Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

AI Job Cuts Surge As Companies Turn To Automation; AI Experts Warns 99 Percent Of Jobs Could Vanish By 2030; One National Guard Member Has Died And Another Is Fighting For His Life. Top Zelenskyy Adviser Resigns After Anti-Corruption Raid. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired November 29, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:34]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: There's nothing artificial about job loss. I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs.

AI is no longer an abstract threat. It's causing job loss right now. And the headlines, they tell the story. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, on Wednesday released a study that found that artificial intelligence can already replace 11.7 percent of the U.S. labor market, or as much as 1.2 trillion in wages across finance, health care and professional services.

The New York Times recently reported that Amazon is on the cusp of replacing what would be 600,000 warehouse jobs with robots and plans to automate 75 percent of its operations. CNBC reporting that Salesforce, Walmart, Paramount, UPS, YouTube and Meta have all announced new rounds of layoffs attributable to AI with nearly 1 million job cuts nationwide this year.

That's the job loss that we can measure. Now consider what some are predicting about the future. Goldman Sachs estimating that 6 percent to 7 percent of the U.S. workforce could be displaced due to AI adoption. They do note, however, that the impact may only be transitory because new opportunities created by AI might ultimately put people to work in other capacities. A report by the McKinsey Global Institute finding that AI could displace 40 percent of American jobs due to automation by 2030.

That analysis found that robots and AI agents could automate more than half of U.S. work hours, both manual and cognitive, using technology that's available today if companies redesigned how they'll do things in the future. The World Economic Forum projecting that 92 million jobs worldwide may be displaced by 2030. Ford's CEO saying that AI could replace half of all white collar workers there. NYU Professor Scott Galloway predicting that AI will hit middle management first, noting that 6 percent dropped in managers at public companies since 2022.

So, here we are, AI eliminating jobs, more automation coming. If millions of people lose work, how will they support themselves? This is where an idea from the 2020 presidential campaign returns to the conversation. Universal Basic Income, or UBI.

The concept? Pretty straightforward. Every American adult would receive a set check each month. For Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago, this concept just became reality. The Cook County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved its 2026 budget proposal just this month.

It includes $7.5 million for a guaranteed basic income program. Commissioners approved it after the success of a pilot program where the county provided $500 a month to 3,200 households over two years. Survey findings based on that pilot revealed that 94 percent of the program recipients use the funds to address financial emergencies. Seventy-five percent reported feeling more financially secure. Seventy percent said that the program had a positive impact on mental health.

Of course, there's the question of how do you pay for it? In the case of Cook County, as a result of the decrease in commercial real estate values, everybody's property taxes are now sky high. In Chicago, rising 16.7 percent, the largest jump in at least 30 years. West Garfield Park saw an increase of 133 percent. North Lawndale 99 percent, Englewood 82.5 percent.

And there's pushback from the Illinois Policy Institute, which cites concerns about workforce and income effects, quote, "Cook County is making its guaranteed income pilot permanent and committing millions to a failed strategy already shown to leave people with less work experience and lower earnings."

Back in 2020, it was presidential candidate Andrew Yang who called his version of universal basic income the freedom dividend. Specifically, $1,000 per month, no work requirements, no means testing, a direct payment to help people cover bills, weather economic transitions and adapt to a job market reshaped by technology.

Andrew Yang joins me now.

Andrew, nice to have you back. I pulled a profile of you from 2018 when you were just on the cusp of announcing your candidacy. Here's a quote that you provided to the author of the piece. You said, "All you need is self-driving cars to destabilize society. In a few years, we're going to have a million truck drivers out of work who are 94 percent male with an average level of education of high school or one year of college.

[09:05:04]

That one innovation will be enough to create riots in the street. And we're about to do the same thing to retail workers, call center workers, fast food workers, insurance companies and accounting firms." It was seven years ago, how is that quote aging?

ANDREW YANG, FOUNDER, THE FORWARD PARTY: It's aging very, very well, unfortunately, Michael. I'm so glad that we're having this conversation. Forty-four percent of American jobs are either repetitive, manual, or repetitive cognitive, and thus could be subject to AI and automation. And we're seeing that unfold right now. It's heartbreaking for me because I feel we could be doing much, much more for the millions of Americans who are going to be displaced.

SMERCONISH: I know that Cook County is just a microcosm, but I'm sure in hearing about their experience, people are wondering, OK, Andrew Yang, we're on board. Now we get it. What you saw seven years ago, the rest of us see, but how do we pay for it?

YANG: The CEO of Anthropic, Dario Amodei, just raised his hand and said, you guys should tax us, the AI firms. And right now, hundreds of billions of dollars of value is being realized by Anthropic and these other firms on the back by the way of data that we all provided unwittingly and didn't agree to it. But it's trillions of dollars of value, and most Americans aren't going to see a dime of that.

So if you have the CEO of an AI saying you should tax us, I think we should take him up on his suggestion. And if you have an AI tax or a compute tax, you get to very big numbers very quickly.

SMERCONISH: So they're now referring to the Magnificent 7 or the S&P 493 instead of the S&P 500. I'm going to put a graph on the screen right now for the benefit of everybody at home. The Washington Post had this coverage. The point was that if you strip out Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla, then you know, the market's doing OK. But the market surely isn't doing what it's doing when you include those seven.

And I guess my question for Andrew Yang is, what happens if that is a bubble and it bursts, then how do you fund the Freedom Dividend or Universal Basic Income?

YANG: Well, right now, a lot of the value that's getting generated is being hoarded or held by a handful of companies, Michael. I think you're right that we should be trying to spread those value gains more broadly across the market and to people. Right now U.S. GDP is around $85,000 per person and trending upward because regardless of whether AI as an investment thesis is a little bit overhyped, you know that it's going to have a positive effect on GDP. So if you have 85,000 ahead, then having $12,000 a year, which I proposed in 2020, actually seems pretty modest and reasonable. And that's going to be affordable regardless of what happens with some of these firms valuations.

SMERCONISH: As you envisioned the Freedom Dividend, there was no means testing. Everybody gets a check, whatever that amount might be. What becomes of other federal assistance?

YANG: Well, I intended the Freedom Dividend to try and clear up and clean up some of the bureaucracy and administration that's currently being applied. I spoke to a disabled woman in Iowa during the campaign and she said she wants to volunteer in her community, but she's afraid to because she's afraid to lose her disability payments. And I think most people looking at that situation would say, well, that's not right. Like the intention is not to force this woman to stay home. So if you can put this into people's hands and say, look, this is going to be yours regardless, then it empowers them to go out and hopefully build things, start businesses and participate in their community.

Capitalism does not work very well if people don't have money to spend.

SMERCONISH: So is this capitalism that we're talking about? It sounds rather socialist, doesn't it, that everybody's going to get a check and therefore they won't have to go to work because all these jobs are being taken by AI initially?

YANG: It's capitalism where income doesn't start at zero, Michael. And you have a consumer economy that is predicated on folks being able to participate. And if you shove billions of Americans to the curb via AI and automation, then they're not going to be able to go to their local business, they're not going to be able to meaningfully grow the economy, they're going to stay at home, they're going to end up going down Internet rabbit holes and getting radicalized in many cases. So that's a loss. And so if we can get people connected in various ways, that's the direction we should go.

And I'm not someone who thinks that this money is a silver bullet that's going to do the trick. I mean, you still have to convey structure, purpose, fulfillment, community, all of the rest of it that jobs traditionally have provided.

[09:10:07]

SMERCONISH: Andrew, a final question. There's an academic in the on deck circle and I'll bet you've read the stories. It's Dr. Yampolskiy who's been quoted as saying that he thinks in five years we'll have 99 percent unemployment. I'll see in a moment whether he's going to stand by that prediction. How bad does Andrew Yang think it will get undeterred?

YANG: No, it's going to get bad. I certainly don't think 99 percent bad. But if you use this 44 percent of jobs subject to automation as a benchmark and then you figure that we're going to churn through, let's say half of those jobs over the next 10 years or so, that puts you at 30 to 40 million jobs that get eliminated. And that would be devastating. That would be catastrophic for many, many communities.

And I think that's a realistic place. So I think we -- we're going to be heading.

SMERCONISH: Andrew Yang, thank you for being here. Perfect guest on this day.

YANG: Thanks for having me Michael. Wish I had better news but --

SMERCONISH: Go to my website -- hopefully so. Go to my website at smerconish.com. This is today's poll question, is guaranteed income a realistic remedy for job loss due to AI? Go vote at smerconish.com.

And if you think the case for UBI sounds dramatic as I just referenced, then listen to what one AI safety pioneer is warning as I referenced that 99 percent of workers will be unemployed by 2030. Why? Because humanoid robots and advanced models could make human labor uneconomical.

Joining me now is the man who delivered that warning, University of Louisville computer science and engineering professor, Dr. Roman Yampolskiy. He coined the term AI safety. He's also the author of the book "AI: Unexplainable, Unpredictable, Uncontrollable."

Dr. Yampolskiy, nice to see you. What is your current prediction and on what is it based?

ROMAN YAMPOLSKIY, AUTHOR, "AI: UNEXPLAINABLE, UNPREDICTABLE, UNCONTROLLABLE: So that's a prediction about capabilities. It doesn't mean that actual deployment in economy will follow. Just because we have technical capability to automate certain jobs does not actually mean that within the same framework it will happen. Today we have self-driving cars, but still lots of people work as truck drivers, Uber drivers. So there is a big gap between our capability which certainly is already at between 10 and 40 percent of automating existing cognitive labor, not physical labor and what is being deployed in economy.

I think in five years we'll have capacity to automate nearly all cognitive jobs. It doesn't mean it will actually happen on that thing -- on that framework.

SMERCONISH: OK, so in five years the capacity you think will exist that there could be 99 percent unemployment, but you don't believe that that will be the reality? Is that fair?

YAMPOLSKIY It is fair because a lot of times we keep certain jobs not because they're necessary, they just kind of historically grandfathered in. We call them BS jobs. Quite a few people do things which if we fired then nobody would have to replace them.

SMERCONISH: I asked Chat GPT what I should ask of you. Are you ready for what AI said you need to answer for? It's this.

YAMPOLSKIY: Always.

SMERCONISH: You have said that there will be no new jobs and no viable retraining. But historically, every technological revolution has produced entirely new categories of work. So what convinces you that this time is different and that human AI complementary disappears entirely?

YAMPOLSKIY: Yes, we historically invented new tools for people to be more productive. And then instead of having 10 people doing something, you had one manager and nine people looked for new jobs to do. They went through some training and got new jobs. If we get to the level of human performance with AI, we call it Artificial General Intelligence. AI can do anything a human can do, then the new jobs created will also be immediately taken by AI.

There is never a reason to hire a human who requires high pay, gets sick, has other issues versus AI, which you know, right now costs you $20 a month. And even that would go lower.

SMERCONISH: So parents should be advising their children to pursue what type of a career to make sure that they're immunized from this.

YAMPOLSKIY: There is nothing immune from automation of cognitive labor if you can do anything any human can do. If we get to that point, then no job is safe. Certain jobs will remain because people like human beings doing certain things for them. Maybe you want a human nurse, not a robot nurse, but that's a preference. Just like today, some people like man made items, not robot produced items.

[09:15:00]

SMERCONISH: But I imagine the trades are going to be the careers of the future, right? A plumber still needs to come to the house. A roofer needs to fix your shingles. Somebody needs to come and provide macadam to your driveway. Fill in the blank.

YAMPOLSKIY: Right. There is multiple companies working on creating humanoid robots. They are not as advanced as AI is today, but predictions are again that maybe in five years we'll have affordable, fully capable humanoid robots capable of doing what a human laborer can.

SMERCONISH: What's your answer to my poll question, is universal basic income or guaranteed income or Andrew Yang's freedom dividend, is that the answer to protect us?

YAMPOLSKIY: We don't really have many choices. You cannot have majority of your population unemployed and rioting in the states. So we definitely need to find a way to guarantee at least certain basic safety net for people. And taxing robots, taxing AI is a pretty good alternative.

Historically, communism, socialism always fails because people need incentives to work. They don't want to work for free. Whereas you can pretty much make robots do free labor.

SMERCONISH: Dr. Roman Yampolskiy, thank you so much for your expertise.

What are your thoughts at home? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. This comes from the world of X. You can follow me on X.

I think we'll end up with basic income because of AI, but unless we're careful, it'll just be another way to spell poverty.

Dr. Carl Hindy, I think we need purpose. If there were a way to pay for it, I mean, I guess it's very individualistic, I don't know what I would do if there were no job for me. I got to be doing something to be protective because, you know, what do they say? Idle hands are the devil's workshop. That's what I think.

Make sure you're voting on today's poll question at smerconish.com, is guaranteed income a realistic remedy for job loss due to AI?

Up ahead, two National Guard members shot ambush style on Wednesday in Washington, D.C. one dead, the other fighting for his life. The suspect, an Afghan national, is in custody. An important conversation about urban crime with former ambassador to Japan, former mayor of Chicago, former White House chief of staff and probably former, a couple more things, Rahm Emanuel, in just a moment.

Make sure you check out my website at smerconish.com. While you're there, sign up for the free newsletter. You'll get the work of illustrators. Come on. I love that cartoon from Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:21:45]

SMERCONISH: America still grieving over the ambush style shooting of two National Guard members in Washington on Wednesday, Sarah Beckstrom, 20 years old who volunteered to work in D.C. over the Thanksgiving holiday, dead, Andrew Wolfe, 24, hospitalized and in critical condition following surgery. The suspect, who was wounded is a 29-year-old Afghan national. According to U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, he'll be charged with first degree murder.

In the aftermath, President Trump has called for more troops to be sent to the Capitol and has also said that his administration will work to permanently pause migration from all third world countries. Joining me now to discuss is CNN Senior Political and Global Affairs Commentator Rahm Emanuel. He's the former ambassador to Japan under President Biden, former chief of staff under President Obama. He's also former mayor of Chicago.

Ambassador, you said recently to a law enforcement group that defunding the police was the dumbest public policy statement ever. I wondered when I watched that quote, is it bad branding or was it a bad idea or both?

RAHM EMANUEL, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: What I said was both defunding the police was a dumb idea only to be outdone for dumber about National Guard because neither will solve public safety concerns, which is about putting more community police officers on the street practicing community policing and getting kids, guns and gangs off the street. And the federal government can be a partner in all that. These are two choices that are both false choices and don't address the real problem of addressing public safety both good community policing with officers working the neighborhoods and knowing the community then giving kids after school programs, summer jobs activities, getting guns and drugs off the street and the gangs that funnel those. And the U.S. attorneys can do a good job of prosecuting those. That's a comprehensive approach that deals with all aspects of public safety that comes in many shapes and differences but across big cities, small cities and medium sized cities.

SMERCONISH: Do you see any role for the National Guard in that?

EMANUEL: Look, National Guard, just like here, leaving Chicago. Chicago, what I see the role here is building up a police force practice, trained and working at community policing. That's a permanent effort that works at reducing crime knowing the good people on a street in the community and knowing where the trouble spots are. That's what -- this is not a one and done and flash, here for four weeks gone, you got a permanent problem where you have to address it comprehensively and put pressure on it. With community policing after school programs, when the bell goes off or at the end of the year, school year kids have good activities, artistic, athletic, academic, with a mentor and then putting the full force of the law getting gang members off the streets who are funneling in drugs and guns.

That is a comprehensive effort and it's not one and done, it's a year in 24, seven days a week, 365 days a year effort. And you're going to do it consistently, which is why you see year after year reduction because it's pressure put on both the root causes and the expressions of violent crime that are needed. The U.S. attorney here is the probably --

SMERCONISH: The Washington -- The Washington Post -- The Washington Post editorial board recently published this. Put it up on the screen and I'll read it to the ambassador. "The National Guard's presence in the Capitol has been controversial since it began this summer. But blaming the presence for provoking this monstrous act is inappropriate. The Guard has helped reduce and deter violent crime and is far from menacing.

[09:25:18]

At worst, deploying soldiers to pick up trash is a poor use of resources. President Donald Trump's decision to call up an additional 500 guard members to patrol is a symbolic gesture, not a prelude to fascism." Your reaction to that.

EMANUEL: Yes. Look, Michael, look, what happened here is absolutely abhorrent. This young woman, look, read her story. She volunteered to be part of the National Guard so she can go to college. She chose to serve us and then be away from her family on Thanksgiving.

This shooter killer drives all the way from Washington State all the way across the country to kill somebody. And then another guardsman is hanging on by his life. As somebody who is a mayor that used to go by the side of officers at hospitals who were shot. My uncle was a police officer in Chicago. Or kids who were shot by random violence.

So the notion -- look, nothing justifies what happened. Nothing. She is exactly what you would want to see. Worked hard, tried to go to college, tried to better her life, volunteered to serve others, she deserves to be honored. But the National Guard -- the original question was about public safety.

The National Guard is not about that. And that's not the effort. And we shouldn't confuse it and try to score political points. There's a legitimate way to solve public safety, which is a real problem. It's not a documented.

Nobody walks around going, I feel 22 percent safer this year. It's a real problem that needs to be addressed so people can go about their lives, both residential and retail in the sense of their lives and the vitality of a neighborhood. And here we should honor somebody that chose public service, that chose to serve others, that gave up her Thanksgiving with her family so you could be with yours. That's what we should do. And remember the common values that we all share and the common desire for good, safe communities for all children to grow up in.

That's not too hard. That doesn't require politics.

SMERCONISH: OK.

EMANUEL: It doesn't require us to politicize this fight.

SMERCONISH: I think -- I think -- I think it bears underscoring that the person responsible for this horrible outcome is the perpetrator, right? The guy who drove across country --

EMANUEL: Yes.

SMERCONISH: -- and did what he did. OK. He's the perp. I want to ask you about this, Politico, recent -- Politico recent --

EMANUEL: Wait, wait. Was I -- was I not clear about that?

SMERCONISH: I just -- just want to make sure it's crystal clear. No, no. I just --

EMANUEL: All right. OK.

SMERCONISH: For both our sakes, for both our sakes, I want to make sure --

EMANUEL: All right.

SMERCONISH: -- the record's entirely clear. Politico writing about you on crime because you recently made a major address. I want to read this aloud and see if they got it right. Relative to Rahm Emanuel as mayor "grappled with a surge in homicides and shootings, with the city reporting its deadliest year in two decades in 2016, crime rates across major categories murders, shootings, robberies and burglaries declined over the next two years, which the city's police department attributed to strengthened community partnerships and technological investment. Emanuel poured millions in expanding youth mentoring and summer job programs to keep kids off the streets, initiatives that remain a point of pride."

How's that for a summary of a very complicated record?

EMANUEL: This is a very common. Look, when I walked out, burglaries, robberies, car thefts were at a 20 year low and shootings and homicides were coming dramatically down. We did have a spike. We put our arms around it brought also technology dealing with carjackings and other types of challenges that we were having. And then we had these what are data centers between the University of Chicago crime lab predictive policing so we can stop the shooting before it occurred.

And I am very proud of the fact that we tripled the size of summer jobs after school. Largest mentoring program in America was in the city of Chicago. We gave people that rather than have recidivism, we gave ex-offenders jobs so they could be productive. And then we encouraged the U.S. attorney to bring the full force of the law against the gang members, a few of them who were committing overwhelming amount of the gun violence. And it worked.

But don't kid yourself, it worked as if you check the box. It's a nonstop effort supporting good community policing, as I said, giving kids proper activities and mentors to do and then bringing the law and all the law on those who are doing the major bounce of gun violence or drug dealing in a city, the U.S. attorney's office with the state's attorney's office.

SMERCONISH: Ambassador Rahm Emanuel, thank you. We appreciate you being here.

Here's some social media reaction today's program so far. From the world of X, Dems need to firstly accept that crime is an issue and that it affects everyone. They know what to do but choose to play politics with the issue."

Hey, I think he is onto something, Mayor Emanuel, Ambassador Emanuel, because this is going to be a broad stroke, but Democrats often don't want to have the conversation, I think, as much as Republicans do relative to crime. Historically, I feel comfortable saying it this way in the time that I've been involved paying attention, which is 30 plus years, crime has always been a Republican issue, and Democrats haven't tried to embrace it and own it the way that I think Mayor Emanuel is now doing.

But I don't think you can -- OK, I've said it as clearly as I'm going to say it. I want to remind you, go to my Web site at Smerconish.com. Is guaranteed income a realistic remedy for job loss due to A.I.? Cast your ballot at the end of the hour. I'll let you know how that vote stands.

Still to come, your social media reaction to the program so far, and a shakeup in Kyiv as Putin lays out new demands and the U.S. prepares to send a delegation to Moscow. Andriy Yermak, Zelenskyy's top aide, lead negotiator, is out. The timing could not have been more explosive. The question now, how does his exit impact peace negotiations?

Sign up for the newsletter at Smerconish.com when you're voting on the poll question, you'll get the work of illustrators like Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:35:48]

SMERCONISH: You can find me on social media. Follow me on X, subscribe to my YouTube channel. Maybe I'll read your response during the course of the program.

PG, I think it's realistic if A.I. produces a huge increase in productivity so the government would collect much more money in taxes. But how can a smart and previously productive person be happy receiving small handouts?

Those are legitimate questions. Who is going to go collect from all these A.I. giants, and what's that going to look like? And is that going to be confiscatory? Is that going to be perceived as socialism?

Something interesting. I said to Andrew Yang, you were on this. We all remember 2020, in the election cycle, in that time you were talking about it when you first announced in 2018, you were already telling people what's coming when the rest of us were a little bit behind the curve. Something else that he addressed, though, the political ramifications of all of this. Specifically, that with the loss of manufacturing jobs in states like mine -- states like mine, Pennsylvania or Ohio or Michigan, you see a correlation between those populist forces that elected Donald Trump in the 2016 cycle and the loss of those type of jobs.

My point is, it will be interesting to see the way in which the parties react to the subject we're talking about on today's program, the rise of artificial intelligence and the potential of needing something like universal basic income. Who gains, who loses, politically speaking.

One more from social media. What do we have? From X as well.

Stop all the nonsense of defunding, refining the role of police. Respect all members of law enforcement as they are carrying out the laws.

Nobody here is carrying water for defunding the police. I simply asked Rahm a question of his criticism, whether it was the branding or the underlying policy. And he spoke for himself.

I will not defend defunding the police. I will point out that initially, when we started speaking in those terms, it was a recognition that there are some responses by the police department that would be better handled by, for example, mental health professionals. And then it took off from there.

Make sure you're voting on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Is guaranteed income a realistic remedy for job loss due to A.I.?

Still to come, Ukraine's top negotiator gone, a raid on his home, and now a potential power vacuum at the center of the Russia-Ukraine peace process. We'll break down what Andriy Yermak's sudden resignation means and how it could shift the war's endgame.

Please take a look at what Scott Stantis sketched for us this week. Subscribe to the newsletter at Smerconish.com when you vote on the poll question. You'll get a chance to see a lot more like that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:42:47]

SMERCONISH: A major shakeup inside Ukraine's government at a critical moment in the push for a peace deal. President Zelenskyy's top aide and lead negotiator, Andriy Yermak, has resigned. It happened just hours after his home was raided by anti-corruption police.

The shakeup comes just one day after Thanksgiving, with Ukraine and the U.S. set to resume negotiations this weekend, and with Russia signaling its own next move. "The New York Post" reporting today that it received an impassioned text message from Yermak last night saying that he was headed to the war's front line, quote, "I'm going to the front and am prepared for any reprisals."

The Kremlin says a U.S. delegation is expected in Moscow next week, and Vladimir Putin is already laying out new hardline demands, including threats to take additional Ukrainian territory by force if Kyiv doesn't withdraw troops. All of this makes Yermak's exit even more significant. He's been the public face of Kyiv's negotiating team. And just days ago, he said, the last major gap with Washington was territory.

In fact, before yesterday's raid, Yermak told "The Atlantic" that Ukraine would never cede land to Russia as part of a deal, saying, quote, "not a single sane person today would sign a document to give up territory."

Joining me now is David Lawler, the national security editor at Axios. He's been tracking these negotiations from the start. David, Yermak was deeply unpopular in Ukraine, but he provided a foil. He provided some value to Zelenskyy in that he was a magnet for discontent and criticism. So, I guess, the question I want to ask you is whether Zelenskyy is enhanced or made weaker by this departure.

DAVE LAWLER, NATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR, AXIOS: He looks weaker at the moment. He had been pressed to fire Yermak earlier. He had consistently stood by him. And then finally was forced into this move after Yermak's home was raided as part of this corruption probe.

Yermak has been not only chief of staff and not only chief negotiator, but really, minister for everything. He's been described as, you know, Zelenskyy's right arm, the guy who was sort of the enforcer of loyalty to Zelenskyy internally, and the guy that, as you said, sort of absorbed some of the criticism, not only domestically but also from abroad.

[09:45:01]

There was a bit of a good cop, bad cop dynamic two of them. He's now gone. Zelenskyy is in the process of shaking up his presidential staff. You know, he might emerge from this with cleaner hands and a sort of a free path to define what the future of Ukraine's government looks like. But at the moment when your right-hand man is forced out after his home is rated by corruption authorities, it's not going to reflect very good -- very well on the guy at the top.

SMERCONISH: And his departure follows that of two other cabinet level ministers. I guess, this is a glass half empty or half full. You could say this is healthy. This is what a democracy does to cleanse itself of bad behavior at the highest reaches. Or others will say Ukraine is up to its old tricks? LAWLER: Yes. So, we actually interviewed Yermak, my Axios colleague Barak Ravid and I, three days before his resignation. We asked him about the corruption allegations, and that's how he framed it. Now, of course, he's self-interested a bit.

I don't think he knew he was going to be resigning in a couple of days, but he said people who criticize Ukraine for corruption should consider the fact that, you know, if we were really a deeply corrupt, authoritarian country, these kind of independent corruption investigations wouldn't be allowed to happen, wouldn't be allowed to proceed to the very highest levels of government.

So basically, don't politicize it. Let these processes run their course. Now, it should be said Yermak was accused of trying to nip this in the bud earlier, so his hands are not entirely clean. But that was his framing on it that Ukraine is a functioning democracy, and the fact that these corruption allegations should happen reflects well on Ukraine rather than badly.

SMERCONISH: You've done a lot of reporting as to how the peace negotiations got to where they are now. The development of the talking points and the agreement on the Trump side of the ledger. So, where does that go given this news?

LAWLER: Yes. So, as of the last high-level conversations U.S. and Ukraine, the decision was reached to come to agreement on all of the other issues besides territory. And so, get that all agreed between the U.S. and Ukraine and then let the presidents talk about territory.

You just read off the quote from Yermak saying, nobody would agree to give away territory in exchange for peace. That is what they're being asked to do at the moment. The Russian position, as Vladimir Putin just reinforced, is that we're going to take this territory either by force or through negotiations. And the U.S. has backed them up in that basically that they think the war is moving in Russia's direction. And so, Ukraine will have to make painful territorial concessions in order to get a deal.

SMERCONISH: And as -- finally, as you and I are having this conversation, the last 24 hours have been that -- have seen very aggressive actions by Russia militarily. Say a word about that. I mean, as the talks continue, Putin has got his foot on the gas.

LAWLER: Absolutely. I mean, not only the attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure ahead of the winter, which have continued very intensely, but also on the front lines. You know, it's been slow progress for Russia, but they're continuing to pour more and more men to the front, to try to show that they have the military advantage which, of course, would give them more leverage in talks.

And you can debate whether Putin is actually serious about making a deal at the moment. I think a lot of us doubt that that's the case. But he certainly wants to go into any talks with maximum leverage, which means maximum success on the battlefield.

SMERCONISH: Dave Lawler from Axios, thank you so much for your expertise. Checking in now on some social media reaction to today's program. From the world of X.

Michael, the average American does not care about Ukraine. That's sad. We don't think about Ukraine and we don't want to be involved. Most Americans don't want any money sent to Ukraine. We, as a country, are trillions in debt with many issues at home to solve.

Why can't we do, Common Ground, two things at once? Believe me, I'm well aware of the fact we are $38 trillion in debt. I talk about it here routinely. I've had the folks on from the Peterson Foundation often, but that doesn't mean that we stand by while an ally, while a friend is overrun by an aggressive authoritarian power.

I mean, we need to both support Ukraine. I think we can do two things, support Ukraine and be more mindful of how we whittle away that $38 trillion. Are you ready to have the entitlement conversation? Are you ready to pursue some of the strategies that Simpson-Bowles advanced on President Obama's initial watch? I am.

You still have time to vote on today's poll question if you go to Smerconish.com and cast a ballot right now. Is guaranteed income a realistic remedy for job loss due to A.I.? While you're there, sign up for the newsletter. It's free and it's worthy, and you get the work of illustrators like Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:54:11]

SMERCONISH: OK, there's the result so far of today's voting. Twenty- six thousand and change have cast a ballot. Is guaranteed -- pretty decided. Is guaranteed income a realistic remedy for job loss due to A.I.? Seventy-four percent are saying no.

Here's some of the social media reaction to today's program. Follow me on X, subscribe to my YouTube channel, maybe I'll read yours.

Income replacement is only the first problem. Idle people become disaffected people and disaffected people get led into situations like our current political mess.

Or, Robert, as I said earlier in the program, idle hands are the devil's workshop. I totally agree with that. I've thought this through myself. What would I do in a future environment where work was not an option? What I'm doing on radio and on television could be replicated by artificial intelligence already.

[09:55:03]

I got to do something to, you know, to keep me active and my mind stimulated. So, I hear you on that point. More social media reaction. What else do we have? From the world of X as well.

Protect citizens. For too long, Dems have championed the rights of violent criminals over innocent citizens. Cashless bail, defund the police, soft drug policy, releasing 70-time violent criminals back on the streets. Indefensible. Hello Moto, I made the observation earlier in the program that the reason I was eager to chat with Rahm Emanuel about this is because he's been -- he's been voluntarily addressing the subject. And I don't think it's a stereotyping stretch to say that in the past, the crime side of the ledger has always been on the Republican candidate, right, that the Democrat has not been the one who has wanted to talk about it, and he's trying to change that way of campaigning.

What's next? Hit me with another one. I'll make it quick.

Ukraine should not have to give up any land. They fought so hard and long to save it.

Right. But at what cost? If it's going to go on for another five or 10 years, then what do you say?

If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you so much for watching. Hope you're having a nice Thanksgiving weekend. We will see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)