Transcript

Venezuela, Renee Good and Trump’s ‘Assault on Hope’ | The Ezra Klein Show

From The Ezra Klein Show · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 1 h 7 min · 9,857 words · 92 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "Venezuela, Renee Good and Trump’s ‘Assault on Hope’ | The Ezra Klein Show", an episode of The Ezra Klein Show published January 10, 2026 (1 h 7 min, about 9,857 words). It mentions 6 people, works and ideas, including World War Two, Masha Gesson, Obama administration, Tomorrow is Yesterday, One Day Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This.

What this episode is about

The discussion explores how the Trump administration employed "propaganda of the deed"—a strategy rooted in anarchist thought—to create spectacle rather than engage in traditional governance, as exemplified by actions in Venezuela and high-profile military operations. This approach prioritized dramatic, attention-grabbing events over careful planning and policy, highlighting a shift away from legislative processes to a focus on impactful imagery and messaging.

Key takeaways

  • Spectacle politics: When the deed overshadows the message, can chaos really inspire order?
  • Venezuela's chaos highlighted how power can be spectacularly destructive without a successor in sight.
  • Trump's regime may not create reality TV, but it's a drama that weaponizes chaos for visibility.
  • Multilateral institutions aspire to peace, but Venezuela reveals the fragility of post-WWII geopolitical dreams.
  • In a world stripped of bureaucratic decorum, power may just be chaos wearing a suit.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 10:00: Masha Gesson, Obama administration
  2. – 1:07:06: One Day Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This, The Hill, Tomorrow is Yesterday

Notable quotes from "Venezuela, Renee Good and Trump’s ‘Assault on Hope’ | The Ezra Klein Show"

  • It is meant to make clear how the world now works. My guest today is Masha Gesson who grew up in the Soviet Union who's my colleague here at times opinion has written remarkable books like the future is history about living under.
    about Masha Gesson · at
  • There was much about you know the drone strikes in the Obama administration that was not working through let's call it you know a normal set of due process and frankly Maduro himself right which I think is very important to say in all.
    about Obama administration · at
  • Or four months just reading books about Israel Palestine and two of them are standouts. One is called Tomorrow's Yesterday.
    about Tomorrow is Yesterday · at
  • Galley of an autofiction novel by a writer named Harry Clark. and it's called The Hill.
    about The Hill · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

Books & papers

Concepts & topics

Full transcript with timestamps

In the early 20th century, there was this anarchist idea about the propaganda of the deed. The propaganda of the deed was that there were these forms of direct action and many of them violent assassinations, bombings, that when you did them, they were so spectacular everybody would hear about them. And when everybody heard about them, there would be copycats by making clear that society did not work how you thought it worked. that could rupture society itself and create the possibility of a moment of revolutionary upheaval.

I think there is a way in which you should and can understand the Trump administration as operating often through propaganda of the deed. Now they're not an anarchist collective. They're a state. their regime but they operate not so often through the dull work of rules and laws and legislation and deliberation but through spectacle through the meaning of particular spectacles. Venezuela was a spectacle. They do not seem to have planned for the aftermath. They were decapitating the Madura regime, but they left the regime otherwise completely in place.

For, us, to, just, leave,, who's, going, to take over? I mean, there is nobody to take over.

But, it, was, a, object, lesson,, an, example, an act that showed something. And even before the capture of Maduro, they had chosen not to fight the drug war, the fentinel scourge through laws and legislation on addiction and and and drugs, but instead do these very high-profile bombings of alleged drug boats that even if they were drug boats were probably carrying cocaine. It was spectacular. It was a message. It was showing what they could do. It was a deed that everybody could see and would talk about. Liberation Day. You can keep going on and on and on like this. The Trump administration is an administration of spectacle. And I've heard it sometimes described as reality TV administration but I don't think that's quite right.

Because what reality TV wants is ratings. But these spectacles, this propaganda is meant to carry messages. It is meant to make clear how the world now works. My guest today is Masha Gesson who grew up in the Soviet Union who's my colleague here at times opinion has written remarkable books like the future is history about living under Vladimir Putin and who's been a clear and relentless and very perceptive voice on what it means and what it is like to live in a country that is turning into a different kind of regime. As always, my email is Kleinshowny Times.com.

Ashen, welcome to the show. Great to be here. So, on one level, the target of the recent operation in Venezuela was obviously President Nicholas Maduro. On another level, you've argued the target was the new world order of law, justice and human rights that was heralded in the wake of World War II. Tell me about that.

Right. So,, you, know,, I, always, feel, a, little like I have to make a lot of caveats when I talk about the the post World War II order. All these multilateral institutions were created. All these mechanisms, international courts, the UN, the Security Council because it was in many ways an aspiration, right? an aspiration to creating an order that would a prevent a new global war something at which it has been very successful, and b prevent um the kind of disregard for human life that made the atrocities of World War II possible. And in that, it's been much less successful, but the aspiration remained. And I think even though the United States was historically one of the parties that violated this order because it had the power to do so it still did it under the cover of respecting those aspirations.

And what I think has changed with the pullouts from all these different multilateral institutions and the blatant disrespect for them and actually contempt for them that Trump personally and his administration have articulated and I think it sort of culminated with Venezuela, right? I think that if there's a an event that I think of as sort of the nail in the coffin of the of the new international world order, it would be Venezuela. I guess when we talk about international law here, the history, including recent history of what it has clearly not been capable of preventing or bounding is pretty long. I mean, you know, Israel and Gaza is ongoing. Uh, Russia inside Ukraine is ongoing.

there was much about you know the drone strikes in the Obama administration that was not working through let's call it you know a normal set of due process and frankly Maduro himself right which I think is very important to say in all this he was not a peaceful humanistic democratically elected leader he was a brutal repressive dictator destroying his political opposition remaining in power after losing an election. And so when we talk about, you know there being a tipping point, you know are we just upset because it is Donald Trump doing it, but he is just revealing the way the world really works and has worked, just stripped of its veneer of bureaucratic opacity.

Well,, first, of, all,, the, veneer, is important that it's important that at least the George W. Bush administration felt it was necessary to lie to the UN rather than disregard the UN altogether out of respect for the institution. I mean it sounds ridiculous, right? is there was a moment after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine when it seemed that actually all these mechanisms that were so painstakingly created and you know one step forward two steps back that they may all finally kick into gear because there is this unpreced unprecedented, consensus, at least, western consensus on uh Russia's crimes in Ukraine and then with Gaza that consensus fractured and the hope for these institutions really kicking into gear um dimmed. At the same time, there was the international uh court of justice hearing um initiated by South Africa's suit against Israel. Um that was itself a new phenomenon in international law

and it's very easy to look at all the ways in which international law has failed. It's very it's much more difficult to be able to measure what it has prevented, right? Um certainly one thing that it has prevented over the last 80 years is another global war. And at least until Venezuela, it seemed that it wasn't a foregone conclusion that the attempts to create uh an international rule of law were doomed. I've been thinking about the differences and similarities of Venezuela and Iraq because ultimately Iraq is also uh the invasion of is a betrayal of the international order.

But you you watch through the quite long runup to that invasion, the Bush administration doing two things that at least reflect a view that it should be caught trying. One is there's a very long period of deliberation in America itself deliberation with Congress, deliberation on Sunday morning news shows. There is a long debate in this country in which arguments are being made back and forth in which bills are being considered in which debate is being had and there's also a debate internationally Colin Powell going to the UN and and giving a presentation we now know had falsehoods in it um and in some ways knew then and ultimately the UN does not go along and then you have the coalition of the willing and and it is a betrayal of the of the order but it it has this idea that the US should still be working within and and you can understand as having both continuity and discontinuity and I'm curious how you see that.

Right., Well,, exactly., It's, very difficult to say, you know, it's better to lie to the United Nations than to disregard the United Nations, but I think maybe it is better to lie to the United Nations. Um, but I think I wouldn't just look at the Iraq war as president. Um, I think Kosovo is a really interesting president, right? Kosovo, which was an uh an air war launched by NATO, but without sanction of the UN Security Council. And that you know, that seemed to me even at the time hugely problematic. But there there was a kind of there was still lip service to uh first of all NATO um second of respecting international norms. Um, and there wasn't, you know, we we we have, we can point to times when the president didn't get congressional approval. We can get uh we can point to times when the United States didn't get approval of the UN Security Council. We can point to times when it acted independently of NATO. We

can point to times when it blatantly lied about what it was doing. But I can't really think of a time when it was doing all of that at the same time demonstratively. And I think there's a kind of transition from sort of the quantity of things that this administration is doing to a new quality of being in the world. And the Trump administration both I think appreciates but in many ways governs through spectacle where other administrations governed much more through rules and laws and regulations. They they really focus on spectacle and Venezuela was structured as spectacle, right? not a long planning process for what the post decapitation of the regime would look like, but just you go in and you know you then you have this picture of Maduro on the plane blindfolded. Um you have this like you know very uh triumphant press conference from Donald Trump. What is the role of spectacle here? So I think I think

there's the level um of yeah of this love of a particular aesthetic of strength right? Um particular aesthetic of of dominance and organization that Trump seems to be instinctively drawn to right? And we've known that since his first term, right? his obsession with military parades and and obviously, you know, the the the spectre of the transformation of the White House, both the the creation of all the the gold leaf and the destruction of the East Wing, right? The demonstration of dominance and um and and power. But I also think that Trump is always in a movie, right? He's always watching himself on screen and um and that's something that makes him different from anyone I've ever read or written about.

There just seems to be this constant external observation of this character that um that he's playing which I think is in some ways his superpower, right? It's what gives him the ability to shake his fist after literally uh dodging a bullet. Um and saying fight and you know having that incredible photo op because even at a moment when he really was when he really did come face to face with death what he's thinking of is what it looks like from the outside. Um, so I think there's a whole other level of spectacle that we're seeing here that that we still need to understand.

I think sometimes about the way in which Joe Biden and Donald Trump are not far apart in age. Biden felt fundamentally of another era. Biden was a politician of the past who is somewhat governing as a a caretaker of the present. Trump to me sometimes feels like he is somewhat from the future, right? He is hyper modern. And what I mean by that is he is always his profile picture. There's no I don't want to say truly there is no backstage to him but I am not sure there is a backstage to him. I just think that there is a way in which he fully inhabits himself as a public brand and has for so long that it is absorbed on a cellular level to him in the way that even many people who are understood as influencers or or famous or they're a little bit faking it. But for him, Donald Trump as a media spectacle, as a as a human being turned into a spectacle is a fully inhabited persona. Yeah, I exactly. That's um I think that's what

I'm trying to to get at. Um and I didn't mean to say that he is thinking what will this look like on online? What will this look like on the front page of the of the paper newspaper? It's that all there is is the external view, right? There's no internality there. It would be one thing if it's just him but it's no longer just him. And my sense is that people all over the administration understand this on some levels like what it means to be doing politics. Christy Gnome going to the El Salvadoran torture prison and posing in front of all these human beings stacked up behind each other in a cage. That that's an that's not who Christome was 15 years ago, right? that that's a an attempt to learn in an artificial way what Donald Trump embodies in an intuitive way, but it it's turned his in like his instincts into not a governing philosophy exactly, but a governing mode.

Um, I think that's a great observation. I do want to temper it a little bit right? Um because I think there's there's a craziness to um to what we're living through that has to do with how we got here which is that you know politics should have a spectacle.

Politics, should, have, a, public, dimension. We in the preceding more quote unquote normal administrations we didn't have that. Um the Biden administration was a bizarrely closed, you know, black box. Um bizarrely for any administration, but particularly for the Democratic administration. Uh it was an administration that utterly failed to tell any kind of story. And I'm sure you a lot of it had to do with Biden's deterioration and his not inability to really be in public, but really it was like a closed management company that was just trying to get stuff done without being distracted to to doing public by doing public politics.

So the transition from that to this is even more bizarre, right? We're not seeing a justosition of two different kinds of public politics. We're seeing that this is what public politics in America now looks like.

I, think, that's, a, really, interesting point and and I I began thinking while we were talking about this about a moment I haven't thought about in a long time, which is Barack Obama was capable of spectacle and created spectacle during the fight over the Affordable Care Act. deep in it. Obama functionally holds a public debate on C-SPAN with him and a bunch of congressional leaders of which for the Republicans, Paul Ryan ends up being the star and lead communicator in which they are just arguing the details of healthcare policy in front of the public. And there are many things happening in that. But in some ways, it was a spectacle of deliberation. It was a spectacle very aligned with you know, sophisticated policym in a democracy where the view was that people might align to whoever made the best argument. And the message of a lot of Trumpist spectacle to me is the wiping away of all that. Again, the

absence of Congress here, I think, is a very, very important thing. the absence of Congress in so much of it. I think in part because Congress is like anti-spectical. It's slow. You get bogged down. It's details. But it also is itself a kind of to the degree it is a spectacle, it is a spectacle of constraint. So you've allowed one point where you say that it is institutions and norms and laws that make a democracy. And I think the spectacle here, the way the Trump administration does it is actually about the contempt for those institutions and norms and laws such that the message is we are not that kind of system. We are this kind of system run by this one man. Absolutely. I agree with everything you just said. Uh and I would just add one thing. It's not just institutions and laws and norms that make a democracy. It's institutions and laws and norms functioning in public transparently that make a democracy.

And that's, you know, that's what we're lacking. And then we're lacking it demonstratively, right? I think that that's your observation about why he's not using Congress is spot on, right? Um because even using this um using the power that he has now with the trifecta to effectively as we might imagine rubber rubber stamp white house legislation would be empowering some something other than himself. You you have a line in one of your pieces where you say that Trump and autocrats like him are opposed to deliberation as such. And I've been thinking about this line because the idea that the US just entered into as Trump himself has now said repeatedly, a multi-year an open-ended commitment to in some form or another running Venezuela with zero domestic debate about it. Right. No real debate.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee is not debating this. What it means for America has not been described by anybody. So tell me in your view both about the relationship between leaders like Trump and deliberation and what it means that there was so little deliberation for such a profound assumption of responsibility and violence here.

So, I, think, there, are, two, aspects, to deliberation. one is just a way of exercising power, right? Um I think Trump it's it's hard to get inside his head. Um but I think that his conception of power appears to be something that's wielded uni unilaterally, right? And it is diluted by any kind of public deliberation. there's probably deliberation happening behind closed doors. But the the concept of power that he projects is the kind of power that's unilateral. Um there's also another aspect to to deliberation which is that deliberation is and and I'm using uh an idea that I borrowed from Balin Per who's a Hungarian political scientist who I think is just the absolute best and clearest thinker on autocracy out there. And he talks about deliberation as an expression of our obligations to one another.

And and I think that's a very useful way to understand what that projection of power is, right? It is a rejection of any kind of obligations to one another. I was very struck by Steven Miller who I think is functionally the prime minister of the US right now talking to Jake Tapper about the possibility of America taking Greenland which again under structure of international law is unthinkable. We live in a world in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.

Let, me, start, here., What, do, you, think when you hear that comment? I, think, Putin., Mhm.

Um, and, and, this, is,, you, know,, I, think that we've had actually since the end of World War II, we've had two post World War II orders. There's the the structural one, the institutional one the rhetorical one, right? This is the the order that is that aims to prevent another global war. Um, and then there's the victor's order, the order that's that's summed up by this by I think Putin's favorite photograph of Stalin Churchill and Roosevelt sitting in Yaltta, which is now in in Russian occupied Crimea, um, carving up the world.

and he refers to that constantly when he talks about sort of his right to do what he what he has done and most for the last four years when he talks about the war in Ukraine and that's basically the argument that he's been putting forward is look strong men carve up the world and really you know what I'm willing to sit down and discuss is how we draw the lines not what any international institution has to say about it. And so what I hear Steven Miller saying is basically the exact same thing.

There, always, seems, to, me, to, be, here, an assertion not just about international institutions or nations but also about human beings. I think when when I listen to MAGA and Trump and then its theorists and its followers, I I hear something being said about this idea that we have restrained the animal masculine dominanceoriented conquesttoriented instincts that on some level made humanity great that you know in the Elon Musk version that will get us to Mars in the future and tied them up in hollow liberal values and self-restraints and debate and discussion and deliberation and rules and procedures and and there's something being said that is operating really at all levels.

The way America is acting under Trump is the way America should act. The way a superpower should act. is what it means to be a superpower. It is to be unrestrained. But the way Trump acts is also the way a man should act. I think I think that's a very astute observation and I think uh I think you're absolutely right and you know I'm going to use the word fascism here because um because I don't think it we can analyze this well enough without some kind of framework and we often talk when we talk about fascism we talk about ideology of of superior race right but it's also a world view and what's fundamental to That world view is that the world is rotten and that everyone in the world is rotten and anybody who pretends not to be rotten is lying and part of the mission is to expose that lie. Right?

Um, and so it's impossible to talk to a person who is who who is sort of encased in that kind of ideology because everything you say is a priorial lie, right? If you say that you value human rights and human dignity and human life, well then obviously you're being a hypocrite and you must be exposed. And I think that that's that's what we're seeing and that's that's what we're hearing from Steven Miller. I don't always hear them saying that everybody else is lying. I hear them saying almost something different like their idea of like the woke mind virus that something has happened and an ideology has taken over that is poisoning ambition and aggression and a set of forces a kind of vitality that is what drove civilization forward.

Right., No,, I, think, I, think, I, think that's a great observation. Yeah they're seeing a sort of a weakness virus.

A, weakness, virus., That's, a, good, a, better way to put it. I, want, to, play, for, you, a, clip, of, Pete Hegath, the Secretary of Defense talking about at least one of the ways in which he wanted to change the culture of the US military. Frankly, it's tiring to look out at combat formations or really any formation and see fat troops. Likewise, it's completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world. It's a bad look. It is bad and it's not who we are. He goes on to launch an attack on beards also in that there is a real obsession with aesthetics across this administration.

who appoints and then what they want from the people beneath them. What do you make of that?

I, mean,, it, feels, so, familiar, to, me, right? Um I grew up in the Soviet Union where I we, watched, parades, on, TV., We, um, one, of the happiest days of my life uh as a kid was finally receiving the red kurchchief.

What, is, a, red, kurchchief?, I, read Kirchief as was as a sign of membership in the young pioneers which is the the kids communist organization. Um and it's amazing because I grew up in a dissident family by the time I was 10 years old which is when you get inducted um I had I was quite aware where we lived and what we thought about it. And yet the aesthetics of it were irresistible because I mean it was it was beautiful. Um, and it was also like other people and and you could march in formation and it's so incredibly appealing.

Um, and embarrassingly, right? Um, and I I just watched there's there's this terrific new documentary called Mr. Nobody against Putin, which is uh which was filmed uh in secret by a teacher in a Russian school in like a small town, a town of 10,000 people in the Urals over the course of a couple of years after the start of the full-scale invasion. And it's, partly, about, it's, it's it's, really about sort of the imposition of propaganda uh in the school and how um that school and all other Russian schools became sort of retoled as um junior military organizations. But you can also see the imposition of an aesthetic. These kids start they start marching information. They start carrying the flag. They eventually get these uniforms that hug them back to those exact uniforms that uh with the red curves that I wore 50 years ago.

It's, you know, it's it's a fascist aesthetic. Uh, and and it's it it's what we have it's what the 20th century taught us about what power looks like, what strength looks like. Why do this is something I've become slightly weirdly obsessed with. Why do fascist movements, authoritarian movements, why do they seem to care so much more about aesthetics and in their own way beauty than Kier's government or Joe Biden's government? Even Donald Trump coming into office and amidst everything else he had to do, deciding to chair the board of the Kennedy Center as that was clearly the thing he really wanted to do and then recently having his name etched into the institution the Trump Kennedy Center, it's now called if you go to the website, if you go to the building he immediately signed an executive order about bringing classical architecture back to federal construction.

I I do not share Donald Trump's aesthetic. He filled the Oval Office with gold but he really does have one and he really understands it as a dimension of politics and power and cultural control. And and this goes through other leaders like him. I mean, Putin has, you know his bare-chested photos and his aesthetic. and you go back to the the the mid-century and and early 20th century fascists and you see an incredible uh you know I have a whole book on Nazi aesthetics at home. I have come to think it's first a weakness of liberal politics that it does not see itself as having a relationship really to beauty that it does not believe beauty should be part of politics necessarily. It it it likes beauty. It wants other people to do beautiful things. But but you know, we're the people in the suits who have the charts and can tell you how healthcare system is run, not the people who have views on what is and is not

beautiful. Why do you think it is that that these movements see spectacle, see beauty, see aesthetic as so much more central to how politics should operate and how power is wielded than certainly, you know liberal leftwing coalitions do. So, I think it has to do with two things. One is the past and the other one is race. We've talked about how Trump is a leader of the future, which I think is is a really interesting uh observation that you made, but he's also of course a leader of the past, right? His singular political promise is I will take you back to an imaginary past before all this happened. before all the best bad things happened, before you felt uncomfortable, before you felt scared about what would happen to you, before you felt scared about being alienated from your children. Um, it it's it's going to be warm and cozy and exactly as you imagine the past to have been.

And aesthetically, a representation of that past is classical architecture. Um it's it's an entirely white American history. It's a um you know it's the great monuments and whatever else that um he uh has promised to to bring back. But it's really interesting how the Soviet Union sort of the initial revolutionary movement was artistically experimental and then very quickly with the establishment of terror it turned back into this classical architecture and extremely conservative art and all of it as though as as though the Soviet Union was trying to transport itself back into the 17th and 18th century aesthetically. So I think that's one dimension of it. The other dimension of it is the assertion of a superior race. Right? This is the other dimension of of fascism. And aesthetically it's very present. Right? It's and race can be defined differently. But what we're seeing is white cis men who are in

excellent physical shape. That's what the ideal of this administration looks like. And of course, like every fascist administration, it's not actually led by men who look like that but they want to look like that. And they want to be surrounded by men who look like that.

And, they, appoint, men, who, look, like, that. And, they, appoint, women, who, look, a, very certain way too

right?, But, I, think, it, I, think, we, might we might be falling into a sort of equivalency trap. Uh and I'd be careful here, right? It's not incumbent on whatever we want to call this politics liberal democratic left uh anti-fascist. It's not incumbent on us to produce an equal and opposite aesthetic, right? It's it's actually a much more complicated task, which is to assert an entirely different aesthetic direction, right? which is oriented toward difference and variety and things that you haven't seen before and that is objectively much more difficult. How do you create an ideal of beauty that includes all sorts of things and all kinds of people and a kind of architecture that no one has seen before? I don't know.

So, I, want, to, talk, about, a, different dimension of spectacle that you have written quite a lot about. which is that the constancy of spectacle Trump everywhere all the time, right? That there is a way and the times had an amazing review of Trump's media presence in 2025 and showed that it was he was twice as prevalent as he himself was in 2017. Right. It has gone up from his first term that it kind of crowds everything else out. Tell me a bit about that dimension of using attentional capture as a tool. So, you know, during Trump's first term we used to talk about the shiny object.

Um, and it almost seems quaint now that we thought the things that we thought about as shiny objects, but I remember distinctly that sense of just extreme fatigue because you always felt like you were looking at something that um that was occupying your attention fully, but you had a deep suspicion that there are other things that should also be claiming your attention that may be more important or equally important. And I think that gave rise to a lot of conspiracy thinking um about distractions, right? And I don't think um I I think we've moved past talking about distractions and that's a good thing because there was never I don't think um a strategy of doing one thing to distract from another.

I, agree, with, this., It, was, just, an overall policy of distraction. Well,, they, themselves, are, also distracted

which, I, think, is, an, important, point. They, don't, have, some, attentional, reserve nobody else has.

They, are, running, from, one, thing, to another not watching how the last thing worked out which does create problems for them. I mean there is distraction becomes everybody's condition and it is Trump's fundamental condition as a human being. He cannot hold a topic for a paragraph. He is distracted.

Absolutely., But, he's, also, driven and, he's, driven, to, create, one, attention dominating spectacle after another. Again, that's how he thinks power operates. Uh that's how he asserts his presence in the world. If there isn't a movie to be shot today, then today is a wasted day.

Say, more, about, that., How, how, you, think he thinks power operates. I mean it's again I don't I you know I can't get inside his head so I can observe from the outside. What I see from the outside is that it's it's a non-stop sort of production of um of spectacle of big events of assertion. We have done this today. We have liberated Venezuela. We have protected the American people. All of this obviously in quotes. Um, we have uh we have arrested criminals. We have deported them to El Salvador. We're waging war in the streets of American cities to protect you from crime. Uh and we know, right, we know that um at this point we've gotten used to the fact that um that if Venezuela happened 3 4 days ago, the chances that we're still going to be talking about Venezuela next week are almost zero. Well, I I mean it happened really just days ago still and already today there is a different spectacle that I'm

I'm almost having trouble having this conversation because the thing I am thinking about is the public execution of Renee Good in uh Minnesota and it's a little unclear what happened. their car was in the middle of the street and then the you you watch the federal agents rush the car and she begins executing like a multi-point turn to try to leave and then a agent shoots her dad in the middle of the street and the Trump administration is saying she was trying to run them over and you can very easily see that she was not trying to run everybody over. She was parked first.

They run at her and she tries to leave and not even speed out, just leave. And it is a spectacle of its own. And it is a kind of thing they've always been creating the conditions to see happen. I'm not saying they intended for this to happen at the top, but everybody has predicted things like this happening, myself included. And it feels like a message to every protester. I I'm just curious how you have understood her killing this moment, what it what it mean, what what its meaning is.

Yeah., Um I think this is a huge event, right, for lack of a better word. Um, which I also feel is important to say because in one sense the spectacle of a driver being executed um in an American street is not unfamiliar, right? Um, it actually happens all the time. Uh, police shoot black men in their cars with stunning regularity. What was different here was that it wasn't police, it was ICE and the person that they killed was a white woman uh and not a black man. So, this is another one of those instances where we've sort of been on this descent and then fell off a a cliff. And the particular cliff is you know Trump has been for almost a year now talking in military terms and war terms about American cities. has deployed ICE as a military force. Uh or not actually I shouldn't say as a military force as his own paramilitary force which is another essential component of a fascist dictatorship is

to have a paramilitary force that reports directly to the president that doesn't have independent authority which is effectively what ICE is. and ICE has been recruiting thugs all over the country and swelling its ranks. And Trump has talked about the protesters uh against ICE in particular in Portland, not in Minneapolis where this happened, but um uh as criminals, as extremely dangerous, as people that war should be waged against. So the stage has been set for this execution for nearly a year. It's almost surprising that this didn't happen earlier.

But now that it's happened um this you know what happens as autotocracy establishes itself is that this space available for for action shrinks very rapidly. And you know I talk about this a lot when I when I do public speaking. People ask me "What should we do?" And I say "Well do something because whatever you can do today, you're not going to be able to do tomorrow." Uh, so act where you can act. And one of the places where people have been able to act is an ice watch uh and protect protecting their neighbors against ICE.

it hasn't been terribly effective, but I think as an organizing mechanism and as as sort of a community level um action and as protest, it has been extraordinarily effective. Right? It's what's really brought people together to protect their common values and and their neighbors. And that may no longer be possible. that's what this execution signals or the danger of you engaging that kind of activism has just grown exponentially. Well, what I was thinking about when you said that and when you were sort of thinking through the ways in which it is or is not different than you know, the black men who are shot in their cars is that as much as the administration is claiming this was a form of law enforcement violence she was threatening the officers and they had to act to defend their lives.

And again you can watch the video. This was in my view political violence. It was state repression. It was an act against civil disobedience or resistance to what they are doing. It is being functionally defended in at least somewhat those terms. I agree with you when you say this is a huge event. You know, there's this favorite uh journalistic cliche or um or political cliche, you know, this is not us,

but, of, course,, this, is, us,, right?, Um this is us now. Uh and it's very significant that this was carried out by ICE and not by the National Guard because this propaganda is not just this is what we do. It's this is what we do. Join us. But the other thing that's happening is the way that we analyze and frame this administration uh and compare it to historical precedent. There are certain things that we have come to consider unthinkable. Right? Concentration camps are unthinkable. Fascism is unthinkable. These are words that we try to avoid using because they are by definition hyperbole. And part of the reason that they are hyperbole by definition is because we've said, "Okay that only happens um in this past that we have set aside from um from our lived reality. And so if this is happening in our lived reality, if if if alligator Alcatres is being built in this country now, then either we're

living in a country that's building a concentration camp or it's not a concentration camp. If protesters are being executed by paramilitary forces in the streets of the city, then either we're living through fascism or this is not this is not fascism. and um and that choice is so stark and so desperate.

One, of, the, things, that, I, found, very, um disturbing among many things about the way the administration has acted after Good's killing. So Trump posted a video of the Renee Good shooting on Truth Social and he said the video showed Good was quote obviously a professional agitator who again quote violently willfully and viciously ran over the ICE officer and Ox. You could see people arguing over this and you know analyzing the frame by frame. Um, but I think there's also something about this moment where you have this video and people can't even agree on the reality of it. But then secondarily, and this picks up on something you've talked about here how often you hear the administration describing citizens, constituents as a domestic enemy within political opposition as something I mean judges as, you know, I remember the administration describing a judge as a legal insurrectionist, right?

The the real insurrectionist, the people who from the capital on January 6th they got pardoned. But but now there's this language that anybody trying to protest etc. the the Trump administration is the enemy needs to be dealt, with,, you, know,, at least, as, of, the internal logic of this looks by force. And and when that happens, they're not going to investigate or say this is a great tragedy. We need to see what happened., They're, going to, say, you, were the enemy and we were right to kill you. Totalitarian leaders need to wage wars.

And sometimes they wage wars externally. More often they wage wars internally or both. And they they always designate an enemy within. Trump did it as soon as he assumed office. His main enemy within uh were immigrants. But the and protesters, right? But the but the circle the or the the the number of the enemy within has to expand constantly cuz that's the only way that we you can wage war continuously and the war needs to escalate. And that's that's what we're seeing right? It was it was unthinkable until it happened that a white presumably middle class protester would be executed on camera in in broad daylight in an American city. And now that it's happened, it's the sort of thing that can happen here.

How, does, all, this, look, similar, or different to you from what you saw in Russia? It's so much faster and it's so much faster not just than Russia but than Hungary than Israel than any country that I have covered that I think we can say has become autocratic. It's comparable to the speed at which countries that experienced an actual violent revolution um have transformed uh that I have studied but not not lived through. But I think that this this really is you know we can use some of the tools from uh particularly from the electoral autotocracies in Eastern Europe to understand some of what's happened here but I don't have any tools for understanding the rate at which this country is being transformed.

Do, you, think, that, the, rate, and, the, speed of it also reflects a fragility within it? And and one way I mean that is very famously, Putin, has, or, at least, had, but still has I believe very very high approval ratings. Trump does not. Um in the 2025 elections Republicans got routed everywhere they competed. Some of the spectacles we're talking about I think Venezuela might over time turn into this too. Like they don't have a plan for Venezuela. If it goes easily and we never think about it again that'll be fine for them. But if it ends up in civil strife and other things and we do need to have American boots on the ground as Trump has said he is open to people may not like that. Liberation Day was constructed very much as a spectacle with Trump, you know, with this big poster board of tariffs on islands full of penguins. And the tariffs have been politically quite disastrous for the

administration., I've, I I, often, say, to people that if anything is going to save American democracy, it's Donald Trump's tariff regime. There is a lot of speed here. And sometimes the speed to me feels like it is covering up for a hollowess. They have to move so fast because they actually have not built the underlying consensus, support infrastructure but then they're not planning for what happens after. They're not ready for it. They are also just reacting to the situations they create. And if you look at Donald Trump's polling, if you look at recent elections, not effectively for their political standing

I, don't, think, I, share, your, optimism,, but I hope you're right. Uh, and you know your optimism is also tempered, but um but I think I'm more pessimistic than this. Um, I think that uh well, first of all, I suspect that the reason that they're moving so fast is because Donald Trump is old. I think he feels a particular urgency. Um I think when Putin came to power he felt like he had his entire life ahead of him and he was going to move slowly and deliberately not in the not in the deliberative sense of the word but um but with intention.

Um and Trump has to ram this through uh very very fast. But I also think that speed generally benefits the autocrat. Democracy is very slow. the one way and I think this is this is how they've hacked the system and it is an inherent fragility but it's the inherent fragility of democracy right um institutions even protect themselves very slowly right look at USAD now we know that there wasn't necessarily a plan to completely de demolish USAD when they first went after it but within a few weeks it functionally destroyed and you can't just put something back together after it's been destroyed, right? Um especially if there's no political will to do so. So I just think that speed is to his benefit. Um and whether it's covering up holiness is maybe irrelevant. The other is the issue the the other point is the issue of of popularity. And I think we we have a problem here which is that we there are

different kinds of metrics. Um I think there are democratic metrics and there are autocratic metrics. Democratic metrics no longer apply. Do autocratic metrics apply fully? I don't know.

Well,, say, more, when, you, say, democratic metrics no longer apply. Right., So,, um,, for, example,, we, talk about how Venezuela uh, when it goes all wrong and their boots on the ground and and American soldiers are dying and and nothing is working as intended and the oil wells are not sprouting fountains of gold that's uh that fund this whole operation and enrich the United States. when none of that is happening, does that have consequences, for example, for the midterm elections? Right? That would be a democratic metrics. And I very much doubt that it will have consequences for a couple of reasons. One is um what's h what's happened to the media universe and how completely different the pictures that um say MAGA voters for lack of a better term see and you and I see are and um will people who need to see what's happening in Venezuela have any idea about what's happening there? Will

people who don't read the New York Times have any idea what's happening there? I doubt it. And the other has to do with the elections themselves, right? Um we tend to think of elections in black and white terms. Either they're free and clear are there either they're free and fair or they're not. But actually there are many ways to degrade elections. And some of those ways have been operative in this country for many many years, much longer than Trump has even been a political actor. And that has speeded up greatly over the last year. And so we're going to be to to see this fractured media universe and a hugely degraded election uh later this year. And the combination of those two things. Let me try to take the other side of this. I don't love talking in terms of optimism and pessimism because I don't actually consider myself

optimistic., I'm, more, trying, to, have, the best picture of reality that I can. But if I were to take the other side, and I do think I I see this somewhat differently. I am not yet seeing things that would make me think that there has been some deterioration either in the media universe such that there's no capacity for backlash because nobody knows what's happening. And in fact when I look at non-align media, Joe Rogan or Flagrant or things like that, I seem to see a turn on Trump, right? the sort of bro podcasters and and and people just being like a little more upset about the immigration and and not sure of what they're seeing. And I mean we don't know how the 2026 elections will go and so, you know, maybe maybe it'll go the way you're saying, but to the extent we have signals yet the signals seem very very bad for Republican performance in in elections starting with the Wisconsin Supreme

Court election, but then of course moving through to the New Jersey and New York uh city um and Virginia elections uh moving through to the Prop 50 redistricting ballot initiative in in California moving through to every House and so on special election where Democrats have been overperforming by about 14 points in one of the analyses I've seen. Although there are different ways of thinking about this and different ways of measuring overperformance. But I guess I would ask why the 2025 elections which were so uniformly against the regime haven't made you rethink this somewhat.

Well,, I, mean, I, I, think, I, think, you're right. I have my own heristic um which is that I think everything always gets worse, which doesn't mean it couldn't get better. I think that we've all become accustomed to thinking in a kind of split local federal screen.

A, split, local, federal, screen as, you, know, what, a, lot, of, the, 2025 elections that we're looking at had to do with local politics and um and I think that projecting that onto even how people will vote for their local representatives of Congress is a somewhat risky business, right? because we're, you know, the Trump Mandani voter isn't necessarily acting uh on their dis disillusionment with with Trump. They're actually their politics are entirely internally consistent. Um and so I um I think that Trump's influence on the midterms will be much greater than the influence that he tried to exert on. to to what extent do you think their politics the the Trump Manni voter the Trump AOC voter of which there are some they're not I want to say actually that many um but they exist but how much are those not highly attached I don't like how much everything costs voters and the thing as I was saying I

was saying I was I'm not even joking that I think Trump's tariffs and economic mismanagement and his his evident in attention to cost, right? And you see him beginning to absorb this as a political threat, saying talk about the affordability hoax, right? How much do those voters now turn on Trump, which is why his poll numbers are bad? I mean you have economic sentiment at levels that look like the Great Recession, you know, that look more like uh moments of economic rupture. And so when I think about those voters, they often seem to me to be anti-system. this whole thing isn't working for me voters, not voters who are kind of Trump cultists but are willing to support, you know, a charismatic democratic socialist.

Right?, So, that's, that's, really, the, great question, right? Um, and I always think back to my series of interviews with this great Russian sociologist, um, Lev Kov, who would show me these graphs of Putin's, uh, subjective economic well-being and Putin's popularity. And for about the first, I think, dozen years of uh, Putin being in power, they moved in concert, right? So subjective economic well-being dips, Putin's popularity dips. It rises, Putin's popularity rises, which is normal. And then subjective economic well-being takes a dive and Putin's popularity skyrockets.

And his interpretation was that the this is when people accepted a trade-off right? um I you're going to be poor, but in exchange for being poor, you're going to belong to something great. And that's the totalitarian trade-off. People made it in the Soviet Union. People make it all over the world. Are people going to make this make it in this country? That's what Trump is offering them right? Um he's going to wage war. He's he's going to I don't know whether he's going to try to take Green Greenland or Cuba next, but but this is going to be an imperial politics for the next year and politics of expansion politics of greatness like everything that we've been seeing, but much more aggressive um on the global scale.

Are enough Americans going to accept that trade-off? Let me ask you a question that actually does relate then to Russia on that because you know it so much infinitely better than I ever will. But certainly the conventional wisdom in America on the politics of Russia under Putin has been that there is a dimension of national revenge and restoration. That the political psyche of Russia was that we were a great power. We were the the world spanning globe spanning Soviet Union and now we have been humiliated and contained and shrunken and the deal at some point Putin offered was you will not be rich but Russia will again be powerful. The American psyche as I read it and also as I read in the 2024 election specifically is almost the opposite.

Americans feel America is powerful. It is powerful and what they want is to be richer. And what they were mad at in many ways and what Trump very effectively potentiated in the electorate was why is Joe Biden getting us involved endlessly in Ukraine and in Israel and Gaza and why doesn't anything seem to be happening here? And what Trump said was that we're going to chill out on America's role in the world. stop it with all this endless engagement with you know, foreign quagmires and I'm gonna make you rich again like me. And now we're moving into foreign quagmires and domestic fighting and, you know people are upset about political division again and you're seeing your countrymen being murdered on national television and you're not getting richer. That you're not part of something. It's just more of people doing things that are not in your interest. when I talk to people on the right, that is the vulnerability they

see for themselves. Um,, but, it, it, reflects, maybe, at least, in this telling a difference in what Americans were worried about and what Russians in the period in which Putin was rising were worried about. But you would know better how fair or unfair that characterization is.

I, think, it's, fair, as, far, as, it, goes., But I think what's interesting about and instructive about Putin is that for the first decade uh of of Putin's reign, he really offered Russians an authoritarian, not a totalitarian bargain. And the authoritarian bargain is you're going to live better. you're going to you know your your life is going to improve immeasurably as long as you stay out of politics and focus on your private life. And this was a politics that suited the oil boom that you know it was a moment of unprecedented economic prosperity in Russia.

He was accumulating power while Russians were eating better, living better refernishing their apartments, uh buying new apartments, and generally just enjoying a level of well-being that nobody in that generation had ever enjoyed. And once that money started running out um Putin offered the totalitarian bargain and Russians accepted it. So the question we're really asking is are Americans at all primed to accept that bargain? Um is it going to have any purchase in this country? Uh you know because Trump's using exactly the same politics he's now saying make America great again. Not in the sense of you're going to be able to afford a bigger house, but in the sense of we're going to take Greenland.

Is that going to get traction? We don't know. Right? And then the next question is if it doesn't get traction is he destroying the democratic mechanisms in this country fast enough that it's not going to matter that it doesn't get traction? So these are just two unanswered questions. You know, I've I've lived most of my life among people who looked to a future and to more more powerful political actors to restore a kind of justice, right? Um, I thought I would someday be in the H writing about the Putin trial. And I think that the the most powerful country in the world uni unilaterally cancelling the moral order is an assault on hope.

I, think, that's, a, place, to, end., Always, a final question. What are three books you'd recommend to the audience? So late last year I spent probably three or four months just reading books about um Israel Palestine and two of them are standouts. One is called Tomorrow's Yesterday.

Mhm. Um, which, I, think, you've, talked, about, on the podcast. The, authors, have, been, on, the, show, if people would like to check that one out.

Right., Um, and, I'm, not, just, saying, it because I really future history. Yeah., We, say, aa, and, Rob, Mali

and, um, one, of, the, incredible, things about that book is just how well written it is. It's notautifully.

Yeah., I, never, expected, a, book, written, by two policy two people together but also two policy people to be so beautiful. Uh the other is a book that after I read it got the national book award which is uh one day everyone will have always been against this. And then I just read a galley of an autofiction novel by a writer named Harry Clark. Uh and it's called The Hill. Uh and it's a book uh about uh a girl who is raised by a mother who is serving a life sentence in prison. And it's just an absolutely extraordinarily beautiful and intelligent novel.

Masha,, thank, you, very, much. Thank, you.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Venezuela, Renee Good and Trump’s ‘Assault on Hope’ | The Ezra Klein Show"?

Ezra Klein (Guest), Masha Gessen (Guest).

What is "Venezuela, Renee Good and Trump’s ‘Assault on Hope’ | The Ezra Klein Show" about?

The discussion explores how the Trump administration employed "propaganda of the deed"—a strategy rooted in anarchist thought—to create spectacle rather than engage in traditional governance, as exemplified by actions in Venezuela and high-profile military operations. This approach prioritized dramatic, attention-grabbing events over careful planning and policy, highlighting a shift away from…

What is mentioned in this The Ezra Klein Show episode?

6 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including World War Two, Masha Gesson, Obama administration, Tomorrow is Yesterday, One Day Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This, The Hill. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Venezuela, Renee Good and Trump’s ‘Assault on Hope’ | The Ezra Klein Show"?

The episode runs 1 h 7 min; the transcript is about 9,857 words in 92 timestamped sections.

More from The Ezra Klein Show

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 24, 2026.