Waltz is a neoconservative kind of, you know, Cheney-type person in that kind of classical sense and was reportedly pushing for a strike on Iran's nuclear program. Um, Trump of course, just kind of wants to make a big, beautiful, splashy deal. Um, and it has always been kind of just, I think rightly allergic to big, um, foreign wars and the public's perception of them. I think he's, he's, he's correct that, that, that would not go well. [00:11:39] Chris: No, a strike on Iran right now would definitely not go down well with many people, especially with, um, the Trump administration and their relationship with the Netanyahu government. So, uh-- [00:11:48] Matt: Exactly, exactly. So, I mean, Loomer's, Loomer's been on this crusade against neocons, you know. And, and, and furthermore how they would intend to manage a war with Iran on top of, you know, everything else remains, um, a question of mine. But that's, that's sort of what I, what I thought about it. [00:12:03] Chris: Well, yeah. Deeply worrying. Um, you know, the report earlier, sort of fears about the politicization of the workforce and the intelligence community, you know, seems to be now ringing true. Um, I think, you know, as you were saying earlier, you had that sort of misunderstanding about it being, um, you know, somebody had, uh, said no to an illegal order, but the worrying thing is now the people who would've said no to an illegal order are no longer there, or they're slowly disappearing from the workforce. [00:12:32] Matt: Right. I mean, there, um, the acting director of the NSA and CYBERCOM commander, his -- I don't have his name in front of me off, off, off, off top of my head -- he was at a Senate hearing yesterday, I believe it was, and, um, he, you know, he seemed fine. You know, normal, normal three-star, um, officer qualified for the job. I, I, I really think as, as far as Haugh is concerned, it's unfortunately just a matter of, um, he was appointed under Biden and that's it. You know, when you consider the director of the FBI was fired, the director of the CIA was let go -- I mean, they, they historically do change hands between, um, administrations. You know, it's like the heads of all the principal, um, intelligence agencies have all been let go. Okay, he's got to go, too. I really don't think it's any deeper than that. Um, but I mean, to that point, at that hearing yesterday with the, with the acting director now, there were several Republican senators who were saying, you know, Yeah, this is totally unnecessary and it damages our national security. I don't expect them to do anything more than that, you know, but-- [00:13:40] Chris: Yeah, it's madness. And also just the um, level of just unprofessional people in Trump's orbit now. I mean, from a national security point of view, again, like we were talking about the nervousness of Five Eyes partners, I'm sure heads of all the intelligence services within Five Eyes and allies hearing that there is a conspiracy theorist who believes in the deep state and weather weapons has somehow got the ear of the president, people must be having kittens over this at the moment. [00:14:08] Matt: Yeah. [00:14:09] Chris: It's just insanity. [00:14:11] Matt: Yeah. [00:14:11] Chris: So, yeah, so I think, you know, just linking this, just linking into the worrying reports of the Trump administration placing loyalty over duty, I spotted a very interesting piece last night written by senior, a senior FBI leader named John Sullivan, who resigned over what he saw during the first few months of the Trump administration. And it really should be, everybody should read it and, um, it should be a warning for everybody. And John feels now that his mission for the FBI is better served outside of the FBI, and he's encouraging people to talk to local representatives about all of this. So I'll just summarize what he said on Substack, and obviously this is in the show notes. So, John Sullivan spent 17 years serving in the FBI, beginning as a surveillance specialist in the Washington Field Office and eventually rising to section chief in the Directorate of Intelligence. Over nearly two decades, he worked on threats ranging from violent gangs to drug cartels, to counterterrorism operations overseas. Throughout his career, he remained committed to his oath to uphold the Constitution and to protect the American people. Last week, Sullivan resigned from the FBI and he cited a dramatic and troubling shift in the bureau's culture and mission under the influence of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and their appointed leadership. In his view, their actions prioritize personal agendas over public safety, which is the very thing we've been worried about, and they're creating a climate of fear within the agency and undermining its core mission. Sullivan believes this chaos is not incidental, it is intentional, and it threatens the long-term security of the nation. He points to several alarming developments: Pardons, obviously for the January 6th, insurrectionists, political interference in investigations, and a failure to act on serious security breaches like Signalgate. Um, and, uh, at the same time, resources have been cut from domestic terrorism-prevention efforts and agents who investigated the Capitol riot now fear, retaliation, some even receiving threats at home after suspects were released. Sullivan says the FBI is being transformed into a tool for political enforcement, targeting those Trump and Musk disagree with whilst protecting their allies. And he believes the bureau's mission can no longer be upheld from within and is calling on Congress and the American public to demand accountability. He says, "I love my country, but our safety, our security, and our Constitution depend on all of us speaking out. Not because it's easy, but because it's necessary." So, Matt, what are your thoughts on that? [00:16:43] Matt: Yeah, I think it just, um, echoes a lot of -- and it's, you know, troubling to hear it from someone who was, who was inside until very recently -- um, it just kind of really echoes a lot of the concerns that, that, that, that we've raised on here in, in recent months about putting people in charge of these agencies, in charge of the FBI, um, in, in particular, who are not qualified in the traditional way, who, um, you know, when you break from kind of the, the, the traditions of having a, a rank-and-file senior special agent as deputy director, um, someone who has not worked at high levels of law enforcement or the, or the Justice Department in really either case of, um, you know, Bongino or, or, or, or Kash Patel. Um, when you fire the executive assistant directors, you know, below them, um, various people at major field offices like New York and DC, it invites the potential for some really kind of horrific consequences. And that's, you know, what, what, what we said on here before, You, you break it, you bought it. And if we get through these next four years or so, uh, without a major terrorist attack or some other kind of calamity, it'll be a, it'll be, it'll be a miracle, you know? [00:18:00] Chris: Yeah, yeah. Well, this is, this is it, I mean, it's not like America's enemies don't know this is going on. I mean, Christ Almighty, ISIS, al-Qaeda, if they, you know, still have, um, any capability to strike abroad, et cetera, how, you know, Russia, China, whatever, this is a moment of huge weakness for America now because your counterintelligence is now in a bad, bad place, your counterterrorism's in a bad place, and it's, um, all because of people who don't know what the hell they're doing are messing with the systems that work, that've been put in place post-9/11. You know, um, because 9/11 was partially caused by a failure of communication between the CIA and the FBI. [00:18:38] Matt: Yeah. [00:18:39] Chris: And this situation we're in at the moment is a kind of new version of that. And there are now FBI agents who are not concentrating on their job because they're in fear of their job because they are being targeted for doing their job, you know, with the investigating January 6th and the Mar-a-Lago classified documents scandal. Um, and then also John mentioned the, um, that January 6th suspects are now harassing FBI agents at their home, which is outrageous, um-- [00:19:08] Matt: Yeah. [00:19:08] Chris: It's, it's just unbelievable. And all of this is just completely unnecessary. I still think the pardoning of those January 6th, uh, suspects should have caused a national outroar and, um, it's just unbelievable really. Um, and you know, obviously now things are, the protest movements, et cetera, picking up in the states, but, um, where the hell are the Democrats at the moment with all of this? It's ridiculous because this is unbelievable, really, what's going on. [00:19:40] Matt: Yeah, I don't, I don't, I don't know, I don't don't know what else to say beyond that more than just, yeah, I, yeah. [00:19:47] Chris: Yeah. [00:19:47] Matt: I don't know, when you get on here every week and it's just the same, same shit again and again and again and you're just like, Yeah, it sucks. It sucks, it's bad. It's bad. I, I, I don't, I don't know how other many ways I can say that. [00:20:00] Chris: No, exactly, exactly. It's like, there's only, you know, it, it does sort of feel like we last sort of, um, two months we've pretty much just said every version of it's bad. Um, and, and I feel like in, in a sense, at least we're putting a decent case forward, because there have been many people, there's been a lot of, um, optimism bias with regards to Trump 2.0 that frankly, I'm, I'm surprised to exist in some circles, but, um, it's, yeah, it, it's crazy. [00:20:27] Matt: What do you mean? Like, optimism bias in what way? [00:20:29] Chris: In a sense of like, "He won't be that bad," or this, you know, or, or all these firings, et cetera, in the end will somehow work themselves out, or with the, um, the economy and these tariffs, which we'll go into a little bit, there were quite a lot of finance people saying, "Oh yeah, no, this is actually in the end gonna be really good for the economy, Trump knows what he's doing," et cetera, and all of this just feels like a complete disaster. And on top of that, by putting loyalists both in positions of authority and in the rank-and-file of all these agencies, should, um, you know, because the big fear that's come up a few times is Trump wanting a third term, whether he lives that long -- and I'm not saying somebody might kill him. I think he's, he's an old man, you know, he might die of natural causes in office -- I mean, I, I, I have questions to whether the man is even mentally fit because there's been a lot of strange statements regarding Canada and Greenland that quite frankly seem, um, well, how do I put it? Unusual, if we put it that way. Um, if not, damn right out of order, and, uh, and on top of that, Trump spending his time attacking allies as a priority and not dealing with threats from Russia, um, et cetera. And so, yeah, the, if he does manage to fill the agencies of government that in a sense enforce the law, and he decides to either break the law or decides to stay on beyond his second term, who's there to stop him? [00:21:56] Matt: Yeah. [00:21:57] Chris: And that's the, that's the worrying thing now. And I think that has always been, in a sense, I feel like conspiracy theorist now, but this feels like this has always been the agenda is just to fill it every agency up with loyalists so then there's nobody to really stop them from breaking the law or doing whatever the hell they want. [00:22:15] Matt: Yeah. [00:22:15] Chris: Or maybe they'll do nothing. But this is the thing and, and it, and it to me, I felt like prior to the election, all of this was pretty clear, um, when you look at what people talk about, yet, there was a lot of people out there who had this optimism bias saying, Well, we, we survived Trump version one, it won't be that bad. You know, he's, he's, um, denounced, uh, is it, oh God, what was it called, is it Project 2025? What was that again? [00:22:40] Matt: Yes. [00:22:40] Chris: Yeah, that's it. [00:22:41] Matt: That's it. [00:22:41] Chris: Yeah, and, and, um, and I'm just, and, and there are people out there who are still saying, Oh, I can't believe the president's doing that. And, and, um, you know, I saw, uh, Patrick Skinner, the former CIA officer on, um, Bluesky the other day, said there should be a statute of limitations on the term that "I can't believe the president would do that," you know, with regards to President Trump. [00:23:04] Matt: We're gonna talk about the tariffs here next and stuff-- [00:23:06] Chris: Yeah. [00:23:06] Matt: But like the, the, I don't know, a lot of the Wall Street guys who were, kind of, all on board and everything, and I don't know, as long as they could, they could, you know, they were just happy to make their money as long as they could, you know, call people like me all kinds of nasty words that would take, that would get this podcast taken down if I were to say it on the air. But, um, you know, it's, uh, I don't know, it, it just kind of, to your point, you know, like, "No one knew. No one could have saw this, no one could have seen this coming." It's just like, it's just, it's, it's infuriating and it boggles the mind. I don't know, it's like the mobsters in The Dark Knight who hired the Joker. [00:23:42] Chris: Yeah. [00:23:42] Matt: Is really what it, what it, what it reminds me of. [00:23:45] Chris: Yeah. Well, there's a good note. Let's take a break and then we'll come back and talk about Trump's tariffs, et cetera. Okay, welcome back, everybody. So, we're going to take a look at Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs and, which have both been sort of damaging to the global financial order and um, yeah, causing a lot of concern right now. So, what did you call them earlier? Uh, "Tariffageddon," is that what it's called? [00:24:24] Matt: Tariffmageddon. [00:24:25] Chris: Yeah, I've heard that before. [00:24:27] Matt: Yeah. [00:24:27] Chris: Tariffmageddon. Oh my goodness. I mean, if it wasn't so serious, it'd be funny. But, um, yeah, so President Trump's, uh -- well, I'm gonna take some reporting from the BBC and Moscow Times. Um, so I'll summarize the key points below. So, President Trump's sweeping tariffs signals a significant departure from decades of globalization. By imposing broad import taxes, the administration is in the belief that it can protect domestic jobs and industries, rejecting longstanding principles of free trade and comparative advantage. This protectionist approach resembles 19th-century economic policies and marks a decisive shift away from the global trade system that the US once helped lead. The tariffs are based on the notion that the trade surplus equate to unfair practices, penalizing countries, regardless of actual trade barriers. However, this framework overlooks services, where the US holds a strong surplus, and disproportionately impacts developing economies. Critics argue that the narrow and inconsistent application of tariffs could harm American competitiveness rather than bolster it. Facing mounting pressure from global markets and political opponents, Trump's now introduced a 90-day pause on high tariffs from countries that had not retaliated, effectively capping their rates at a reciprocal 10% whilst maintaining tougher penalties for others. Trump's trade strategy is partly a reaction to the economic fallout from China's entry into the World Trade Organization, which may be blamed for the decline in US manufacturing. In a dramatic escalation, he raised tariffs on Chinese goods to 125% as of this reporting, because that could change by the time this airs, and he accuses Beijing of showing a lack of respect after it imposed its own retaliate, retaliatory tariffs of 84%. Whilst the administration promises to bring back lost manufacturing jobs through the tariffs and reshoring, the sudden shift has disrupted supply chains, increased costs for businesses, and raise fears of inflation and recession. And, you know, uh, it's also raised fears that the US is sort of turning inward and weakening the very systems it's helped establish. One other interesting thing as well, um, while many US allies were targeted by the new tariffs, Russia, Belarus were notably exempt, and this omission has opened short-term opportunities for Russia, particularly in the energy and agricultural sector as it seeks to supply China amid worsening US-China trade relations. However, infrastructure limitations and China's diversification efforts constrain Russia's ability to fully capitalize. Some analysts suggest that the conflict might push China closer to Russia geopolitically. Can they get any closer? I'm not sure. Um, but any significant realignment would take years. The White House later clarified Russia's exclusion by pointing to existing sanctions and with more potentially on the way signaling, signaling that the US stance on Moscow remains firm despite the global economic shifts. So, that was quite a mouthful, all that. Uh, Matt, what are your thoughts on all this, uh, tariff business? [00:27:34] Matt: Yeah, I just, I would just preface this first by saying, I'm not an economist, I'm not a financial analyst, I'm not an international trade expert. So, you know, thinking about, looking at the outline and everything-- [00:27:45] Chris: Yeah. [00:27:45] Matt: And knowing we were gonna talk about this this week, I was like, Uhhhh, I, I'm-- [00:27:48] Chris: It's all right. I'll, I'll put the Lamborghini in the garage, the cocaine on ice, and, uh, we'll put the, you know, the big suits and sunglasses away and the big mobile phone too. [00:27:58] Matt: Right, right, right, right, right. Yeah, I was just like, Ahhh, I can't really go into the weeds on this because I just don't, I don't know. [00:28:04] Chris: No, no, that's fine. [00:28:04] Matt: Um, but that said, as far as the Russia stuff is concerned, I mean, yeah, they, they say Russia -- the White House says Russia wasn't included in the tariffs because the sanctions, um, prevent trade. Also, because they probably want to keep that cudgel for the Ukraine talks. [00:28:18] Chris: Yeah. That makes some sense, yeah. [00:28:19] Matt: It, it, it, it, it does, sure. Um, according to the US Trade Representative, trade between the US and Russia was worth 3.5 billion last year, um, mainly consisting of fertilizer, nuclear fuel, and some metals. Whether that's fair or not, whether we want to buy that is a worthy question, but, um, I mean, Russia wouldn't escape economic pain from global tariffs of this scale. And that's something that, you know, um, as we're recording this, yesterday, uh, you know, Trump announced that, that, that 90-day pause, but there's still 10% across the board. China's still at 125%. Um, which there was a lot of, um, seal clapping and champagne bottle popping, um, yesterday afternoon and, and evening about, you know, Yay, like, war is over. And I don't, I don't think, I don't think that's the case, um, at all. Uh, if you keep 125% tariffs on Chinese imports for, for 90 days, you're gonna, you're gonna feel it pretty, pretty hard, uh, pretty quickly. Um, I mean, I, I told you offline, I went out and got a new, um, and, and got a new iPhone the other night, uh, preemptively. I was due for, uh, an upgrade. Um, I, I, I usually tend to put it off as long as I can until, like the battery doesn't hold the charge anymore, but I figured, yeah, let me just go out and, and, and just do this. Um, I don't know, but as far as the whole, the whole other ordeal, and again, you know, I'm not, uh, an economist, so I can't get super into the weeds about, you know, like different, different rates in the bond market and all that kind of shit. [00:29:55] Chris: Oh, yeah, I know. That's, that's for The Financial Times, that's not us. [00:29:58] Matt: Yeah. Behind China, we're the second-largest global manufacturing economy, but our greatest advantage, we, where we far outpace the rest of the world, is in services and, and, and high-tech sectors. The White House calculated each country's tariff rate by dividing its trade deficit with the US by its exports. So consequently, um, Trump's formula solely, focused solely on trade and goods, excluding financial, digital, and tourism services where we have a surplus, if you, if you calculate that. [00:30:30] Chris: Yeah. [00:30:30] Matt: For instance, in 2022, the European Union bought 238 billion in US service exports, which is over, um, 70 billion more than it sold to the US. And, and, and um, additionally, you know, that Trump's approach overlooks the fact that trade deficits are often not due to foreign market barriers, but you know, rather because, um, Americans with higher per capita wealth tend to purchase more from foreign markets, then those markets buy from the US. I mean, like, they're not buying massive Ford pickup trucks in Lesotho or some European country where the, where the roads were first laid by the Romans. Um, I mean, that kind of idea, like, Well, why aren't, why aren't they buying our cars? You know, that, it's just a asinine, ignorant, cartoonishly simplistic understanding of the world and, and how others live. Um, I mean, a friend, I saw a friend retweet someone on, on, on, on Twitter yesterday who said, uh, "Today, I fired my house cleaner of 20 years because I realized after all this time that she's never bought anything from me." You know, it's just a-- [00:31:44] Chris: What? [00:31:46] Matt: Like, that was, you know, that, that framing like what, what the logic of this, of this move is. [00:31:52] Chris: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry, I was taking that literally for a second. [00:31:55] Matt: Yeah. No, no, no, no, no, but that's-- [00:31:58] Chris: Yeah, what's going on. [00:31:59] Matt: Yesterday, well, last week, you know, right after the quote, unquote, Liberation Day, uh, announcement, uh, it was my expectation that there would be days of, of just market chaos and then eventually, um, he would, he would walk it back, try to save face somehow, and, you know, claim that it was all like some, you know, genius gambit, um, all along. You know, the art of the deal, and that's, that's what happened. Uh, I, I expect -- I mean, as, as we're recording and there's, you know, about 48 hours between this and, and when the episode airs, so in that time, who the hell knows? -- but, um, as we're recording this, still, there's 125% tariffs on Chinese imports. Um, I expect at some point that'll, that'll also, that'll also change. That won't hold, especially when people here start feeling that, because there's just legitimately not an understanding of what, of what that is and what that does. [00:32:58] Chris: No, no. And, and also now, I mean, it looks like there are some very wealthy people who've actually profited it, uh, profited off this because they managed to buy up stuff when it was cheap and then, you know, it's-- [00:33:10] Matt: Yeah. [00:33:10] Chris: It's not good. [00:33:11] Matt: Also, the rate of the, the call in rates into the Nasdaq, and I believe the S&P also, in like the minutes before, um, he, Trump announced that 90-day pause, those, those call in rates to like, you know, buy was just through the roof, which invites all kinds of nasty questions. But I don't, I don't, yeah. [00:33:34] Chris: Well, yeah, yeah, because I think, uh, at the moment, the broader feeling, I think both across, uh, or should we say across the Western world right now, is there are some people doing very well and, and a lot of people who are not. And there's a big imbalance and those, that's a very dangerous place to be, and this is the thing I think a lot of wealthy people forget, is many societies have been totally destroyed by that. I mean, look at Germany and the buildup to World War II for an example. [00:33:59] Matt: It's also very, um, it's also very much France in the 1780s. [00:34:04] Chris: Yeah, exactly, and, um, that doesn't always end well for the wealthy people. [00:34:09] Matt: No, it does not. Nope, nope, nope. Chop, chop, chop. [00:34:13] Chris: The previous global, uh, crash of 2008, you know, um, has led to all sorts of things where you've seen a rise of the far right across, you know, Europe and the US. You've seen a large-scale mistrust of governments, conspiracy theory culture's risen over that time. Um, you know, people's faith in the system, should we put it that way, is it an all time low and if you then throw in economic hardship for a long period of time, for a lot of people, that does not lead to a good place. You know, I was reminding a friend of mine about how this, this, you know, has led to large-scale, large-scale conflicts, and that's the worry. Like I said, I'm hoping it won't, but I mean, I don't want to be, um, uh, I don't want to be one of these people with optimism bias, either. Um, you know, this could end up really backfiring very badly for the US and for the Western world. [00:35:07] Matt: Well, the administration has also been pointing to, like, the late 19th century, very early 20th century, like the 1910s and stuff, as sort of like this ideal moment in time where there was no federal income tax and the government was funded entirely over tariffs and everything was great, which was, I mean, I don't know, I wouldn't point to the era of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory and formaldehyde in food and children getting black lung working in the mines and, you know, the, the Gilded Age of robber barons and huge income disparity and everything, which also laid the groundwork for the Great Depression and two world wars as, sort of, like the model for the next American golden age. It's just, it's just an odd, it's an odd point in history to, to, to, to reference as -- to, to, to, to reference back to. [00:36:03] Chris: Yeah, definitely. And you know, I was saying this earlier, to me, this is another example, on the many, the long list now of Trump pissing off and picking up, picking fights with allies. Um, and since he's been doing, since he returned to office, and obviously time will tell whether Trump's policies will cause lasting damage or if he'll be proved to be some economic mastermind that even we can't comprehend, like his supporters believe, and he'll somehow manage to boost the US economy for everybody. But even if there's a short-term gain, my question is, will it be sustainable? Any gains, will they last beyond his presidency? Because if you, if America manages to piss off all its allies or become across as feckless and unreliable, people are gonna go elsewhere eventually and America's power will, you know, degrade. That's what we're facing, I think, a little bit at the moment. [00:36:53] Matt: Yeah, I don't think the, um, the young men who were promised by manosphere podcasters during the campaign that-- [00:37:03] Chris: Who shall remain nameless. [00:37:04] Matt: A vote for Trump -- right -- that the, the, that a vote for Trump would, um, would secure their divine right to live like Pablo Escobar. Um, I don't think those guys really, um, were, when, when they went to vote for Trump, when they were pitched that and, and they went to vote for Trump, I don't think they were really, um, picturing working in like, you know, a sweatshop. [00:37:28] Chris: No. [00:37:29] Matt: Uh, you know, stitching together like garments and Nike sneakers and stuff, and, you know, screwing in little screws into, into iPhones. Um, which actually is a, is a kind of a highly technical manufacturing process. It's not as simple as you, as you think, as far as the iPhone stuff are concerned. But yeah, that's not, that's not the deal that they, that they thought they were making, but-- [00:37:50] Chris: And I think, you know, maybe it's a bit of a generalization, but in the sort of '50s and '60s, it was sort of mainly, it was sort of manual jobs, wasn't it, that were, um, that people could live off. You know, when you look at, like, Homer Simpson in The Simpsons, you know, people ask now, How could somebody like Homer Simpson's job he has afford the house he has, because we don't live in that world anymore. [00:38:10] Matt: They're not even, they're not even talking about taking the world back to the '50s, they're talking about taking it back to 1910. [00:38:16] Chris: Okay. [00:38:17] Matt: You know? That's, they, they, they, they've moved the goalpost farther back than that. And if you're talking about, yeah, the 1950s to '60s as this, you know, golden age of the American middle class, American manufacturing, and everything. One, ask yourself what the tax rate was on the wealthy in that period, far higher than it's been for decades, which enabled all kinds of social services and, and infrastructure investments and everything that really kind of created that wealth. You know, that that wealth, that sense of purpose was not from working in a mine or in a factory, it was because, you know, you had, you had, you had unions and you had all kinds of other things that could enable that kind of, that kind of, um, that kind of lifestyle. It just not, it's just a, yeah, it's just a complete, it's, it's a -- it is weaponized nostalgia. [00:39:04] Chris: Mm-hmm. Yeah, definitely, and it's gonna come back and bite everybody in the ass sooner or later, I think. And it's, uh, yeah, not good, not good at all. [00:39:14] Matt: Also. [00:39:14] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:39:15] Matt: If you're pointing to, you know, the '50s and '60s as this sort of golden age of American manufacturing and everything, where we were on top compared to all other, um, you know, countries, consider if, if, if you want to put, you know, 1945 as a starting point for like the modern global economy -- um, okay, at that starting point, the, the US was, um, intact unscathed from World War II with a massive industrial capacity, and all of our quote, unquote competitors in Europe and Asia were either colonial backwaters and/or piles of rubble. [00:39:53] Chris: Mm-mm. [00:39:54] Matt: So, of course we were way ahead compared to them. [00:39:57] Chris: Yeah, yeah. [00:39:59] Matt: They'd just been bombed off the map. [00:40:01] Chris: Yeah, and, and actually here's the other warring thing, as well. We, um, is then -- what state are we gonna be in with the joblessness caused by AI? I mean, where are we gonna go with that one, too? That's the next crisis coming, isn't it? It's, um, well at least it feels that way. Um, and governments are not in a conversation about changing the way we live and, you know, people float this idea of universal basic income, et cetera. I've not seen that as a particularly realistic, um, proposal currently. Um, so-- [00:40:33] Matt: It's never been, that's one of those things that like I'm open to, I'm interested in a serious discussion about it, you know, at least theoretically. Like, how, how would that work, you know? How is that, how is that managed? How is that financed? What does that do at like a societal level? I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm open to the idea that it's something that we should be talking about and that we may have to talk about at some point, but beyond that, I don't have any strong opinions on it either way. [00:41:02] Chris: No, no, exactly. And, and, and I would love to have that conversation, too, so we should probably seek someone out for that. Because I, I am -- because that's the issue coming up very soon, whether we like it or not. [00:41:12] Matt: Yeah, yeah. [00:41:12] Chris: Um, maybe within the next five years. So, uh, you know, we'll, we'll see. We've been quite good at, um, for good and bad, at sort of, uh, seeing the patterns of things coming towards us. So, we're quite good at predicting crisis at the moment on this show. [00:41:25] Matt: Yeah. Unfortunately. [00:41:26] Chris: Unfortunately. Oh, dear, maybe we should re, uh, recall the podcast, just the Cassandra Complex or something, you know? [00:41:34] Matt: Sure. [00:41:36] Chris: Well, um, let's take another break and then we'll come back, uh, with some information about an FBI raid. So, uh, we'll be right back. So, welcome back, everybody. So, Matt, there's an interesting story you picked out about an FBI raid on a home of a prominent computer scientist who went incommunicado, which has sort of been this developing story in the states. There hasn't really been much reporting over here that I've seen about it. [00:42:13] Matt: There hasn't been a whole lot here either, but it's sort of been in the background. But there's been two really good articles by, uh, Wired and, um, Ars Technica that I, I, I wanted to flag and take a look at. So, here's some key points. A prominent American cybersecurity professor has vanished from public view after an FBI raid and sudden dismissal from Indiana University, raising echoes of the controversial China Initiative from Trump's first term and reigniting concerns across the academic research community. Xiaofeng Wang, a tenured professor and leading expert in data privacy and cryptography, disappeared from Indiana University's website last week alongside his wife, Nianli Ma, after the FBI searched their homes in Bloomington and Carmel, Indiana. The university has offered no explanation beyond confirming the existence of a federal investigation and claiming it's acting at the FBI's direction. [00:43:10] Chris: Hmm. [00:43:11] Matt: Behind the scenes, Wired reports that Indiana University had been quietly reviewing whether Wang failed to disclose a small Chinese research grant from 2017, despite his US-based research being funded by the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, DARPA, and the Army Research Office. A circulating statement from one of Wang's longtime collaborators describes the alleged violation as minor, an omission in paperwork over who led a grant or which co-authors were listed. Yet Wang's faculty access was revoked, his email disabled, and his homepage deleted -- steps typically unheard of for a tenured professor without formal charges, due process, or even a hearing. Wang, who led a $3 million, uh, NSF-funded research center, was reportedly planning to leave Indiana University for a university post in Singapore later this year. His attorney says he and his wife are safe, have not been arrested, and are cooperating with authorities. But many in the cybersecurity and academic worlds are alarmed, comparing the secrecy and treatment to the now-defunct Trump-era China Initiative, a Justice Department program criticized for disproportionately targeting Chinese-born researchers. As the FBI keeps quiet and court documents remain sealed, questions swirl about whether this is a case of undisclosed funding, a national security investigation, or something else entirely, and what it all means for international collaboration and academic freedom in an age of geopolitical suspicion. Chris, what do you think? [00:44:41] Chris: Well, um, first of all, I'll just say from a legal standpoint, Professor Wang has not been found guilty of a crime. Indiana, Indiana University has, uh, fired him for not properly disclosing a grant, uh, with funding originated from China, and Professor Wang and his lawyers are obviously contesting that. Um, so I want to talk widely about where this case sort of, sort of fits in with other cases, but, um, I just want to reiterate, obviously Professor Wang has not been charged of anything and not guilty. So, um, yeah, so we'll leave that, uh, that aside for a moment. So, stepping away from the Wang case, obviously I see how it has echoes of past concerns with alleged recruitment of scientists who are either Chinese nationals or who have relatives living in China. You've mentioned it before, I'll just go into a little bit more detail. So in 2018, the US Department of Justice launched a program called the China Initiative to counter suspected Chinese efforts to steal American technology and research. It focused mainly on academics, especially those of Chinese descent who are accused of hiding ties to Chinese institutions whilst receiving US funding. While it aimed to protect national security, the program faced criticism for racial profiling and targeting minor administrative mistakes rather than actual espionage. And, um, it was shut down in 2022 after a public backlash and several failed prosecutions, which the government admitted it had created a harmful perception of, uh, you know, sort of just targeting Chinese nationals. The China Initiative was largely a response to something called the Thousand Talents Plan, which was launched by the Chinese government in 2008, and that was designed to recruit top scientists, engineers, and academics, especially those of Chinese descent working abroad, to contribute to China's technological and scientific development. Participants were offered generous incentives including large salaries, research funding, housing, and prestigious positions at Chinese institutions. While the program helped China attract world-class talent, it became controversial in countries like the US and across Europe where intelligence agencies raised concerns about intellectual property theft and the transfer of sensitive research, especially in areas with national security implications. Critics argued that the program blurred the line between legitimate academic collaboration and covert, state-directed technological acquisition. As scrutiny increased, several Western academics have faced investigation for failing to disclose their participation in the program and the Thousand Talents Plan was eventually restructured and rebranded under different names. So, understandably, the China program was controversial and it was seen to be racially profiling suspects. And, and this is the complexity in dealing with espionage threats from China as they typically recruit or co-opt Chinese nationals or those of Chinese descent to work for them. This then creates this sort of ugly catch-22. And sadly there are people of Chinese descent who are vulnerable to recruitment by the Chinese intelligence services, and someone -- the FBI, Homeland Security, et cetera -- has to do a good job of vetting those people who are at risk of recruitment, and institutions do need to be aware of the real world risk and handle them with great care so it doesn't become knee-jerk racial profiling. But also, we've got to make sure it doesn't become, um, we, you know, institutions don't become blind to a threat due to wishful thinking or just putting your head in the sand because you don't want to deal with such problems. It's very complex, and the War on Terror, with terrorists recruited largely from Muslim backgrounds, led to a similar morally complex problem, which many institutions are still struggling to navigate. So, this case kind of fits into that picture. I don't know, um, any more about it than what you said. So, you know, um, I don't know if Professor Wang has been involved with something murky or not, that's really for the courts to decide. So, yeah, Matt, what are your thoughts on that? [00:48:48] Matt: Yeah, you're right to, to, to, to flag all that. And it's true, he, Wang hasn't been -- I mean, the court documents are all sealed, but as far as we know, hasn't been charged with anything. Um, we, we definitely don't know the whole story here, but the FBI's involvement, um, the raid, I mean, they surrounded his house and, you know, with a megaphone was saying like, you know, Come out. Um, how the university seems to have erased any trace of his affiliation, um, it all suggests that this is, it, it, it just, the nature of it just really kind of suggests that this is perhaps more than, you know, just ICE disappearing a non-citizen college professor. I mean, if it was like, if Wang did, say, screw up some sort of a grant application or some sort of a, a disclosure thing related to that and let's say, okay, um, the feds wanted to make like a, like an immigration issue for him, right? The FBI wouldn't, wouldn't do that, you know? Like, well, the FBI wouldn't be the one responding to that. It would be, it would be ICE, you know? It just-- [00:49:58] Chris: One thing I will say to that-- [00:49:59] Matt: Yeah. [00:50:00] Chris: I have noticed lately, again, on Instagram and the FBI's channel that they're doing a lot of joint operations with ICE, um, with regards to immigration cases. [00:50:09] Matt: How they've responded to this, though, it just seems more than just that. And I'm not suggesting that it is, or it has to be, but there's, there's something to this that, that makes me feel that there's, um, a lot more to this than we're aware of right now. [00:50:23] Chris: Yeah. [00:50:24] Matt: And I'm kind of holding my fire on anything more than just that. I mean, the, the other academics quoted in these articles are correct, it's, it's troubling and not normal how secretive the university's been, um, about the, the, the circumstances around Wang's firing. Um, again, I'm not accusing him of any, uh, of, of anything. It's just, it's just, to me, it's, there's just a lot of signals here that there's, there's a lot more going on. Um, so his, his GitHub page, uh, says his research has been supported by, um, IARPA, which is the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity, which is, you know, under the ODNI, and it's basically like, you know, DARPA, but for the IC. Um, one to watch for sure, but it just, it, it, it's very kind of a, I don't know, it, it, it perks up the ears a bit and I mean, you're absolutely right about all the xenophobia potentially, concerns around, you know, Chinese academics and, and thinking they're all, you know, spies, and that's, that's definitely something to, to, to avoid. It's a, it's a fine line to walk there. I mean, yeah, you don't want to be, um, you don't want to err on the side of being too cautious and then avoid obvious issues as you were just saying, but yeah, you can't just assume that any, any Chinese academic or any sort of Chinese person in the US is a, is a spy for the, for the, for the, for the Chinese government. That's certainly not the case. Um, but, but yeah, this, everything around this just seems very, very kind of fishy. [00:51:55] Chris: Yeah, indeed. I think it's definitely a case to keep an eye out because the more information, or, maybe not, will come out. Um, you know, it certainly, it, it's, there's certain aspects of it that fit into the patterns of past cases, so who knows? Um, at this stage it's very difficult to say, but I think if this were not in the year we're currently in and the FBI had reacted the way they had, it would indicate that there is some sort of intelligence that something's amiss. [00:52:28] Matt: That's true. [00:52:29] Chris: But because we are kind of in this, like you mentioned before of like, um, ICE, et cetera, and a sort of anti-immigration situation, it's now very hard outwardly looking into kind of read between the lines of what may or may not be going on, so it's very difficult to, to make a judgment at this point. [00:52:46] Matt: Well, there's also no... If it was purely just an, just, just an immigration issue, right? Or they, that's, that's, that's all it was, I don't know, would the court documents be sealed? You know, wouldn't they just say that they were revoking his, his, his, his green card or something? I mean, that's, that's something they do, they have no issue doing that now. [00:53:05] Chris: No. [00:53:05] Matt: You know? And they, and they publicize it widely. It's just, um, the secrecy around it is what is, is what interests me. [00:53:14] Chris: Mm, indeed. Well let, we'll keep an eye out for that. Well, um, let's now move to Japan, as Japan are developing new missiles designed to repel an invasion. This is going from Defense News. So, Japan has signed a 32-billion-yen -- which is $216 million -- contract with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to develop new long-range precision-guided missiles for its self-defense force. The project was set to run until 2028 with missile deployment expected by 2032, and it's part of Japan's broader push to strengthen its standoff missile capabilities amid growing regional security threats. The new missiles are designed to strike both ships and land targets with high accuracy, capable of navigating complex terrain to hit vulnerable points. This development is part of Japan's ongoing military expansion under the three white papers, the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, and the Defense Buildup Plan. Um, and yet, uh, also, Japan has allocated 939 billion yen towards standoff defense systems, including investments in upgraded Type-12 missiles, submarine-launched guided missiles, and high-velocity gliding missiles for island defense. The country's also acquiring the joint-strike munitions for its F-35As and F-15s, along with 400 additional Tomahawk missiles from the US which, uh, some are gonna be deployed ahead of schedule. Japan is deepening its defensive ties to the United States, and in a recent visit by US defense secretary Pete Hegseth, both nations announced a cooperation agreement for AIM-120 air-to-air missiles, and Hegseth emphasized Japan's role as a key partner in countering Chinese military expansion. And these moves underscore Japan's evolving defense posture, moving from a traditionally defensive stance to a more proactive deterrent strategy in response to regional tension. So, matt, what are your thoughts on that? [00:55:21] Matt: Yeah, I don't, um, I don't have a ton to add here, but, you know, big picture, I think it's definitely positive that, that Japan is, um, shaking off, you know, kind of the strategic hangover, the, the post-war era, um, and, and investing more, um, in its defense. I think that's very much a welcome, a welcome sign. You know, it's a, it's a recognition that the world has become a much more dangerous place. China's militarization. North Korea doing all kinds of their, you know, usual crazy stuff. Russia's belligerence. Um, Japan's adjusting to that reality. Um, I, I, I also think this reflects something that we've touched on before, and that's US allies are starting to hedge, um, not against America per se, I think certainly in, in, in Japan's case here, um, but against uncertainty of American politics, especially the idea that the US might become less reliable under a Trump presidency and -- certainly not might, but is becoming less reliable under a Trump presidency. Um, so yeah, I mean, Japan's stepping up on defense. Good, necessary. Um, honestly, quite welcome. Just sort of one more point to add there. Uh, as far as, you know, if, if we think this is good and welcome and we need more of it, which is, I agree with, um, the whole tariff nonsense definitely just does not help there at all. I mean, it was, it was-- [00:56:43] Chris: Well, yeah, it really threatens Japan, doesn't it? Yeah. [00:56:45] Matt: It was. It does. And it was Japanese traders who the other night started cashing in their Treasury bonds, which threatened to tank the bond market, which threatened to nuke the entire global economy, which is why then Trump had to blink and say he's doing that 90-day pause, um, so... [00:57:07] Chris: Yeah. So, helping in one way, but completely screwing it up in another, really, is what the Trump administration seemed to be doing. Yeah, yeah. And, um, so yeah, no, it does. Yeah, it's not good, it's not good at all. Um, with regards to Japan, obviously it's geographically close to Taiwan and it will be directly affected by any military conflict there. Um, and obviously US bases in Japan will play a key role in an open conflict with China, should that happen. Obviously we hope that doesn't happen. Um, just a quick bit about the Japanese military. So, it's known as the Self-Defense Forces, and it's shaped by its pacifist post-war constitution. Article 9 renounces war and bans Japan from maintaining traditional military forces. So, technically Japan doesn't have a military and its forces are designed solely for self-defense, but over the years, Japan has reinterpreted those restrictions and it can now take part in a collective defense scheme, meaning it can help defend allies like the US if they come under attack. And more recently, as we have discussed, Japan has begun developing its long-range missiles and it's planning strikes against enemy bases as well, if necessary to protect itself, which is a big shift from its past policy. [00:58:21] Matt: Indeed. [00:58:21] Chris: In practice, Japan's military is obviously one of the most advanced in Asia. It has modern fighter jets, world-class navy, sophisticated missile defense systems, and it's also expanding into cyber, space, and electronic warfare. So, the country is definitely investing heavily in new capabilities and it also wants to counter threats from North Korea as well. So, it's an interesting place to kind of keep an eye on, really. And I hope, um, hope for Japan's sake, it doesn't end up being a, a bad move, but, uh, yeah. [00:58:52] Matt: Definitely. Definitely. [00:58:53] Chris: Yeah, cool. Was there anything else you'd like to add or should we [00:58:56] Matt: No, we can, uh, we can move on, yeah. [00:58:58] Chris: Thank you very much, Matt. I think we've, uh, covered quite a lot today. So, um, just a quick, um, note for listeners, we won't be doing an Espresso Martini next week. Instead, we're going to have an interview with, uh, body language expert Gavin Stone, who joins me to talk about how to detect deception. Um, we're also gonna be doing, uh, a listener question episode on April the 26th. So please send us an email to Secrets and Spies Podcast at gmail dot com or DM us on our social channels. And, uh, in your message, please include the question or topic with a relevant news, um, or online publication link, and also please tell us how you'd like your name and location to be read out online because we don't want to accidentally give away, um, you know, your full information. Um, so yeah. So, Matt, thank you very much for joining me today and, um, are you up to anything nice over the weekend or-- [00:59:56] Matt: Uh, no, not, not, not really. I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm looking forward to my, to my two-week break. [01:00:02] Chris: Yes, well earned. [01:00:03] Matt: I could, I could. Yeah, I could really use it. I am, I am exhausted after, uh, after last month and then, and then this month so far. Yeah, I am, I am wearing thin. [01:00:14] Chris: Yeah, it's been very intense for you because you've been working on your novel, on this, sorting out all the transcripts, et cetera. You've been doing a lot of work on this, so thank you. [01:00:21] Matt: Thank you. Thank you. [01:00:23] Chris: Yeah, well enjoy your break and uh, everybody have a great weekend and we will catch you on the next episode. Thank you very much, take care. [01:00:30] Matt: Bye. [01:00:44] Announcer: Thanks for listening. This is Secrets and Spies.