I do have to ask about
the breaking news today.
Your chief
competitor, the frontrunner right now,
Donald Trump, says he was informed
that he is the target as special counsel.
Jack Smith's investigation
into efforts
to overturn
the results of the 2020 election.
And Mr.
Trump has until Thursday
to report to the grand jury.
If Jack Smith has evidence
of criminality,
should Donald Trump be held accountable?
So here's the problem.
This country is going down
the road of criminalizing
political differences.
And I think that's wrong.
Alvin Bragg stretched the statute in
in Manhattan
to be able to try to target Donald Trump.
Most people,
even people on the left, acknowledge
if that wasn't Trump,
That case would not have likely been
brought against the normal civilian.
And so you have a situation
where the Department of Justice, FBI
have been weaponized
against people they don't like.
And the number one
example of that
happened to be against Donald Trump
with the Russia collusion.
That was not a legitimate investigation.
That was being done to try
to drive Trump out of office.
And so what I've said as president,
my job is to restore
a single standard of justice
to and weaponization of these agencies.
We're going to have a new FBI
director on day one.
We're going to have big changes
at the Department of Justice.
Americans across the political spectrum
need to have confidence
that what is going on
is based on the rule of law,
not based on what political tribe
you're in.
And then the second thing I would say is
this country needs to have a debate
about the country's future.
If I'm the nominee,
we'll be able to focus on
President Biden's failures
and I'll be able to articulate
a positive vision for the future.
I don't think it serves us
good to have a presidential election
focused on what happened four years ago
in January.
And so I want to focus on looking forward
I don't want to look back.
I do not want to see him.
I hope he doesn't get charged.
I don't think it'll
be good for the country.
But at the same time,
I've got to focus on looking forward.
And that's what we're going to do.
Jack, Smith has prosecuted Democrats to
I mean, he prosecuted
or at least was part of the prosecution
of Senator Menendez,
Senator John Edwards.
Are you saying that
if he finds evidence of criminality,
he should not charge Donald Trump anyway?
What I'm saying is
when you're going after somebody
on the other side
of the political spectrum,
if you're stretching statutes
to try to criminalize
maybe political disagreements,
that is wrong.
Now, look, this is all speculation,
but I think we've gone down the road
in this country of trying to criminalize
differences in politics
rather than saying,
okay, you don't like somebody,
then defeat them in the election
rather than trying to use
the justice system.
So we don't know what's going to happen.
But I can tell you with the brag, one
that was stretching criminal law,
the evidence of criminality
was was very weak.
And even if that existed, other people
would not have been charged
under those circumstances.
That's the problem.
Let's talk about this
sweeping new military policy
you proposed
that, in your words,
will rip the woke out of the military.
The Pentagon response
is that Army and Marines
readiness is the best it's been in years.
And re-enlistment
in the Army is the best
it's been in years.
So their argument might be in response.
What problem are you trying to solve?
Well,
why do we have the worst recruiting
that we've had
since the Vietnam conflict?
Why have great warriors being driven off,
such as with the COVID 19 shot mandates?
These were people
that had been performing admirably
a of them and had COVID.
They had natural immunity.
They were told to take
this shot or leave.
So I think you've had a big problem
with morale.
You clearly have a problem
with recruiting.
And at this levels,
everybody has acknowledged
these recruiting levels are at a crisis.
Why is that the case?
I think it's because people
see the military losing its way,
not focusing on the mission
and focusing on
a lot of these other things.
Which man we see that
in other aspects of society as well.
People want to join the military think
because they think
it's something different.
And I think some of the civilian leaders
in the military
are trying to have the military mimic
corporate America, academia.
That's ultimately not going to work.
So I hear you.
Recruitment, without question
is a problem. The Army did this survey.
I'll give you a copy of it if you want.
They haven't released it,
but I got my hands on a copy
and it looked at it
survey people
I think 16 to 28 barriers
to service and beyond.
The ones such as Don't want to die,
don't want to be injured,
don't want to be away from my family.
The biggest issues
were the number two issue
women and racial or ethnic
minorities are discriminated
against in the army.
Wokeness is listed here, but it's only,
it's only No. Nine.
So that would suggest that
Wokeness is not as big.
Well,
but I think there's an issue about like
not even one
really knows what Wokeness is.
I mean, I've defined it,
but a lot of people
who railed against wokeness
can't even define it.
And so I think it's a sense of,
you know, this is not something that's
that's holding
true to the core martial values
that make the military unique.
And I can tell you, the veterans,
you don't have to look far and wide
go to a VFW hall,
go to an American Legion.
There's huge amount of concern
about the direction
that the military is going with all this.
And here's the thing.
Things like DUI
and all that stuff
It has
it worked in other aspects of society.
It very well may be on the constitutional
chopping block
in light of the Supreme
Court's decision
on on racial discrimination.
In higher education.
And so it's not a model that I think
is going to be
successful in the military.
And so we're going to do
what has been successful in the past.
And I think you're going to see better
recruiting as a result.
So the Pentagon says that they do
try to achieve
diversity in recruiting,
but not when it comes to promotions.
That's all merit based.
Well, I mean,
I think that we have seen standards
watered down in different situations.
I think that that's probably
not accurate.
Obviously, they're going to say
they're doing a good job.
I mean, we get that.
That's going to be their saying
but but I don't think that
that's in tune with reality.
So let's turn to foreign policy,
because obviously that goes hand-in-hand
with military policy in many ways.
As a congressman in 2015,
you strongly backed arming
Ukraine after Russia
invaded and seized Crimea
as a presidential candidate.
You've said
that the conflict is not a vital
national interest.
So as president, what were you
what will your policy be?
Will you want to stop arming Ukraine?
Will you stop financial support
for Ukraine?
So first, a vital national interest to me
means we would
potentially send troops there.
And I don't think anybody
wants to see troops in Ukraine.
And I would believe that
in 20, 15 as well, it's
more of a secondary
or a tertiary interest.
So my policy is going to be very simple.
Our number
one threat to our country is from China
in terms of foreign threat.
We also have a threat of being able
to not secure our own border.
Tens of thousands of people are dying
every year
because the cartels are running fentanyl.
So you got to be strong at home
if you want to be strong abroad.
We are going to approach the world
instead of Europe
being the focus
like it has been since World War Two.
And it was understandable
why it would be after World War Two.
NATO's stopping the Soviets, I get it.
But now the Asia-Pacific
really needs to be to our generation,
what Europe was to the post-World
War two generation.
And so what we're doing
is how much hard power
can we marshal
as much as possible to deter China
I think we're in a situation
now with how weak we've been that
we are going towards
maybe having a conflict with China.
I think the way to deter
that conflict with China is to be strong.
So I would have
the Europeans do more in Europe.
That's more in their backyard.
That's more of an interest for them.
You know,
I would be willing to be helpful
to try to bring it to a conclusion there.
But I am not going to diminish our stocks
and not send to to Taiwan.
I'm not going to make us less capable
to respond to exigency
And you've got to care at least
as much about your own border
as you do about foreign borders.
So when you talk about trying to bring
bring an end to the conflict,
would you push Zelensky
to make concessions to Russia
to cede land that Russia
seized in in its attack?
So what I would say is
what the goal should be
a sustainable,
enduring peace in Europe,
but that one
that does not reward aggression.
And there's going to be different levers
that you're going to be able to pull.
We will pull some levers against Russia.
We're going to do
be much more aggressive
on energy and export,
because I think that's
been Putin's lifeline.
I want the Europeans dependent
on the United States for that, not him.
We're also going to turn the screws
on the Iranians.
The Iranians have been one of Putin's
biggest benefactors,
and they've benefited from Biden's
approach there.
So so
we'll use the leverage that we have.
But the goal is going
to be a sustainable peace
that does not reward aggression.
What do you say
to the argument that Xi Jinping
is watching the U.S.
response to Ukraine to game out
how the U.S.
would respond if China invaded Taiwan?
President Biden has said that U.S.
forces would defend Taiwan
if China invaded.
Would you do the same?
Would you order the U.S.
military to defend Taiwan?
Well, two things.
So first, how does China view this?
I mean, it's somewhat speculative.
I think what they would like to see
in Russia,
Ukraine is a multi-year
stalemate and quagmire
where the West is pouring in
100 billion,
another $200 billion of weapons.
Our stocks continue to decline.
They don't really care
about the Russians.
Russia will be more dependent on China
as a result of that.
So I think that's what
we would like to see ideally.
Now, in terms of Taiwan,
that is a significant interest
of the United States.
Taiwan is a strong ally.
Taiwan is important for us economically
and for a variety of other reasons.
Also,
a potential Chinese attack on Taiwan
successfully would have
big reverberations in the Asia Pacific.
But our policy is going
to be very simple.
We're going to deter that from happening.
China respects hard power.
If you have hard power,
if you have strong alliances
with the Japanese.
So I visited there a few months ago.
The Koreans
and the Japanese are getting along now.
They never used to get along
because they both see
the threat posed by China.
So we're going to work together.
We're going to be much stronger.
We're going to project power
and we're going to deter
that from happening.
Let's talk about some issues
here in the United States.
You've been asked
by this
by a number of members
of conservative media,
and you have yet to give a
yes or no answer.
You recently signed a six week
abortion ban in Florida.
Yes or no.
Would you support that
as a nationwide ban?
So I said I'm pro-life.
I will be a pro-life president
and we will support pro-life policies.
At the same time,
I look at
what's going on in the Congress.
And, you know,
I don't see them,
you know, making very much headway.
I think the danger from Congress
is if we lose the election,
they're going to try to
nationalize abortion.
Up until the moment of birth,
and in some liberal states,
you actually have post-birth abortions.
And I think that that's wrong.
Also, with respect to the military thing
that we talked about.
We're going to reverse the abortion.
Torres on policy
in the Department of Defense.
They are actually paying people
to go
and get abortions
with American tax dollars
as part of the military.
They won't even pay you.
You lose a loved one.
You don't get that type of time off
to be able to go to do funerals.
And so we're going to continue
to stand for to stand for life.
And we're going to make sure
that everybody knows that.
So this issue
gets into the state of the race
because some of your supporters
are disappointed
that your campaign has yet
to catch fire
the way they would want
in terms of polling.
One Republican pollster,
one who is sympathetic to you.
I was asking her about your campaign
and she said she thought the issue was
you bumped up at the beginning
because voters, Republican voters
saw you
as a more electable
conservative like Trump, like Trump
without the baggage.
But then they say
as you go further
and further to the right
on some of these divisive social issues
that could alienate
moderates, suburban moms, etc.,
Republican voters
see you as less and less electable.
What do you say to that analysis?
Why do they it's true.
I mean, the proof is in the pudding.
I mean, I took a state
that had been a one point state,
and we wanted by 20 percentage
points, 1.5 million votes.
Our bread and butter
were people like suburban moms.
We're leading a big movement
for four parents rights to have
the parents be involved
in education, school choice,
get the indoctrination out of schools,
and of course, there's
bread and butter issues
that matter to inflation,
more economic opportunity.
Florida's economy is ranked number
one of all 50 states.
We've worked hard to make that happen.
Crime, you see crime
in all these different communities
that is now even going in the suburbs
in some areas.
So I think that there's a lot of things.
I don't think that's the reason.
I think the reason is, is
I was getting a lot of media attention
at the time.
Coming off the victory,
I had to do my job
as governor with my legislative session,
and we had a great legislative session.
We did a lot of great things,
actually, things
that appeal to huge majorities
of the of the population.
So I think that that analysis is wrong.
But I had to do that.
And so I was basically taking fire
really nonstop since then
because a lot of people view
me as a threat.
I think the left views me as a threat
because they think I'll beat Biden
and actually deliver on all this stuff.
And then, of course, people
that have their allegiances
within the allegiances
in the Republican side,
you know, have gone after me.
But the reality is
this is a state by state process.
I'm not running a campaign
to try to juice
you know,
whatever we are in the national polls.
I mean,
whatever we did in the CNN compared
whatever, it's fine.
I'm definitely doing better than ever.
State by state, obvious.
It's state by state.
So we're focused
on building an organization.
You got to get people to come out
in the middle of January in Iowa
to caucus for you.
That requires an organization requires
to know where those votes are
Now, that is not going to make
the same type of splash
as if you were trying
to run ads nationally
or do those other things.
And so we've been making,
you know, really good progress.
I think this weekend was really good
in terms of the family leader
and some of the other things
we were doing in Iowa.
Of course, we're here in South Carolina.
We're going to do a lot in New Hampshire.
But that's going to be our focus,
focusing on those early states,
continuing to build our coalitions
and going forward.
And I would also just note, Jake,
there is a narrative
that they're almost trying
a little too hard with this to try to say
because they've been saying
that I've been doing poorly
for my whole time as governor.
Basically, this is always the case
during COVID.
Oh, you know, he has the state open.
He's going to lose.
Then he fought Disney.
He's going to lose. And then.
So they always want to get there
and never quite works out.
In fact,
I actually remember you
you did the debate with us in 18.
And before we did the debate on CNN
and you didn't have to do
this, CNN released a poll
saying I was down like 14 or 15 points.
Now, that was the narrative
at the time he's going down.
So I think some of this is
motivated reasoning
but I kind of get a kick out
when they say he didn't fundraise
well when I did more than Biden and Trump
in the second quarter
and I'm just the governor.
So I didn't
believe that poll was accurate.
Just for the record.
Your new policy
that you
announced today
about the military
would ban transgender Americans
from serving in the military
regardless of their ability.
And this comes
on the heels of your campaign
retweeting a video
that the Log Cabin Republicans,
which is a conservative
LGBTQ group,
said, quote, ventured into homophobic
territory, unquote.
There are more than a million
trans adults in the U.S.
What are their lives
and the lives of the people
who love and support them
going to be like
under a DeSantis administration?
Look,
in the military, it's
all about the mission first.
So there's a whole bunch of reasons
why you focus on mission first,
people's individuality.
It does take you.
You do have to check that at the door.
And that's not the only example.
There's a whole host of other examples.
So I think the military culture is unique
in terms of that.
Now, in terms of the larger issue,
the question is, is
what role does someone that's a man
have and women's activities,
even if they conceive
themselves to be a woman,
I think it's wrong to have men
compete in women's sports.
I understand some of those men
conceive of themselves differently,
but it's not fair to the girls
who are competing.
It's not fair to the women athletes,
the swimmers
who lost that national championship
to the pencil Timmer.
I mean, they've been training to it.
So I don't think it's good for that.
And I think having
things like locker rooms
where they're having to share
with somebody who's of the opposite sex,
you know, I think is wrong.
So I would respect everybody,
but what I wouldn't do
is turn society upside down
to be able to accommodate,
which is a very, very small percentage
of the population.
Last question about your military policy,
because your new military policy
says that Pentagon
should never prioritize
climate politics over national security.
But this week we heard from the associate
director of military affairs for the CIA
who told a roomful of National Guard
leaders and allies from other countries
that climate change supercharges
almost every other global threat
because of refugees,
because of conflicts,
because of all sorts of reasons.
What's your response to that?
The idea
that climate politics isn't
about politics
it's about National Geographic.
Here's the thing.
How are you going
to equip your fighting force to win?
Are you going
to put those considerations in?
Are you going to create the most
lethal force available?
I can tell you,
China is not going to use
those considerations.
If they need to burn more coal
to defend their country,
they are going to burn more coal
to defend their country.
So I just don't think
it should be a factor in terms
of how we project power
in this country,
focus on how lethal we can be
and focus on getting the mission done.
I don't want to force the Department
of Defense to be using electric vehicles.
I just don't think that that's something
that makes any sense.
You entered your candidacy
officially for the Republican contest
here in South Carolina.
Before you go,
are you going to win South Carolina?
Yeah, we are.
I think this is a great set up for me.
I'm the only veteran running.
I'll be the first president elected
since 1988 that served in a war.
There's very few states in this country
with a stronger
active duty
military presence
and veteran presence than here.
We've also got great support
and the country in South Carolina
that we're building.
And of course,
my wife went to College of Charleston,
so we know the Lowcountry well.
And I think we're going to be able
to build a lot of support here.
So this is a great state for us.
And the way the calendar's working out,
you're going to have New Hampshire
in late July or January
and then here in late February.
So we're really spending a lot of time.
You're going to be spending
a lot of time in South Carolina.
All right.
Governor DeSantis,
thanks so much for your time today.
I appreciate.