Saagar Enjeti on Trump: “Greatest professional disappointment in my life” | Bulwark Podcast

Saagar Enjeti asserts that Trump's military actions against Iran constitute a 'strategic catastrophe.' He argues that the U.S. sacrificed its sovereign ability to act independently, being compelled by Israel, as evidenced by the Secretary of State's statement that the U.S. 'had to do it' because Israel would have acted alone. This policy also severely strained U.S. military resources, depleting munitions stockpiles already stressed by aid to Ukraine and Israel, and risked closing the Straits of Hormuz.

Enjeti cites the Secretary of State's statement, the deployment of three carrier strike groups to the Middle East, the largest-ever release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the depletion of THAAD interceptor stockpiles (25% in 12 days, with only 15 acquired in 2025).

Enjeti explains Trump's rationale for the Iran intervention as a consequence of being 'amazed by his success' in previous, less complex military actions. He points to 'Midnight Hammer' (a one-day bombing run) and the Venezuela intervention as instances where Trump ignored warnings of quagmire, achieved short-term 'successes,' and became convinced that similar easy victories were possible.

Enjeti references the 'Midnight Hammer' operation, the Venezuela intervention, and Wall Street Journal reporting suggesting BB Netanyahu and Lindsey Graham convinced Trump of an easy victory. He draws an analogy to Hitler's early military 'successes' leading to overconfidence.

Enjeti describes the 'America First' movement as a 'professional elite project' that aimed to transpose its ideas into U.S. policy. However, he concludes this project dramatically failed because Trump prioritized personal loyalty over ideological consistency. Officials, including those who shared 'America First' views, were unwilling to push back against Trump's decisions for fear of being seen as disloyal, leading to policies (like the Iran war) that contradicted the movement's core tenets.

Enjeti states, 'The thing that we really got wrong is we really believed... that this project... those people would be able to transpose their ideas into the policy of the United States.' He notes the lesson of Trump's first term was that 'people were not loyal enough to him personally,' leading to 'very little push back whatsoever.' He cites Tulsi Gabbard's 'DNI' (Do Not Invite) status after disagreeing with Trump on Venezuela as an example.

Enjeti posits that Jeffrey Epstein was almost certainly an intelligence 'asset' for multiple agencies, primarily as a 'money mover' and potentially an 'arms dealer.' His usefulness in facilitating illicit financial transactions for powerful individuals within a global intelligence network allowed him to evade justice for decades. This 'asset' status meant intelligence agencies would pressure authorities to keep his criminal cases out of open court to protect 'sources and methods.'

Enjeti highlights Epstein's expertise in moving money, gained at Bear Stearns in the 1980s, and his possession of a false Austrian passport from the 1980s (Austria being a 'bed of spies'). He also mentions Epstein's 1999 attempt to 'foye' his name to the CIA and his flight to Israel during his 2007 sweetheart deal negotiations.

Enjeti identifies 'shutting the border down' as Trump's single biggest policy win, aligning with a 'popular vote mandate' on immigration. However, he criticizes the administration's methods as 'for show and not actually for affect.' He proposes mandatory E-Verify and a massive tax on remittances to foreign countries as more effective, less punitive ways to manage immigration, arguing that current policies are economically unsound and potentially 'racist' in their implications for low-skilled labor.

Enjeti states, 'Shut the border down. Yeah. I would I would say that's probably number one.' He contrasts this with the '10 million people illegally entered the country' under Biden and the historical precedent of democratic pushback against mass migration. He criticizes the 'neoliberal view' of immigrants as 'economic utils' and the 'deeply actually almost like racist' idea of importing a 'slave class' for home health aids.