Preserving Democracy (with Garry Kasparov)
01:11:16 Share

From CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network, welcome to Stay Tuned. I'm Preet Bharara. And I think there will be kind of disillusionment with Trump by many voters in 2026. I don't think he can create miracles with his economy. I think the inflation may be just curbed, but it will not go away. So there will be opportunities, but people will have to see, oh, there's an alternative. That's Garry Kasparov, one of the greatest chess players of all time.

He's also a prominent human rights activist, a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin, and the chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative, a nonprofit dedicated to defending liberal democracies worldwide. Kasparov, who grew up in the Soviet Union, has been warning about the autocratic dangers of a second Donald Trump term. Now he joins me to discuss Trump's plans to consolidate power, the urgent need for change within the Democratic Party, and strategies for surviving political exhaustion. That's coming up.

Stay tuned.

Listen today at Schwab.com slash Washington Wise. That's Schwab.com slash Washington Wise. I'm Ashley Seaford, and I host Into the Mix, a Ben & Jerry's podcast about joy and justice produced with Vox Creative. For the past few years, I've seen a lot of hand-wringing about Governor Ron DeSantis' agenda to end what he calls woke indoctrination. But we wanted to know, what does that mean?

And how does this agenda actually affect the people living and working there, especially those who have benefited from the diversity, equity, and inclusion programs that DeSantis' policies would uproot? Check out the latest miniseries on Into the Mix, a Ben & Jerry's podcast. Subscribe now. Now let's get to your questions.

This question comes in an email from Christopher, who asks, if Matt Gaetz is not confirmed as Attorney General, is he able to reclaim his recently resigned seat in Congress, or will he be unemployed? Well, that's a funny question, I guess, if the issue wasn't so unfunny to begin with. No, once he resigned his seat in Congress in the House of Representatives, he remains out of that office. He remains unemployed unless he can find another gig. There are no backseas after you resign from the House.

Two other points I would make. One, if he were able to get back into the House of Representatives in some fashion, that would definitely cause the ethics report that's been the subject of a lot of controversy and a lot of people want to see it.

I'm unclear by the time you listen to this, whether it will have been released or a decision will have been made about its release. But if he comes back to the House, that sucker is getting out. But in any event, he can't come back to the House. The second point I would make is, although Matt Gaetz wouldn't be able to come back to his House seat, there is a sort of interesting prospect of his returning to Congress to the upper chamber.

the United States Senate. If Marco Rubio gets confirmed to be Secretary of State, I guess it is within Ron DeSantis' power, the governor of Florida, it's within his power to appoint someone to replace Marco Rubio for a period of time. And I guess he could appoint Matt Gaetz.

This question comes in a tweet or a post on X from Mark, who writes, what is required to eliminate an entire federal department such as the Department of Education? Can a president just do this or is Congress involved? Well, you know, this is a question that comes up every so often. And obviously it's on your mind because the Department of Education is at least rhetorically in the line of fire of President-elect Donald Trump. It's not the first time he has talked about eliminating the Department of Education. He talked about that in his first term.

But very recently, he said, I say it all the time. I'm dying to get back to do this. We will ultimately eliminate the Federal Department of Education. Now, your question is a good one. And depending on how you feel about the Department of Education, it's either good news or bad news. The Department of Education was established by an act of Congress in 1979.

and is funded by Congress. Therefore, an executive order or the waving of a magic wand or Donald Trump wishing it so or even saying that Mexico can pay for it will not on its own eliminate the Department of Education. It will take a vote in both houses, a law would need to be passed and signed by the President of the United States. Given that most Democrats, likely every Democrat, would oppose the dissolution of the Department of Education,

it would be a very uphill battle to do so, given that it would require a super majority of 60 votes in the Senate. So that even though Republicans will control both chambers of Congress in the new term, there are still fewer than 60 Republican senators. So I think it's safe to say something like this wouldn't pass. By the way, it is not unprecedented, even in recent times, to eliminate or change or merge or reform departments that have significant power and authority. Remember, it was only after 9-11 that the Department of Homeland Security

was created, which rejiggered a lot of departments and agencies, including the Secret Service, because the country felt on a bipartisan basis that we were not adequately prepared for 9-11. I will also say that as a general policy matter, there are lots of departments in government, including the Department of Defense, which is also the subject of some discussion about this, that are badly in need.

of reform, where there's waste and fraud and abuse. And it's all for the good to talk about ways to eliminate that waste, fraud, and abuse or inefficiency. I think it's a good thing to focus on those things. But this idea of eliminating departments wholesale, to my mind, is cheap and lazy sloganeering along the lines of people who say, abolish the FBI or defund the police.

One final point. Even though it is true that Trump cannot by fiat eliminate an entire department established by statute, like the Department of Education, there are probably a lot of things that he can do to undermine the mission and denigrate that department. We'll see what his nominee, Linda McMahon, has in mind and what she does if she gets that job. This question comes in an email from Christina. Preet, what do you make of Alvin Bragg's letter to Judge Mershon about Trump's conviction in Manhattan?

So this is a great and interesting question, and I think it's a complicated issue. And the letter that Alvin Bragg sent in the last couple of days will not be satisfactory to the minds of a lot of people.

To just give you some background and get you up to speed, you'll recall that of the four criminal cases against Donald Trump, only one actually made it to trial. And there was a conclusion to that trial, and there was a 34-count guilty verdict. And that was some months ago. And Trump was supposed to proceed to sentencing, and that has gotten adjourned for various reasons, multiple times.

Including, because of the kind of unexpected Supreme Court ruling, expanding the scope of immunity and lessening the scope of liability for people who behaved badly while being sitting presidents of the United States, like Donald Trump. So there's a lot of legal wrangling, a lot of stuff that needs to go on.

And in the meantime, Donald Trump has gotten reelected president of the United States. He's not serving yet. He's in a transitional period. But when he becomes president, there's the question of the operative value of the Office of Legal Counsel opinion that we've talked about a million times on this show, so you're familiar with it, that essentially says a sitting president cannot be distracted from his commander-in-chief duties and the other responsibilities he has that are very, very important by having to deal with a criminal prosecution.

No one has ever answered the question before of what happens if you get convicted before you're the president, but there's still some proceedings that have to take place after. Can you go to prison? Can you be sentenced? What are the issues relating to your release and probation and parole and everything else? So Alvin Bragg, in response to a motion by the Trump folks relating to the Supreme Court opinion and his reelection to the presidency, probably had only a couple of choices given the reality of the situation.

Choice one was to consent to dropping the case, making it go away. And option two was some version of pausing the case, pausing sentencing for what will appear to be an eternity, four years, so that the jury conviction stands, the record stands, the verdict remains in place, but the ultimate judgment about how much time, if any, Trump should spend in prison or what fine he should pay or what other penalties he might have to face gets delayed in favor of his time as

as president for the second time. Here's how Alvin Bragg's office put it, quote, the people deeply respect the office of the president, are mindful of the demands and obligations of the presidency, and acknowledge that defendant's inauguration will raise unprecedented legal questions. We also deeply respect the fundamental role of the jury in our constitutional system. So to use in this instance, in this extraordinary instance, a very overused metaphor, Alvin Bragg's office is kind of between a rock and a hard place.

It's especially frustrating to people who would like to see full accountability and closure that uniquely among the four cases brought against Donald Trump that were criminal, Alvin Bragg's office was able to go to trial and was able to get a timely verdict well in advance of the election. But other circumstances, including the Supreme Court's opinion and Donald Trump's re-election, have stymied that effort.

Now, I said earlier in my answer to the question that Alvin Bragg had essentially two choices. I guess he had a third choice, which would have been to press for sentencing in the ordinary course. But I think that was probably not perceived to be realistic, given the situation he found himself in, given the legal landscape, and given what probably Judge Merchant has been signaling.

In any event, there's been more back and forth about scheduling between the parties, who will file what brief when, but I expect we will know sometime in the next few weeks, in a ruling by Dr. Mershon, how this will play out or whether it's over. I'll be right back with my conversation with Gary Kasparov. Support for Stay Tuned comes from Quince.

Ever had that moment where you wake up to the cool, refreshing morning air drifting in through an open window, but you're so warm in bed that you hardly even notice? Quince is here to make that blissful, cozy feeling an everyday luxury with their new bedding collection. Their ultra-plush sheets, pillows, shams, and duvets are made from elevated materials like European linen and organic cotton to give you that irresistible five-star hotel feel.

Plus, just like their clothing, Quince bedding is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. I tried Quince bedding myself and it was super comfortable and breathable. You can turn up the luxury when you turn in with Quince. Go to quince.com slash tuned to get free shipping and 365 day returns on your next order. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash tuned for free shipping and 365 day returns.

quince.com slash tuned.

Their journal features independent, stylish, and rousing essays from the next generation of writers, whose work is shaping the intellectual and creative lifeblood of today's culture and politics. From Nobel Prize winners to scholars to poets from around the world, each issue of Liberties will introduce you to a collage of voices. Novelist Mario Vargas Llosa calls Liberties "a triumph for freedom of thought," and actor Ralph Fiennes said, "Liberties opened my mind to subjects unfamiliar and points of view unexpected."

I am hooked. Engage with some of today's brightest minds with Liberties. Subscribe now at libertiesjournal.com forward slash Preet or find Liberties at your favorite bookseller. That's libertiesjournal.com forward slash Preet. Support for Stay Tuned comes from Found. If you run a small business, you know that how it started and how it's going are two very different things.

You probably launched your company with a dream of making people's lives better. You designed a new product or connected minds from all over the world or made an app that does something very specific.

Everything was ahead of you. The future was bright. Now, though, your days are spent managing payroll, filing expense reports, and tracking the financial picture of your business. If you want to get back to the reasons you started this dream in the first place, you might want to check out Found. Found is business banking designed for small business owners just like you. Found lets you manage your financial tasks effortlessly, all in one easy-to-use app.

The platform can help you manage your money, track your spending, invoice your clients, and even handle your taxes so you can focus on running your business. You can try Found for free at found.com slash Preet.

Chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov has lived under a repressive regime. Today, he uses his experience to highlight ways to strengthen democratic values, especially when they're under attack.

Gary Kasparov, welcome back to the show. Thank you for inviting me. So before we get to all the events in America and around the world, I just wanted to, on a personal note, mention to you, because I don't know that I had, the last time I did a live podcast with a studio audience on stage was in New York about two and a half years ago, and you were one of the guests.

And I've often commented on the program that my kids are very not easily impressed, certainly not by their father. But my youngest child, who was then, I guess, 17, is a chess aficionado and was so thrilled to meet you. You're an inspiration to him. The fact that you showed up made me look a little bit cool that we're friends. My son thought maybe his dad is not so bad either. And you were very, very kind to take a lot of pictures with him. So I thank you for that. Good to hear. Good. So how's the chess game lately?

Look, I do not play chess professionally. I'm always busy promoting the game, working with rising stars through Kasper of Chess Foundation. And lately I played the exhibition event in St. Louis, Missouri. I'm still kicking even the top players who are 30, 35, sometimes 40 years younger than myself. But it's

It's just a sideshow. I'm an amateur. Yeah. Still remember how to move the pieces, but my concentration level is not up to the real challenge. Well, the other work that you're doing that's very important is advocating for human rights and advocating for democracy. And unfortunately, in other fields, there are no strict rules as in the game of chess. No, there are not. And we've talked about that before. So you were not raised in America, but you're a very sort of sharp person.

observer and critic of American politics and a good person to warn America of the ills of autocracy and all sorts of other bad authoritarian trends and regimes. I have a lot of questions to ask you, given what you've written in your commentary on the most recent election. First question is, were you surprised by the Trump victory and its margin? Probably by margin. By the outcome, no. I was really worried.

As you know, I endorse Kamala Harris. Yes. It was not an easy decision because I probably disagreed with her on many things, but I believed that Trump, and still believe Trump is an existential threat to American democracy. And that's why I thought that beating him was the most important, actually the only important thing in these elections. But traveling across the land, and I...

have events and speeches in various parts of this country and talking to people. I mean, my polling data mainly comes from the drivers who took me from the airport to the event. And what I heard in South Carolina, in Wisconsin, in Arizona, in Colorado didn't make me feel comfortable. I could feel that

There was enough anger on the field. And I also could see that the administration, Biden administration, was disconnected with the fox on the ground. And I still hope that the factor of Trump, the Trump himself, could keep the balance on the scales. Because clearly half of the country didn't want to see him coming back and recognizing the dangers of

But even with Trump and with many other things that accompanied Trump's return, the

On the other side, we had inflation, we had immigration, and I think we had, as Sam Harris pointed out very succinctly in one of his latest podcasts, we had the problems of cultural war, the problems of identity politics that have been widely rejected by rural America, particularly

And I still hoped that the balance would tip in the last minute. But I think the campaign that Kamala Harris runs, and I think there's the lack of the understanding of the threat,

I mean, brought us back to 2016. It's not just a painful defeat for democratic party, but it's amazing that the same mistakes that have been made in 2016, the Hillary Clinton campaign, where Trump factor was new. I mean, they have been repeated in 2024 because I believe Trump was beatable. But it's again, it's ended up not just with his victory, but it is

GOP, which is now, you know, on the thumb of Trump, got total control of all aspects of American political life and institutions. What do you say to people who argue, people like you and me and others who ring the alarm bell about a second Trump term and all the things he'll do, and they say, well, he didn't do them in the first term. He didn't eliminate democracy in the first term.

You're just screaming, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, and it's just scare tactics. Look, I've been warning about Trump back in 2015. And again, unfortunately, these warnings and many others about Putin or rise of dictatorship around the globe, they were not heeded by the mainstream media and by public at large.

Trump actually already achieved, even during the first term, many things that I viewed as serious setbacks for democracy. Like what? He normalized many elements of his politics that were before unacceptable.

And I warned back in 2016 that many fundamentals of U.S. democratic system were based on customs, on traditions, on political patterns that were repeated from generation to generations. Nobody did it before. And that's why, you know, you couldn't even imagine how somebody could basically depart from that. Trump did. Trump actually exposed that American democracy was not

based on such a solid foundation as many of us thought because some of the key elements, they were, again, it's a common understanding. We don't do that. And the first term is,

was not as devastating because Trump won as he thought himself accidentally. Nobody expected him to win. He didn't have a team, he didn't have a plan, and that's why he relied during his first term mostly on traditional Republicans. So when you look at the choice of the Trump cabinet in 2016-2017 that he did before inauguration in 2017,

You found people that had their own opinions, like General Mattis, for instance, or others that he brought in. And Trump's factor was important, but not totally dominating.

His picks for 2025, you know, this transition cycle, they're very different. And they send a clear signal that Trump is aiming for privatization of power because he brings his loyalists. And when you look at some key positions like Pentagon, DOD, DOJ, justice and intelligence, I mean, it's not just about qualification of people that he suggested, but it's just about his, you know,

There is cronies. It's very clear that Trump has a plan. And by the way, it's not just one person on top. It's not just Matt Gaetz as head of the department. When you look at numbers two and three, Trump is planning to bring his personal lawyers.

So I think overall, we could see that Trump concentrates so much power in his hands that I'm not sure that the democratic institutions could resist the pressure from him when he starts dismantling the system of checks and balances. So what I'm worrying is it's not like dictatorship in its ideological form, but it's more like oligarchy. That's what we saw in Russia, for instance, in the 90s.

where you have power concentrated in the hands of few. And the fact is that the largest private contractor of the government, Elon Musk, could be in the position to decide how government's going to spend the money. That tells you that the traditional system of checks and balances may not function during Trump's second term. In some ways, I guess you could argue that the voters are allowing themselves to be manipulated. You, in talking about the cabinet,

responded to somebody who tweeted, Trump nominated Gates for AG because he wants Gates to be his AG, not complicated Occam's plunger play on Occam's razor. And you said, yes, in agreement. Please no more 4D chess silliness. Clowns, crooks, and vile toadies are also useful distractions from the real business of consolidating power and money. Are we falling for distractions?

again and again and again? And are we being surprised again and again and again when we shouldn't be? And how are we not supposed to be when he does things like this? Some of these things are distractions. Some are illusions. But it's about directions. It's about the trend. And trend is very clear. The power will be concentrated in the hands of very few. And while we see some reasonable names suggested for top positions like Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State,

The question is whether Rubio will be calling the shots or will everything will be dictated by the Trumps in a circle that will be in charge of all the key issues without even having formal positions in the government. Because typically, you expect the other brands of the government to oppose Trump.

But I've – Not here. I've doubts that the Republican Senate will have a spine to oppose many of Trump's nominations. I think they will probably push some. I would be very surprised if Getz is approved, is confirmed on the Senate floor. Maybe Hex is. Maybe Tulsi. But again, there are so many of them.

So you have at least four candidates that are totally, in my view, absolutely unacceptable. It's RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Hesges, and Getz. But even if we find four Republicans to vote against some of them, I don't think they will vote against all four. So which means some of them, some of these people, you can probably bet your money on it, will take their positions. And I don't know

Which one is worse, you know, gets as the AG or Tulsi Gabbard, you know, Russian asset, an apologist for dictators from the world as the head of American intelligence? My vote is maybe even though the DOJ is in my wheelhouse.

It's possibly RFK, given how much damage we can do to public health. Look, but it's probably that will be the case. But that means that American intelligence will be led by someone. No, you wish you didn't have to pick and choose. Exactly. But that's a problem. I may suggest that Elon Musk will look at the DNI and probably cut this office and just outsource it to Putin directly.

So just to definitely save money and probably will be less damaging because we'll know exactly who's running American intelligence.

and not having any illusions. So the dangers are multiple, and I even don't know where to look at because, again, it's just weird. Trump is not yet in the Oval Office, but we're already seeing the kind of obedience across the field. We saw what's happening with Washington Post, with LA Times. So while I may even approve some of the actions suggested by Trump, again, I was always opposed to the idea

the Vogue policies. But the problem is, you know, it's you pushed one side, you know, and then the pendulum is swinging all the way to the opposite side. And it could go too far. And the mechanism at one point can be broken. Do you see any hope of adult leadership and supervision and pushback in the fact that the Senate majority leader, it was John Thune, even though it was by secret ballot and not somebody who's even closer to Donald Trump or...

Is that just a small thing? Look, it's encouraging that it was not Rick Scott who immediately said, you know, when he declared his candidacy that he would support recess appointments. Because I believe that Trump will try to use recess appointments to avoid confirmation hearings. But still, you know, he would need support of the senators. I

Toon offers some hope. It's the, among these three, three candidates, he was the best. And the fact is that majority of Republican senators in a secret ballot. It had to be a secret ballot, didn't it? Exactly. Secret ballot. Yeah. Yeah. But now question is, you know, will they be courageous to actually to say something against Trump's nominees openly on the floor?

Again, I think there will be enough, you know, votes to torpedo two, maximum three of Trump nominees.

So we definitely can count on Murkowski, on Collins. Collins is facing re-elections in 2026. So I doubt very much that she can support all Trump nominees. So she has to show to her voters in Maine, which is definitely not a red state. And she will express great concern. Yeah. Tillis also facing re-elections, the North Carolina senator. I think, again, it's...

I would say it's a purple state, so leading red, but he has to also demonstrate his good taste. McConnell, I mean, I think McConnell knows that he owns this country big. He could have killed Trump's political future by just adding 10 votes and he's included. And I'm sure if he would vote for impeachment in 2021, that would be the end. So he would lead enough Republicans with him.

So I think he might also join a vote to the chorus. And we'll see if some of the Republicans like Mullen, just, you know, the conservative Christian right, would oppose Gates because of moral reasons. So again, I think there will be enough votes to torpedo again two or three candidates. But

But again, even if it happens and we'll all be celebrating, oh, you see, Getz is not there. Yes, but number two, number three will be Trump's people. And by the way, then there will be someone else that Trump will suggest who will definitely go through because again, it's 53 Republicans. You can't oppose every nominee. They can't oppose Trump all the time. I want to go back to this concept

of surprise that you have commented on in part, because what I want to talk about today is how we're supposed to, if you have a certain point of view, like I have, and you have overlapping point of view, how we're supposed to deal and respond to, to Trump actions, Trump appointments, Trump policies. And you, you wrote quote, the ability of demagogues and autocrats to surprise, to create a new scandal every day is their superpower. Yeah.

It diminishes attention to the previous day's transgressions and normalizes them. It slowly numbs the senses, including outrage. Values are the only defense. Hold them dear." End quote. Talk about this surprise and how one should be able to inoculate oneself to that. Look, I think the only way is to create an alternative. I think that's the problem is that the Democratic Party...

was definitely not in touch with Fox on the ground. And elections was quite close because of Donald Trump. I had no doubt that if Republicans dominated anyone else, it would be much bigger margin of victory. So what I learned from the game of chess, you know, from my professional career, so you lost the game.

You lost the battle, you have to analyze what's happened. And clearly, this is the party had no game plan. And the fact is that Joe Biden wanted to run again. I mean, that was a disastrous decision, which, by the way, helped Trump to avoid the argument of the opposition, especially Nikki Haley, who tried to prove that Trump was unelectable.

And I think Trump was unelectable. Against a good Democrat, Trump would be beaten. So it's not that he was invincible. It's now he pretends that he was the winner. Actually, he won by default because Democrats failed to come up with a good, strong alternative. And again, while I endorse Kamala Harris, so I understood that she was definitely not the best candidate. And that's probably an understatement. Who is better, Gary?

Look, anybody. I mean, this is basically, first, you know, you had to recognize that Joe Biden got a mandate in 2024, four years. Nobody expected him to stay there just for eight years. And he was not in the position. He was too feeble. People could see it. So he could have stepped down and paved the road for the primaries. But let's say, okay, all mistakes being made. So there were two fundamental problems, I think two fundamental mistakes that have been made. One is I believe the Democrats had to go for open convention.

Yes, it's mess, but it's democracy. That would be a very strong message to American public that we are just defending democracy. The fact is that Kamala Harris was just, you know, offered to this position, nominated by a backdoor deal. I mean, I think that's also undermining the argument that Democrats were defending democracy with, you know, with a small d. So that was one. But can I just ask, do you really think that working class voters...

in the suburbs and in rural areas who might have been persuaded by a different Democrat, really voted for Trump because Democrats weren't sufficiently embracing democracy through an open convention? Look, again, we're talking about really small numbers of voters that had to change their minds. And by the way, many didn't show up. If you look at the numbers, sheer numbers, is that she lost many votes. I mean, Trump's still, you know, way below Biden numbers in 2020.

But many people didn't show up because they were not comfortable. And again, it's a tough choice. So a lot of people just voted for her because they believe Trump was a great danger for democracy. While again, disagreeing with Democrats on many issues. But some people couldn't actually cross this river. Yeah, look, some Muslim voters, Muslim American voters in Michigan and elsewhere,

fed up with the Biden administration's policy in the Middle East to the tune of, I think, tens of thousands, if not more, also voted for Trump, even though there's a very decent argument that that was not a vote in their self-interest either. I don't know how you explain all of that. No, look, it's, yeah, it's, that's, that's another story. Actually, we can spend, you know, considerable amount of time debating how people vote to gain their own interest. But let's not forget that many of these communities are run by very conservative clerics.

who are, yes, they say they are pro-Palestinian, they care about Middle East, but I think they care more about total control of their communities. And when you look at the policies, just undermining the rights of women and they do many other things that are not aligned with Democratic Party policies. I think there was a trend that was pointing in the opposite direction. So that's why...

I think from the leaders' perspectives, those who influenced these tens of thousands of votes, Middle East was just an official reason that they presented. But otherwise, they felt having more in common with Trump's bigotry than with Democrats. But again, this is still – yeah, it's Michigan. It's a key state. But there were many other places where, again –

We knew the country was split and it's just, it was working on the margins. It's not that, you know, she could have, or any Democratic candidate could have, you know, landslide victory. But it's like, you know, piece by piece, you know, the step by step, you know, cheap by cheap. So Trump carved here and there and then it just, his advantage was growing because Democrats paid no attention to these groups and

And while I understood the problem of dealing with Muslim voters in Michigan, but obviously choice of vice president, I think was the final mistake that she made. And by the way, I believe that

If she was nominated, I think that's the people who were behind this decision. They had to make sure that the vice president candidate would be someone to help her winning because that was the goal of the elections. It's not about how we would run the country. It was about winning. It's about to stop Donald Trump. You have to recognize that was the core of these elections.

and preserving democracy in America. That's why many people voted for her, who otherwise would have voted for a Republican candidate, if not for Donald Trump. And, I mean, choosing her...

waltz over Shapiro, I think was the biggest blunder that I think probably cost our elections. Yeah, I don't know that I necessarily agree with that, but I take the point. Why disagree? Because it's the, just let's see, I'm curious because I'm talking about, you know, winning or losing. So I'll segue into the next question I was going to ask that answers your question a little bit. Lots of smart people, yourself included,

Do all this analysis of policy positions and who is meant to feel comfortable or not comfortable. And people vote against their self-interest, but also people vote in favor of their self-interest. It depends on the issues. It depends on where you are. It depends on who your neighbors are. And there's an argument in this time that all that analysis doesn't matter so much because what really matters in this moment, not just in America, but globally, that people are sick and fed up with the establishment.

And anyone who's an incumbent is at risk of annihilation politically, which happened around the world. And in particular, if you are a charismatic rebel and you invade against the establishment, you're going to get votes. And that includes not just Donald Trump, but also Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, AOC. And there are very interesting overlaps of voters who you might think, based on our models, would vote one way or another.

But the category of person that will vote for both AOC and Donald Trump defies all categorization of policy and self-interest, does it not?

No, I don't think so. Because you actually, this is the answer to the question is in the prelude to the question, because when you talked about the trend against elites. So we have voters from the far left supporting Donald Trump. And I'm not surprised because it's about, you know, attacking the mainstream. And somehow AOC and Trump, not necessarily these two individuals, but as the phenomenons, they need each other.

Because that's, they have common interests. Right, but part of the point I was making was Josh Shapiro was another establishment politician, a very impressive one.

George Shapiro is the governor of Pennsylvania. So this election is about math. It's about getting 270 votes. And that's considering that she was not the best candidate. Right, but would Shapiro, governor of Pennsylvania, I don't know that he necessarily would have delivered Pennsylvania, but would he have delivered Michigan? Would he have delivered Michigan and Wisconsin? No, no, wait, wait. This is first. You have elections that are being held in seven states. I mean, we're not, look, I hate discussing hypotheticals because history just, you know, it's already happened. But,

But this is a podcast, Gary. That's what we do. I know, but you have elections that will be held in seven states, seven. That's all. And you have the largest state and the governor who has a very high level of popularity, over 60%.

Naturally, again, with the gap that was in these elections, Trump won Pennsylvania, but it was a relatively small margin. So adding the popular governor, I mean, again, you can't bet on hypotheticals, but I think she would have delivered Pennsylvania. So if you look at the map and at the numbers, so you have already 19 electoral college votes. The largest of these seven states could be delivered because you will have support of the governor.

Obviously, they're always offset. You may lose something. But also, when you just look at the choices, it's not me. It's Waltz. He looked miserable against Vance. I mean, how can you call yourself knucklehead?

You know, that's how you lose votes because people wanted to see strengths. It's not strengths of those who say we're defending democracy, but there was no defense. So Tim Walz doesn't look to me as a defense. He didn't know how to reload the gun. So it's just, you had a female candidate. You needed someone, you know, with some match of qualities to fight Trump and Trump and Vance.

So if you guarantee or almost guarantee Pennsylvania, then all you need is two states, Michigan and Wisconsin. You can forget about the South. By the way, Arizona was lost by a big margin. Work on this. Those are guaranteed for victory, but I can tell you that the debates between Shapiro and Vance would end up differently.

And I think that's, by the way, if you look at the drop of her popularity, so look at this debate at the end of September. And then it kept dropping. And also, she failed to actually to say how she's different from Joe Biden. I mean, you run a campaign and you say, oh, I'm different. No, you had to just show energy. They wanted us to support democracy. We did, you know, again, even disagreeing with Democrats on many, many issues, but

But what kind of sacrifices they made? I mean, the campaign with movie stars, with singers, we really saw it in 2016. It was a different campaign. I mean, she had to demonstrate her anger with what's happening in the country. Probably she couldn't, but that's a way to get these voters. Well, she was in a very difficult spot. But that's why she was a wrong person on this spot. That's why I believe open convention would give Democrats much better chance of winning, no matter who would end up.

Because this person would be a big bet to fight him. I'll be right back with Garry Kasparov after this. Support for this show comes from Polestar. Innovation is at the heart of every Polestar car. And their SUV, Polestar 3, is no different. From the intuitive infotainment system to its head-turning design, Polestar 3 is for drivers unwilling to compromise. That means merging a spacious, comfortable interior with the torque and handling of a sports car.

Now you can go from zero to 60 in as little as 4.8 seconds and get an EPA estimated range of up to 315 miles per charge. Polestar 3 even allows the driver to optimize the powertrain between performance and range mode, depending on your drive's needs. Experience an uncluttered dashboard showing you everything you want to know and nothing you don't. The innovation doesn't stop there because you can just have Google turn on your favorite podcast and be immersed in 3D sound by Bowers & Wilkins.

Polestar has put in the time designing and refining Polestar 3, and that means the time you spend in it will be the best time of your day. Book a test drive at Polestar.com. Support for the show comes from the new season of Crucible Moments, a podcast from Sequoia Capital. What is a Crucible Moment? It's a turning point where we face a tough decision and our response can shape the rest of our lives.

These decisions happen in business too, and Sequoia Capital's podcast, Crucible Moments, gives you a behind-the-scenes look, asking founders of some of the world's most important tech companies like YouTube, DoorDash, Reddit, and more to reflect on those critical junctures that defined who they are today. Tune in to Season 2 of Crucible Moments today. You can also catch up on Season 1 at cruciblemoments.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Support for this podcast comes from Stripe. Payment management software isn't something your customers think about that often. They see your product, they want to buy it, and then they buy it. That's about as complex as it gets. But under the hood of that process, there are a lot of really complicated things happening that have to go right in order for that sale to go through.

Stripe handles the complexity of financial infrastructure, offering a seamless experience for business owners and their customers. For example, Stripe can make sure that your customers see their currency and preferred payment method when they shop. So checking out never feels like a chore. Stripe is a payment and billing platform supporting millions of businesses around the world, including companies like Uber, BMW, and DoorDash. Stripe has helped countless startups and established companies alike reach their growth targets, make progress on their missions, and reach more customers globally.

The platform offers a suite of specialized features and tools to power businesses of all sizes, like Stripe Billing, which makes it easy to handle subscription-based charges, invoicing, and all recurring revenue management needs. Learn how Stripe helps companies of all sizes make progress at Stripe.com. That's Stripe.com to learn more. Stripe. Make progress. I bet you think this is true, and I think there's a good bit of truth in what I'm about to say. And Bill Clinton said it more recently.

And that is that people on the Democratic side are often afraid of offending any single constituency in their perceived coalition. And so they'll be on the right side of – Bill Clinton said this recently. They'll be on the right side on policy one, on policy two, on policy three, on policy four. And on policy five, there's a split, whether it's about Middle East policy or the environment or anything else.

And they won't talk about policy five. And maybe policy five is the thing that motivates the other side. And there's a reluctance. So, for example, there are reports that Kamala Harris, you know, kind of wanted to go on the Joe Rogan podcast, not to over elevate any other podcast. But the reports are that even though that might have introduced her to a whole new audience who was skeptical of her or not aware of her and hadn't had much experience with her, people on the left, on her own staff and in her own party, she didn't want to offend.

Do you have a reaction to that? Well, again, election is about winning. So that's why it's the – when you talk about math, again, that's – I believe that's her goal or any Democrats who would have been nominated to fight Donald Trump. The goal was to beat Donald Trump, to stop him from going back to Oval Office. Not about running the country, be comfortable because that's what we heard, oh, she would be comfortable with Valls. This is not why –

Why we were behind these Democrats in these elections. So I don't think she was ready to be Josh Rogin because you needed more fire. That's why I thought Shapiro would add some fire and some energy to the ticket. It's about fighting. It's about showing people you are not afraid to not just upset but to insult some.

I mean, I— The Harris campaign may have been many things and may have lacked many things. I don't think it lacked energy, did it? She now—look at her record. I mean, she never won primaries. I mean, she was not the best candidate to fight. Many things she received just, you know, let's be objective because of gender and race.

You know, she was not the best candidate for vice president. But because of George Floyd and all these tragic things and a country rising in 2020, so she was elected over, let's say, Whitmer. Just for a moment, think Whitmer would be vice president. I think she would have beaten Trump. I don't, look, again, you're dealing in hypotheticals. You never know. It's hypotheticals, but it's clearly... I thought that Ron DeSantis was going to get the nomination over Trump, and I was dead wrong.

So it's easy to be Monday morning quarterback. You may be correct, but I don't know. Yes, but look, the best chance I thought was a best shot had Nikki Haley. But she had a strong argument, which basically Biden's decision to run had killed. Trump was unelectable. And unfortunately, the numbers demonstrated to Republican voters that Trump could be Biden and Biden was still there.

So Biden's weakness basically secured Trump's nomination. And Biden was happy with Trump around because they saw Trump was the best candidate for Biden to beat. So again, back to 2016 mistakes. I want to ask you a question about how people should deal with the next four years if they have a certain point of view and they ultimately want to defeat Trump or Trumpism because he won't be on the ballot in four years. And you have talked about this issue of exhaustion. And I have heard this from listeners before.

and from friends and from family members. And you wrote that you had a tweet from 2016, December of 2016, that's making the rounds again. You said, I'm pretty sure why. And the tweet from before said, the point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda, it's to exhaust your critical thinking to annihilate truth. And you've spoken elsewhere about exhaustion. And I will tell you, quite frankly, and I want my listeners to hear this, there are people who have written in with respect to both this podcast and

and the paid podcast, behind the paywall podcast, The Cafe Insider. And I've said, we love you. We love the podcast. We can't focus anymore on politics. We're going to retreat. We're going to do other things. I posted on social media this past weekend that I was going to be on This Week with George Stephanopoulos to talk about the Gates nomination. And every reply in the first 20 replies had some version of, that's terrific. Good luck. But I don't watch the Sunday news programs anymore. I'm checking out of the news.

A, is that a natural reaction? And B, should we be fighting against that? Or should people live their lives and garden and be with their families and their children and cook and ignore politics? I find that to be a very dangerous place to be. Look, A, it's a natural reaction. I think people are tired. It was a painful campaign, disappointing results. And they think that, okay, American democracy is strong enough to survive another Trump's term.

and he would not be there in 2028. And by the way, you are the lawyer, so can you tell me that...

that U.S. Constitution definitely has guardrails against Trump running again because it not took consecutive turns. It does, it does, but he has the military. I don't know, look. No, it does. You're sure it does. So there are no second readings. There are no loopholes that I am aware of. No loopholes. Even Supreme Court cannot do that. Not that I, it has never been done and I'm not aware of it. No, no, no, never been done is not. No, I know, I know. That's not, this doesn't work anymore.

This has never been done. You should forget. Is it ironclad? I think it's ironclad. But this relates to another point about how to manage all this. If the point of elections is to win, and the way to win is to win over people who are sort of on the fence and not deeply foregone to the MAGA universe, then you have to persuade them. And they have to think you're not nuts. And sometimes, and I don't know if this is fair or not,

When people on the Democratic side, on the left side, scream the sky is falling and say it's going to be a dictatorship and it's the last election we'll ever have, there is some reason to fear that. But when you say that, I have a feeling that you turn off lots of people in the middle who think it's just, you know, screaming bloody murder, the sky is falling. It's not true. It's an exaggeration. And you don't have a persuasive effect if and when you're constantly talking about

The world is coming to an end. And it may very well be. But as a matter of, because we're being very pragmatic in this conversation, as a matter of winning and getting votes, what do you think the better strategy is?

Again, to win votes in a two-party system, you have to create an alternative. And the Democratic Party in today's shape, it's in disarray. It's not an alternative. So that's why the Republicans feel comfortable doing whatever they want. Again, I may even agree with some or even many of the proposed policies, but what worries me, I'm not yet losing sleep over it, but

I think we see very dangerous trends is that there's a concentration of power and basically abolishment of the checks and balances systems.

You look at the rise of Elon Musk and Ramaswamy and they will be in charge of what? I mean, we still have so many things that might, you know, have real power with no official titles. And that's extremely dangerous because that means that Trump could basically skip, you know, many processes that have been built.

to secure that the system will not be used by executive office to its advantage.

And that's what I call oligarchy. Again, that's what we saw in Russia. That's what's happening in many other countries in the world. And I see no guardrails against the rules of oligarchs that control both largest enterprises and have an important, if not a final say, in many decisions of the government that affect their businesses.

So checks and balances, that's what helped American democracy to survive and flourish. And we will be celebrating 2050 anniversary of Declaration of Independence in two years time.

actually in a year and a half even. And I wonder, you know, what will be founding fathers saying if they could actually see Donald Trump delivering the speech on July 4th, July 4th, 2026, because by that time, I think many of the institutions that they developed back in 18th century might be in, say, in crisis, if not paralyzed.

I feel like I've asked this question a number of different ways, but I want to ask it in this way as well. John Fetterman, we're speaking in Pennsylvania, the senior senator, or at least maybe the senior senator from Pennsylvania, said pretty aggressively, the Democrats should not freak out at every single crazy thing that Trump does. Do you agree or disagree? Look, if you want to win, you know, you just have to come up with your own strategy first.

And then you just, you know, you have to pick up your battles. I mean, Trump will definitely offer many opportunities to fight back, but the battles you select should be the battles that you can win. You don't want, you know, just more losses. And also they should be complementary, these battles, to your overall strategy.

I think the strategy is to come up with an alternative in 2026 because 2028 is still four years ahead. But in 2026, there will be a chance to take the House. Senate is out of reach now. That's very clear.

But creating a powerful alternative, just shifting the party back to the center and bringing people that will have connection with the voters. I mean, for instance, in New York, like Richard Torres or Jason Crow from Colorado. And now you have Senator Slotkin, just the newly elected in Michigan.

So, John Fetterman, you mentioned those people that I think can do much better job by helping Democratic Party to create an alternative. Senator Kelly from Arizona. Again, it's a long list. It's not that the party is just running short with moderates, with people that can offer policies and ideas that will be embraced by the voters.

And I think there will be kind of disillusionment with Trump by many voters in 2026. I don't think he can create miracles with his economy. I think the inflation may be just, you know, curbed, but it will not go away. So there will be opportunities, but people will have to see, oh, there's an alternative. And that's...

If they know that they have somewhere to go, if they know that it's another strong alternative that could, you know, it's the policy that could benefit them, it will make more difficult for Trump, actually for Trump supporters, to push MAGA agenda in full. Is there someone who you think can succeed Trump? For the people, or Trumpism, for the people who think this is disastrous for the country,

Assuming that we don't go too far afield from American values and traditions and checks and balances, that's a big assumption, but assuming we don't, will you return to normalcy, you think, in four years, or will J.D. Vance have absorbed both the lessons and popularity of Donald Trump among the base? What do you think? Well, unless something terrible happens, you know, just an economy and just people will turn away from MAGA, so it's

we can be pretty sure that J.D. Vance will succeed Trump as a nominee in 2028.

And it's very important that there will be a strong alternative on the other side. But again, it's four years from now. I think it's very important if the Democratic Party can regroup, can actually come up with a new vision. Basically, the Democratic Party needs a new Bill Clinton, somebody who could take the party from far left as Clinton did in 1992 and after the painful defeats in 84 and 88 –

with Mondale and Dukakis. So the party just offered a different vision. So the party needs this process of rebirth, resurrection. And if it's being done, then we'll see the results in 2026. So 2026 will be the moment where we can answer your questions, question with more data available. As of today, if you just make the projection in 2028 from today's position,

The answer probably will be on the negative side because Trump is all-powerful and he can implement many policies that he can push through without real opposition. And again, to take people away from Trump's coalition, you have to show them an alternative. So far, it's not there, but I believe there are many ingredients there.

And there's more and more voices of reason on the Democratic side demanding the change. And I think if the change is there, so we'll see the MAGA coalition weakening. And by the way, that might influence even the Trump supporters on the floor of the Senate and the House because they will see that Trump is not all powerful and he doesn't do these magic tricks with his demagoguery. I want to ask you about Ukraine since I have you.

So Joe Biden recently announced as a lame duck in the transition period with his adversary from 2020 now becoming the president on January 20th of 2021. And he's finally saying he's giving the green light to Ukraine to fire, I believe, U.S. supplied missiles into Russian territory. A, is that a good thing for Ukraine in the war? And B, is it a bad thing or a good thing otherwise?

The only bad thing about this decision is it was too late. Too late, yeah. Because, look, it was a war of aggression. Everybody agreed with that. And it's not just simply, you know, just a war, you know, this is traditional, like World War I, you know, you have trenches and they shoot at each other, which war is horrible. But Putin's war, since he recognized he couldn't beat Ukraine on the battlefield, was to destroy Ukraine.

And the number of missiles that have been thrown on Ukraine, the drones and ballistic missiles, is incalculable. So I guess, you know, that's just two days ago. The amount of explosives, when you look at the ballistic missiles, 120 ballistic missiles, and God knows how many drones. So just in one night, I think Putin dropped more explosives on Ukraine than probably Israel in Gaza and Lebanon for a year.

So this is to understand the amount of devastations in Ukraine. And it says Putin consistently attacks Ukraine energy infrastructure, the civilian infrastructure. Every day we read about Ukrainian civilians being injured and killed. You have many kids. You know, it's just –

It's hard to – for me, it's so painful to read because I'm still a Russian citizen though I've been opposing Putin for a quarter of a century. But it doesn't make me feel any better that it's the country that was born and raised now is just committing crimes equal to the certain right crimes. And America had an opportunity to help Ukraine to stop it.

There's so many American weapons that have been collecting dust in the desert of Arizona or Nevada and in the storages. And these weapons could have changed the course of the war, but Biden administration was not ready to actually say simple things. Ukraine must win.

It's always, you know, very ambiguous. We will stand with Ukraine as long as it takes. But it doesn't impress dictators. And Putin kept, you know, his policy of destroying Ukraine because his airfields and missile bases have been basically protected by Biden. There

There are about 250 targets in proximity of these American missiles or British missiles that are available in Ukraine to be hit. And these bases have been used in the last few months to cause devastation, destruction, and deaths in Ukraine. So,

I hope that this decision, though it's too late, will still help Ukraine to slow down Russian advance and will create different situations on the ground. And we'll see what Trump is going to do because it seems to be- Well, I'm going to ask you, how do you think this will play out between now and January 20th?

No, Trump made big statements in the campaign. I would end the war in 24 hours after I'm elected. So we're already, what, 24 days since his election or whatever. This is more than two weeks. And it's not – it can be resolved because I think this –

This war cannot end because Trump said so. And while I'm very skeptical about his ability to negotiate, so he believes he's the greatest negotiator, but again, looking at the outcome of his negotiations with Taliban or with North Korea, so we may doubt his qualities in this field.

But it's not just Trump. It's the Ukrainian war cannot be negotiated throughout this process of making mutual concessions for a very simple reason. Putin wants nothing else but to destroy Ukrainian statehood. And it's not Garry Kasparov telling you now. It's Vladimir Putin himself and his propaganda machine kept repeating for 24-7 for many years.

So the goal of this war for Putin is to eliminate independent Ukraine. He may accept, you know, just half of Ukraine or just, you know, a third of Ukraine with, you know, just incorporating Russia with the remaining part being under his direct or indirect control through his political puppets. But Ukrainians are not going to accept it. So that's why the best you can hope for, which is, again, still questionable, it's a ceasefire.

But the war will not end unless one of two things happen. Putin regime collapses or Ukraine is being destroyed.

So the temporary ceasefire means that for a year or two or three, there will be just preparation for another stage of war because Ukrainians will never accept the loss of their territories. And Putin will never, according to what he has been saying, will never accept that he failed to achieve his main goal. And also when you look at Russian economy now and the state of mind of most of citizens in Russia, just following Russian propaganda machine,

War is the only way for Putin to stay in power. And his war goes actually beyond Ukraine because he's challenging the existing world order.

So the fact is that Russia is still a permanent member of United Nations Security Council while violating almost every norm, every rule that it's, as you say, you said a few minutes ago, it's never happened before. Right. Putin doesn't care. It's the same logic as Trump. So what? So I did it and I went away with it and nobody could stop me.

So we are seeing the dramatic shift in the geopolitical map because Europe now has to also make her own decisions about its security infrastructure with Donald Trump showing no interest of defending Europe against potential Russian aggression if Putin

God forbid succeeds in Ukraine. So we'll see many changes there. We'll see the changes in Germany. The Scholz administration is just, government is bound to collapse. There will be elections and new government. So it's, again, it's Trump brought chaos, but maybe this chaos was inevitable because the system that existed before failed to stop Putin, failed to stop China, failed to stop Iran, Iranian terrorist attacks, failed to stop Taliban abuses.

Maduro's rise of Maduro's criminal regime. So maybe we just have to go through this period, you know, with our eyes open and recognizing that it's in our hands to make all the changes. And if we fail, there's no one else to blame. Well, that seems like an appropriate note to end on. Gary, thanks so much for your time.

And your insight, hopefully we'll speak again soon and things will go better than we expect. Yes, yes. We can pray for changes or we can be actively engaged. Yeah. You hear that, everyone? We got to be in the second category. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

My conversation with Gary Kasparov continues for members of the Cafe Insider community. To try out the membership for just $1 for a month, head to cafe.com slash insider. Again, that's cafe.com slash insider. To end the show, I want to talk about an interesting story from the past week.

Now, there are eternal philosophical debates incapable of being answered or resolved. For example, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Or what is the sound of one hand clapping? And now there's this one. If a parody site does something real, but it sounds like a joke, how do you know if it's true?

I'm speaking about the news from last week that the satirical outlet, The Onion, won the bankruptcy bid to buy InfoWars, the infamous conspiracy theory website founded by Alex Jones, also known as the worst person on earth, among other things. As you probably know, families of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting sued Alex Jones for defamation for claims he made that the shooting was a hoax fabricated to seize firearms in the U.S.,

The plaintiffs won a $1.4 billion judgment. So earlier this year, Jones was ordered to liquidate his assets, including InfoWars. According to NBC, the proceeds from the sale of InfoWars and Jones' other assets will go towards his estate creditors, which include the families of Sandy Hook victims.

Of course, nothing could take away the pain the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting suffered at the hands of Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists and opportunists like him. Like so many victims of gun violence in this country, they continue to fight for justice for their loved ones who no longer can. But there is, at the very least, some degree of triumph in Alex Jones' beloved and dangerous site being turned into one big joke.

After the auction, The Onion, in typical fashion, published an article about the purchase titled, Here's Why I Decided to Buy InfoWars. Quote,

With a shrewd mix of delusional paranoia and dubious anti-aging nutrition hacks, they strive to make life both scarier and longer for everyone a commendable goal. It went on, "...no price would be too high for such a cornucopia of malleable assets and minds. And yet, in a stroke of good fortune, a formidable special interest group has outwitted the hapless owner of InfoWars..."

a forgettable man with an already forgotten name, and forced him to sell it at a steep bargain, less than $1 trillion, end quote. Now, the saga is not over. The sale is currently in legal limbo, as Jones and his lawyers have challenged it as improper and unfair. A hearing is set for later this month.

Ben Collins, the Onion's CEO, wrote on social media, We always knew the guys who currently run InfoWars were going to take this badly and use the loss to fundraise off of it, and they did not disappoint. So folks, we'll be following how this legal battle shakes out. In the meantime, Collins says he's looking forward to relaunching the dumbest site on the internet. As I keep reminding myself, and I hope to keep reminding you also, humor is quite powerful, and we can't forget that.

even when times are tough. Well, that's it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Garry Kasparov.

If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics, and justice. Tweet them to me at Preet Bharara with the hashtag AskPreet. You can also now reach me on threads, or you can call and leave me a message at 669-247-7338.

That's 669-24-PREET. Or you can send an email to letters at cafe.com. Stay Tuned is presented by Cafe and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tadishore. The deputy editor is Celine Rohr. The editorial producers are Noah Azoulay and Jake Kaplan.

The associate producer is Claudia Hernandez. And the cafe team is Matthew Billy, Nat Wiener, and Leanna Greenway. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I'm your host, Preet Bharara. As always, stay tuned. Support for the show comes from AT&T.

What does it feel like to get the new iPhone 16 Pro with AT&T NextUp Anytime? It's like when you first light up the grill and think of all the mouth-watering possibilities. Learn how to get the new iPhone 16 Pro with Apple Intelligence on AT&T and the latest iPhone every year with AT&T NextUp Anytime.

Support for this podcast comes from Stripe.

Stripe is a payments and billing platform supporting millions of businesses around the world, including companies like Uber, BMW, and DoorDash. Stripe has helped countless startups and established companies alike reach their growth targets, make progress on their missions, and reach more customers globally.

The platform offers a suite of specialized features and tools to fast-track growth, like Stripe Billing, which makes it easy to handle subscription-based charges, invoicing, and all recurring revenue management needs. You can learn how Stripe helps companies of all sizes make progress at Stripe.com. That's Stripe.com to learn more. Stripe. Make progress.