JD Vance was on the “All-In” Podcast recently and I thought it was really good so I wanted to share it with all of you.
Even though we’ve had JD as our VP candidate for a while now, I feel like we still don’t know a ton about him.
We don’t see him too often, and that’s to be expected when President Trump is soaking up all the attention after nearly getting killed — twice — or is it now three times? Or more?
So JD has flown a bit under the radar, but each time I see and hear him, I like him even more.
I think he was an excellent choice by President Trump for VP and it really demonstrates a lot about President Trump’s decision making.
They actually discuss that point plus a lot more in this video.
If you’re not familiar with the All-In Podcast, it’s actually really good. Here’s a short summary of who’s who:
The All-In Podcast is a popular business and tech podcast where four prominent entrepreneurs and investors discuss topics like economics, politics, technology, and society. The hosts are:
- Chamath Palihapitiya – A venture capitalist and former Facebook executive, Chamath is the founder and CEO of Social Capital, an investment firm that focuses on innovative companies. He is known for his outspoken views on business and technology.
- Jason Calacanis – A tech entrepreneur, angel investor, and podcaster, Jason is the founder of several successful startups and has invested in early-stage companies like Uber. He also runs This Week in Startups, another well-known tech podcast.
- David Sacks – A Silicon Valley entrepreneur and investor, David co-founded PayPal and served as its COO. He’s also the founder and general partner at Craft Ventures, an investment firm, and a frequent voice on tech policy and innovation.
- David Friedberg – Founder and CEO of The Production Board, a company that focuses on solving global problems in food, agriculture, and health. He previously founded The Climate Corporation, which was sold to Monsanto.
The podcast is known for its candid, sometimes controversial discussions on current events and business trends.
ADVERTISEMENT
Keep in mind JD Vance comes from the Venture Capital world and he knows these guys:
- David Sacks: Sacks has been one of Vance’s prominent supporters and donors, contributing to his political campaigns. Sacks, known for his ventures in Silicon Valley and as a co-host of All-In, has aligned with Vance on various issues, especially in areas related to tech policy and conservative politics. Sacks has also invited Vance to speak at events, such as the All-In Summit, where they discussed key political and technological issues.
- Chamath Palihapitiya: Although there is no direct personal connection between Palihapitiya and Vance, Chamath is part of the broader venture capital ecosystem that overlaps with some of Vance’s business interests. Both have shown an interest in tech-driven solutions to societal challenges, but their political perspectives diverge, with Chamath being more progressive compared to Vance’s conservative stance.
- Jason Calacanis: Like Chamath, Calacanis has not had direct, personal ties with Vance. However, he operates in the same circles of technology investment, and their paths have likely crossed at industry events. While Calacanis tends to focus on tech and startups, he has commented on political issues that overlap with topics Vance discusses.
- David Friedberg: Friedberg, as a tech entrepreneur focused on climate and agriculture, does not appear to have any strong or notable connections with JD Vance. Their fields of expertise and political engagements don’t seem to overlap significantly.
Please enjoy (full transcript below if that’s easier for you):
Full transcript:
[Speaker 1] “This speaker is not on the program, not on the program, but I did notice there was a little bit of security here today, a little extra security. This is your Sax’s red meat moment, yes. All right, here we go. Little red meat for Sax. Uh, please welcome me in joining vice presidential candidate JD Vance. Let your winners ride, Rainman David. And instead, we open-source it to the fans and they’ve just gone crazy.”
[Music plays]
JD Vance: “Hey guys, man, good to see you, man, how you doing?”
[Speaker 1] “Time. All right, see you. Hey, guys, welcome.”
[Speaker 2] “So, Zach is gonna introduce you. Welcome to the Lions. Who’s here with us, Z?”
[Speaker 1] “Well, do we actually need a big introduction here? But I’ll give you a few for those of you who are really bad at context clues. I’m JD Vance. I’m running for vice president, and normally, he’s beside his wife, Usha, but now you get me.”
JD Vance: “That’s right, she’s at like the tarpits or whatever. Yeah, yeah, we brought the three kids out here so she wanted to take them to see some fossil stuff. So, they’ll have fun.”
[Speaker 2] “Good. I’ll say a couple of things about JD because, um, he’s a friend. What I think really made me want to support JD for the Senate and also for the VP position is that I think he represents two, you could almost say, contradictions. Uh, back in 2003 when JD graduated from high school, you know, this was after the Twin Towers had come down and we’d gotten involved in the Iraq War. He was gung-ho to go fight America’s enemies, and he enlisted in the Marine Corps and went off to serve in the Middle East. Eventually, he came to realize that that war was a mistake. And I thought that really represents one of the traits that we really want in a vice president or someone next to the president, which is that he had the patriotism and the courage to go serve America but also the wisdom to realize when America shouldn’t get involved in a war.”
[Applause]
[Speaker 2] “Just the other, uh, like I said, almost contradiction that JD represents is that he had worked in the tech industry. He had been a venture capitalist. He had been in rooms like this, and he understands what it takes to make America a more innovative place. At the same time, he comes from a part of the Midwest, Appalachia, that’s a very poor part of the country, and did not grow up in a privileged environment at all. And he still remembers those people, and he represents those people. And I think his ability to understand both parts of the country makes him, uh, I’d say, a pretty unique political figure. So, with that, let me stop, and do you want to react to any of that?”
JD Vance: “Well, first of all, thanks to all of you for having me. I’ve been a big fan of the Pod for a while. I think this is my first appearance, so it’s good to be with you. You know, the only thing I’ll say to that, David, is I do think there is a deep connection between the poverty that I saw growing up and the fact that our entire economy is just less innovative than we pretend that it is. And, you know, I know Peter Thiel and Tyler Cowen, other folks, have talked about this. But if you look at the real innovation of the American economy, it’s been in the world of software. If you look at where the economy has been most stagnant, it’s been in basically the heavily regulated parts of the economy, which is where 90% of the people that I represent in the Senate and 80% of the people that I hope to represent as their vice president actually make their living, run their business, and go to work every single day.”
JD Vance: “And I think that, you know, when I think about tech, one of the things I’d like us to do is broaden the aperture a little bit and think about innovation not just in software but innovation in transportation and logistics and innovation in energy and the whole suite of things. Because unless our economy is actually technologically innovative, then the stagnant economy is fundamentally like the worst thing. And I think a lot of actually America’s pathologies right now stem from the fact that we feel like we live in a very zero-sum country, because in some ways, we do, right? When the economy is growing four, five, six percent a year, then Democrats can kind of get what they want, Republicans can kind of get what they want, and it all makes sense. If the economy is growing between zero and one percent a year, then I think it makes the whole society and our political system much more insane. And I think it’s kind of a subtext of what’s been going on in this country for the last 30 years.”
[Speaker 2] “Let me start by going back a little bit. I think three of us, um, initially would have been described as sort of, like, you know, non-Trump people. Yeah, um, and in different ways and shapes and forms, we were all very skeptical about it because of what was presented to us through the filter of the media. And we’ve all gone through an evolution, in large part by meeting the person. This is the first time, actually, where a presidential candidate I’ve known, and I’ve kind of known a vice-presidential candidate in this case as well. You know, they try to corner you and paint you in a certain way. Can you just talk about what you realized, the person that you got to know, and what it says about what we need to do so that we don’t get manipulated?”
JD Vance: “Yeah, so, first of all, when Biden was running against Trump, one of the things the media tried to do was to say, well, you know, you have these two guys who are a little bit older than average, and both of them clearly aren’t fully with it. And I would hear the media talk about Biden like this, and then talk about Trump like this, and it’s like, guys, Donald Trump remembers exactly what I said about him five and a half years ago, to the minute, to the day, to the exact line. Like, trust me, his memory is 100% there, uh, even if it would be more in my interest if it wasn’t.”
JD Vance: “And, you know, what changed for me? I mean, two things. I mean, one, Chamath, you just sort of hit on this. A lot of the things the press said about Donald Trump and says about Donald Trump are just straight-up fabrications. And so, if you think the press is, like, biased, that’s one thing. But if you think the press is fundamentally trying to tell you the truth, even if it’s in a biased way, and then you realize that, like, Donald Trump never called white supremacists ‘very fine people’ after Charlottesville—a total fabrication of the American media—it’s like, okay, what other things am I hearing about Donald Trump that are actually not true, right?”
JD Vance: “The second thing is, you know, and we talked about this a little bit last night, but look, if you go back to the date of my—or the year of my birth, which is 1984, there’s this chart that’s really interesting, and it tracks corporate profits, the wages of workers, and the size of government. And for pretty much my entire life, the wages of workers were stagnant, corporate profits were going up, and the size of government was going up. And there was a four-year period where the wages of workers outpaced the size of government and corporate profits. It’s the four years that Trump was president. And I think that we have to, like, give some credit to where it’s due. The policies actually worked. And if you go into the presidency saying, ‘I don’t think Donald Trump’s going to be a good president,’ and then lo and behold, he’s the best president, at least in a generation, it’s like, okay, time to change my mind, admit to myself but also to all the people who listen to me, I was wrong about Donald Trump. He was a hell of a good president. Of course, I’m running as his running mate, and I think he’ll do it again.”
[Speaker 2] “Let’s flip it around now. What does it say about him that he—how’s that process of saying, ‘JD, you said this.’ ‘Yes, I did, I changed my mind.’ Then, he has to change his mind. So, talk to us about that.”
JD Vance: “You know, I think the president—one thing I’ll say about him is, again, the media perception of Donald Trump is that he’s this deeply aggrieved guy who holds really terrible grudges. The actual reality of Donald Trump is that, yeah, he remembers what you said about him because it’s like part of the inputs that he takes as he tries to evaluate a human being. But most importantly, he’s asking, like, ‘What can you do now? How can you help the country now? How can you help me as I try to help the country now?’ And I think, for whatever complicated set of factors, he decided that I was the guy who could help him the most. But no, I mean, it is interesting—the perception of him as this guy who holds grudges. He selected a guy who was very much a critic of his back in 2015 as his running mate. Clearly, something doesn’t make sense. And I think what doesn’t make sense is this idea that Trump is more motivated by grievance than he is by the public interest. He’s actually much more motivated by the public interest—that’s the truth.”
[Speaker 1] “That’s awesome. You’re… uh, thanks for coming, of course. Um, would JD Vance have certified the election in 2020? You’re going to replace Mike Pence.”
JD Vance: “I hope so, yeah. It’s gonna be a close election.”
[Speaker 1] “But, um, if you do… Mike Pence, um, your new boss, Trump, is a little upset at Mike Pence because Mike Pence refused to overturn the election results. If you were in that same position, what would you do? Would you have overturned the election results?”
JD Vance: “Well, I think it’s—let me take issue with the premise a little bit, Jason, because I don’t think the argument was Mike Pence could overturn the election results. I think the argument was that Mike Pence could have done more—whether you agree or disagree, Mike Pence could have done more to sort of surface some of the problems in the election.”
[Speaker 1] “Would you have not certified the election?”
JD Vance: “Well, I think that what I would have done—I mean, look, I happen to think that there were issues back in 2020, particularly in Pennsylvania. Even, you know, some of the courts that refused to throw out certified ballots did say that there were ballots that were cast in an illegal way. They just refused to actually decertify the election results in Pennsylvania. Do I think that we could have had a much more rational conversation about how to ensure that only legal ballots are cast? Yes. And do I think that Mike Pence could have played a better role? Yes.”
JD Vance: “But again, the two premises that I take issue with are: one, Pence was not asked to overturn the election—he couldn’t have. But two, the reason Pence was asked to not certify it—”
[Speaker 1] “Sure, so would you have certified it last year?”
JD Vance: “Again, I would have asked the states to submit alternative slates of electors and let the country have the debate about what actually matters and what kind of election we had.”
[Speaker 1] “States to be clear?”
JD Vance: “I would have asked the states to submit alternative slates of electors. That’s what I would have done. Again, I’ve said that publicly many times. But again, Jason, the important part is we would have had a big debate, and it doesn’t necessarily mean the results would have been any different. But we at least would have had the debate in Pennsylvania and Georgia about how to better have a rational election system where legal ballots are cast.”
JD Vance: “And again, I—you know, look, I have no personal problem with Mike Pence. I’ve never really talked to him. But I think that the idea that the reason Mike Pence isn’t on board with Donald Trump is over the election of 2020, that’s the other thing I want to take issue with, Jason, because I think in reality, that if Donald Trump wanted to start a nuclear war with Russia, Mike Pence would be at the front of the line endorsing him right now.”
JD Vance: “And fundamentally, the reason the old guard of the Republican party hates Donald Trump—it’s not because of January the 6th, 2021, whatever your views on it—it’s because Donald Trump doesn’t think that we should start stupid wars in foreign countries. And that’s why they all hate him.”
[Speaker 3] “Can I—I have a follow-up on that. Let me continue my line of questioning, then I’ll give it to you because I want to hear JD’s thoughts since he’s here. I’ve heard yours many times. So, uh, how many follow-ups are you going to have about January 6th? We spent two minutes talking about—”
JD Vance: “I want to hear David, especially if it gets me out of answering.”
[Speaker 3] “So I think you’ve had, like, three follow-ups on JD.”
[Speaker 4] “First of all, Freeberg, you never got a chance to ask your question.”
JD Vance: “I want to talk about policy for a minute. That’d be great.”
[Speaker 3] “Okay, I’d love that.”
JD Vance: “I’ll just reflect back on your comment about government growth compared to wage growth compared to corporate profits. There’s only so much capital, and it gets sucked up somewhere, right? There are competing interests that suck it up. The government is a competing interest that sucks up capital. Fundamentally, the government has been successful in sucking up capital, and ultimately, the government has been proven time and again to be the least efficient way to grow the economy, of allocating capital, allocating resources, or labor.”
JD Vance: “And, um, Trump has made this commentary that Elon, who’s going to be here later today, should come in and help right-size the government. You’ve now spent a few years as a senator, this is my most distressing issue, right? Of all the panic attacks I have that Jason teases me about, it’s government spending, the debt level, and ultimately, you reach a tipping point, I believe, in democracies where the government is spending, uh, more people are dependent on the government than are not. And that ultimately leads to a very bad outcome for democracy. That’s how I feel.”
JD Vance: “And so, based on what you’ve seen as a senator now for the last few years and based on the commentary that Elon has made, where would you go in, you know, cut? Where’s the most kind of efficiency-gaining opportunity that we can kind of execute against without needing to go and negotiate with Congress? What’s the opportunity ahead for the executive branch to right-size government, to make things more efficient, to hold things accountable, to improve the way that the government is functioning, which I think ultimately leads to better economic growth and opportunity for innovation because capital flows to the right places?”
JD Vance: “I agree with you, and let me just say two things, and I’ll try to answer briefly because I know there are a lot of topics that we can get through. So, number one is one of the things that our government should do—obviously, I think it should be doing less than it currently does—but what it does, I want it to do well. And most importantly, I want the critical social welfare functions of our government to go to the people who actually deserve to be here.”
JD Vance: “So, as a United States senator, I have asked multiple staff members, I’ve asked officials in various government departments: if you take the, give or take, 25 million illegal aliens that are here in this country right now, how much money do we spend on illegal aliens every single year in this country? And I’ve gotten estimates that range between $100 billion a year to $600 billion a year. And where does that money come from? Well, it comes from healthcare benefits, even though illegal aliens aren’t entitled to section 8 housing, their children are entitled to section 8 housing. There’s also a lot of Social Security fraud, a lot of Medicare fraud. So, one thing that we could save a lot of money on is actually focusing our national interest on American citizens, people who deserve to be here. We’d save a lot of money that way. That’d be a huge—”
JD Vance: “$7.3 trillion budget. What do you estimate that impact to be?”
JD Vance: “Well, again, I’m trying to do that scene in the movie Dave where they go in and they just line up, like, ‘Nope, no,’ or like, ‘No,’ pulling everything off the board. If you call it a $1.7 trillion deficit right now, again, it’s between $100 billion to $600 billion, depending on how you cut the numbers.”
JD Vance: “Now, the other thing about that, just to answer your question about efficiency, is I think the government procurement process, especially in military equipment, is really broken. If you go back to Eisenhower’s warning about the military-industrial complex—I mean, I was a seed investor in Anduril. I imagine you guys have some Anduril people here today.”
[Speaker 1] “Great company.”
JD Vance: “Yeah, great company, great chat. You know, one of the things that company, as I understand it, founded on was the idea that the procurement process was broken. And that is definitely true. We do way too much cost-plus procurement and way too little actual spurring of innovation. And what it ends up meaning is that our equipment isn’t as good as it should be, and we end up spending a lot more money than we should be.”
JD Vance: “I actually do think you could cut the American defense budget and make our country stronger, but you would have to make the procurement process much more efficient. Now, that’s a big thing to tackle, but that’s what we’re in this business for.”
[Speaker 1] “Do you pass legislation to do that?”
JD Vance: “I don’t know that you have to pass legislation, but you really—as a president and vice president—you have to be willing to take on some very powerful defense contractors. And that’s something that I know President Trump and I very much want to do.”
[Speaker 1] “And how would you like your role as vice president to be cast, different from how other vice presidents have operated? What would your role as an individual be?”
JD Vance: “Just speaking broadly, I want to do all of the good things and none of the bad things. That’s my goal as vice president.”
[Speaker 1] “So, the ribbon cuttings at the new federal building—”
JD Vance: “I mean, look, obviously joking, but the reality is that I want to be a second set of eyes and ears for the president’s agenda, right? One of the things that was true, and he’ll tell you this, the first time he was president of the United States is there were people in government, there were people in his own administration—he was a newcomer to politics, he didn’t fully trust everybody who was around him. We want to build a team that’s actually aligned on the agenda because, agree or disagree with Donald Trump on a specific policy issue, assuming the American people make him the next president, I think that they will—that is the next president, and his policy determinations should dictate the executive administration of government. If they don’t, we don’t have a real democracy.”
JD Vance: “And by the way, just not to wade back into January 6th territory, like, what is a bigger threat to American democracy? Is it that we had a big fight about some of the certification on January 6th, and of course, you had some rioters at the Capitol? Or is it that, for example, the Joint Chiefs of Staff didn’t obey the president of the United States on troop redeployment in Syria, which actually happened during Trump’s administration? Like, if we’re going to talk about threats to democracy, we need the government to be responsive to the American people’s elected president. If you don’t have that, you don’t have a real democracy.”
[Applause]
[Speaker 1] “A lot of this, if you design it one way, has to go through Congress, which, as we know, is sclerotic and nothing can happen. And then the other path is for you guys to go ham a little bit and say, ‘Okay, what can we do with executive orders?’ Have you had a chance to discuss, if you win, repositioning the focus as basically, what is the totality of everything that we can do from the White House, from the Oval Office, and then getting all of these things?”
JD Vance: “Well, at a high level, certainly. You know, I’m one of the co-chairs of the transition team. There are a few others of us who are working on it to sort of think about—look, the way the founders set up our government, whether you like it or not, there are certain things, especially when it comes to budget and appropriations, that you just have to go through Congress, right? You fundamentally have to.”
JD Vance: “Now, I do think that Congress is willing to work with us, at least for the first couple of years of an administration. You can largely get the budgetary and appropriations things that you need, but there’s a lot that you can do through executive orders. And by the way, in a lot of ways, I think the enlargement of the president at the expense of Congress is a bad thing, but fundamentally, there is a lot that happens in our government purely through executive orders, through EO.”
JD Vance: “And yes, we’re thinking very deliberatively about all the things that you could do through EO on day one or in the early parts of the administration. And again, not to make this too partisan, but one of the ways that Biden and Harris opened up the American southern border was through executive orders, right? It was an executive order that suspended deportations, an executive order that ended the ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy. So, you can screw up a lot through executive orders, and you can also fix a lot through executive orders, which is certainly something that we’re focused on.”
[Speaker 1] “Let me, um, go in a different direction just in the last couple of days. Dick Cheney endorsed Kamala Harris for president, and that endorsement was warmly embraced by Kamala Harris and the Democrats.”
[Speaker 2] “The same people who called him a war criminal, like, three years ago.”
[Speaker 1] “Yeah, well, I’m old enough to remember back in 2008, uh, Obama first beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary because he had opposed the Iraq War and she had supported it. And then he got elected president of the United States, and the whole country seemed to recognize that the Iraq War had been a disaster. It destabilized the Middle East. You know, I don’t need to go through all the litanies of horribles that happened from it, but there seemed to be a widespread recognition, and like you’re saying, Dick was kind of demonized as this, um, like, the Darth Vader Prince of Darkness-type figure, which I think was basically right. I mean, he was the principal architect of the Iraq War.”
JD Vance: “Yeah.”
[Speaker 1] “And now, I find myself agreeing with everything the Democrats said in 2008 about Iraq. Total coincidence. On a separate track, a few weeks ago, we had Bobby Kennedy endorse Donald Trump. So, you now have a dynamic where the Bush Republicans are now Harris Democrats, and the Kennedy Democrats are now Trump Republicans. Clearly, something big is happening in our politics here. Can you explain this realignment? How do you see it?”
JD Vance: “Yeah, I mean, look, one way to think about it is that we traded Dick Cheney for Bobby Kennedy, and that’s an upgrade I’ll take every single day, right?”
[Laughter]
Join the conversation!
Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!