Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Admiral Tells Lawmakers Survivors Clinging To Boat Didn't Radio Backup; What If The Accused Pipe Bomber Claims He's Already Been Pardoned? The New Debate: What Does Wealthy Even Mean In 2025? Aired 9-10a ET

Aired December 06, 2025 - 09:00   ET

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

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: And many others who are still waiting to see a judge. Inmates who wear the striped uniform, that means they've had their case heard, they've been convicted by a court, but they're doing a headcount now of inmates who have not been convicted of anything. There are several hundred people here. There's more in this cell as well. And very few of these hundreds of people have access to an attorney.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: An all new episode of "The Whole Story" airs tomorrow at 8:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific only on CNN. Thank you for joining me today. I'll see you back here next Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Eastern. Smerconish is up next.

[09:00:45]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Justice should not depend on fame. I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs.

Think about the disconnect in recent headlines concerning drug deaths. We live in a country where who dies from illegal drugs often determines whether justice is even pursued. Because when a celebrity dies, we prosecute the suppliers. Think Matthew Perry, his illegal ketamine suppliers, indicted, convicted. One doctor has received a sentence of two and a half years in prison while the others are still awaiting their sentencing.

Or Michael K. Williams, the dealer who sold him fentanyl laced heroin, sentenced to 10 years behind bars. Or Tyler Skaggs, the Angels pitcher whose supplier was convicted of distribution resulting in death, sentenced to 22 years. These are terrible tragedies, but they're also proof that when the victim is famous, the system, it snaps into action.

But for the other 100,000 Americans who die each year, usually no headlines, no chain of custody trace, no high profile prosecutions and ultimately no justice in many instances. This is not to say that no supplier to average citizens is ever prosecuted. But even of those who are, how many customers do they get to before anything happens? Meanwhile, a celebrity dies and the authorities, they step up immediately. A system that delivers accountability for the famous while ignoring the non-famous is not a just system, it's a morally inverted one.

And that disparity, that silent corrosive inequality is why many Americans, myself included, have supported aggressive interdiction of drug running vessels. Because for many families it's the only point along the chain of death where anybody connected to their loved one's fatal dose ever faces any consequence.

Now, I want to be clear. I'm not endorsing the second boat strike on September 2, claims that the second strike were lawful. It seems dubious to me. As the Department of Defense war manual itself expressly states, orders to fire upon the shipwreck would be clearly illegal. So if the reports of what the video shows are accurate, there's a problem as the New York Times reported yesterday, quote, "Two survivors, shirtless, clung to the hole, tried unsuccessfully to flip it back over, then climbed on it and slipped off into the water over and over."

The Times also reporting that the tape shows the survivors were perhaps waving a sign of surrender before the attack. So far, the videotape has been a political Rorschach test, with Republican congressional leaders saying, move along, there's nothing to see here. And Democrats say they find it deeply disturbing, which is why we ought to see it, the American people. Full transparency is essential whenever lethal force is used in our name.

Still, the broader moral and legal debate cannot be separated from the sheer scale of the carnage that these traffickers are unleashing. CDC data shows that more than 105,000Americans died of drug overdoses in 2023. That's the official number from the National Vital Statistics System. That's the highest ever recorded. The numbers seem to have dipped since then, but they're still sky high.

Although the CDC tallies all overdoses together, nearly three quarter involve illicitly manufactured synthetic opioids like fentanyl. So when I say about 100,000 Americans die each year from illegal drugs, that's not rhetorical flair. That's the CDC's reality. And where do those illegal drugs come from? The supply chain today is frighteningly efficient.

Fentanyl precursor chemicals are overwhelmingly produced in China. Those chemicals are shipped to Mexico where the cartels synthesize fentanyl at industrial scale. The finished product then smuggled across the U.S. Mexico border in quantities small enough to fit in a backpack but potent enough to kill millions. And the maritime routes, like the vessel involved in that September 2nd attack, they move cocaine, heroin and synthetic precursors northward through Central America and the Caribbean before entering the U.S. distribution pipelines. And that's the supply chain behind tens of thousands of American deaths every year.

Some critics argue that any use of force against drug traffickers violates international law because traffickers are not state actors and have not initiated an armed attack. I think that's an outdated lens. Under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, "Nations retain an inherent right of self-defense." And modern U.S. practice has never limited that right to state sponsored attacks. After September 11, the U.S. used force against Al Qaeda, a non-state actor.

[09:05:17]

In Grenada. 1983, the U.S. used force to protect American citizens, not to repel an attack. Panama, 1989, the U.S. seized Manuel Noriega in part because he was flooding the U.S. with cocaine, contributing to widespread death and addiction. These precedents recognize that grave ongoing threats from non-state actors can justify force in certain circumstances. And when the illicit drug supply chain kills more Americans annually than most wars, then I say it's not unreasonable for the United States to view certain interdictions as a form of self- defense. But of course, that principle has to be applied carefully and with facts and evidence, legality, accountability. Which is why the second strike on September 2 needs to be fully investigated and fully revealed.

Recent polling shows just how torn Americans are on these issues. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from mid-November said only 29 percent of Americans support killing suspected drug traffickers abroad without judicial process. Yet a Harvard/Harris poll from early October said 71 percent support for destroying boats bringing drugs from South America. And a CBS News/YouGov poll from mid-November shows the public almost evenly split when it comes to, quote, "using military force to attack boats suspected of bringing drugs into the U.S." Fifty-three percent said yes, 47 percent one opposed.

Same issue, very different reactions based on the framing. And that's precisely why transparency matters. People can't form a legitimate judgment about what the U.S. military did on September 2nd until they see what really happened. We need to hold drug traffickers accountable for the mass killing that they're driving inside the United States. And that includes robust interdiction of drug running vessels.

We need to value every American life equally, not just the ones whose names appear in the headlines. And that brings me today's poll question at smerconish.com, should the U.S. destroy boats that are transporting drugs? Go cast your ballot.

Joining me now is Admiral James Stavridis, CNN Senior Military Analyst, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. Thank you so much for being here.

I want to run through, Admiral, some of the recent reporting, some of the recent developments, including what I just made reference to, that these two individuals may have been waving toward the sky. What do you make of that development?

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: I think it hurts the case that we had authority to simply kill them while they're floating in the water. Hey, let's back up for one minute. Why do we want to hold ourselves to these kind of standards? I think there's a moral imperative to do so. I think there's legal imperatives, Geneva Conventions, laws of war. I keep coming back to the intelligence, Michael. You just laid out beautifully why we ought to stop these drug runners. A pretty good way to start would be, for example, to have captured these two, to have taken the intelligence from them, to have interrogated them. You can then drop a plumb line back to the routes, possibly all the way up to Maduro. All of that is an opportunity to reverse engineer the supply routes that you talk about.

And then lastly, you know, as a former commander, and by the way, I was commander of U.S. Southern Command, in charge of all these kind of operations for three years, I always think about reciprocity. If those were my Navy SEALs floating in the water, I would want them afforded the opportunity to surrender. So I think there's a lot of good reasons we ought to, as you say, pull this one apart. If we did something wrong, admit it, talk about it, and apply it so that we can continue to reverse engineer and kill the drugs, but also do the right thing as a military.

SMERCONISH: I'm trying to analyze all the details from different news reports in the absence, obviously, of the video. So, there's the waving report. There's the fact that there's no satellite phone apparent in the hands of these two individuals. There's that account from The Times that the survivors were shirtless, clung to the hole, tried unsuccessfully to flip it back over, then climbed on it and slipped off into the water over and over. And as you well know, Admiral, the law in this circumstance, relative to that DoD manual, specifically cites shipwreck as an instance where you can't take action.

STAVRIDIS: It does. And neither you nor I can make an informed judgment here because you're showing the only pieces of evidence that we can actually look at with our own eyes.

[09:10:10]

To your earlier point, there needs to be not only transparency with the videos, we do need to see that second video that you're describing from various media reports, but we also need to see the transcripts. I want to hear the audio. I'd like to see the JAG who was in the room with Admiral Bradley under oath, talk about what he or she said to the admiral. When I led the campaign Against Libya in 2011, I had a JAG next to me essentially every time we dropped a bomb. Because you want to avoid collateral damage, you want to ensure you don't end up in that cell next to Rodrigo Duterte, the former president of the Philippines, in the Hague.

So bottom line, we need to have what lawyers would call a time of discovery here and then make the judgments without fear or favor as to what happened on that day.

SMERCONISH: Admiral Stavridis, I think you're also highlighting another important aspect of this, which is that initially when the reports were made as a layperson, I thought that this was some type of an instantaneous decision. The CNN reporting points out that there was a 41 minute deliberative process. So thought went into this, and I'm trying to be eminently fair to Admiral Bradley in this case. And as you've pointed out, he relied on some legal justification.

STAVRIDIS: He absolutely did. And by the way, Admiral Mitch Bradley has an absolutely sterling reputation in the military generally and in his community. My very good friend Admiral Bill McRaven has spoken to that quite recently. So again, and I'm sure Admiral Bradley would agree with this, let's have a thorough investigation. The question, I think, Michael, is who's going to do it?

There's no IG in the Pentagon. He was fired. There are no senior JAGs. They were all fired. I think it's really up to the Congress.

And I'm watching very close. We've heard from a variety of people on the Hill. That's fine. The two people I want to hear from are the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the senior oversight body over the military. That would be Senator Jack Reed, who is a West Point graduate, straight as an arrow.

And the other is the chairman, Roger Wicker, with a former Air Force, wait for it, JAG officer, retired lieutenant colonel. I want to hear from those two. I want them to investigate this. If it's done behind closed doors, that's fine, but we need a thorough investigation.

SMERCONISH: OK. Let me say that you are my North Star. And McRaven, the two of you together, you're the gold standard. So when I saw that Admiral McRaven said, "In the 30 years that I have known Mitch, meaning Admiral Bradley, he has always displayed a strong moral compass, impeccable character, someone that I trust to do the right thing under even the most difficult of" -- that causes me to say, back off. Give the man the benefit of the doubt and let's see the way this plays out.

I want to say one more thing, though, in light of what you just offered. It's so frustrating for me that this has become a Rorschach test, because you've not seen it, I've not seen it, but congressional leaders have. And then, Admiral, they walk out of the room and all the Republicans say one thing, and all the Democrats, and I just look for an individual of courage, like one Republican to say, damn, I was really troubled by what I saw. Or a Democrat who would say, you know, Admiral Bradley was in a really difficult spot and seems to have done the right thing. But instead, there's no independent thinking.

Your thoughts?

STAVRIDIS: I go back to those two individuals, Jack Reed, Roger Wicker. These are two -- you use the expression North Star. That's very kind. These are two individuals I look up to for their standards. I've heard both of them cross the aisle in viewpoints.

Let's wait and see what they have to say about this in the -- in the days ahead. This is not going to go away as an issue.

SMERCONISH: Admiral James Stavridis, we appreciate you always, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

For those of you who are at home, hit me up on social media. Please follow me on X. Subscribe to my YouTube channel. Maybe I'll read your comment during the course of the program. If it meant the end of drugs, but people are still selling drugs and getting high somehow.

Andre, I'm not sure how to react to that, other than to say I'm all for a very aggressive posture by this administration in dealing with drug interdiction. This is another -- this another one of those cases with President Trump where I say I share the objective. You know, the borders. I share the objective. The way in which we're going about it, including the second strike that is deserving of scrutiny and criticism where appropriate.

[09:15:10]

And I'm not going to hold off on any of it. But the idea of being very aggressive -- you think these druggies are not right now among each other? Just in the same way migrants coming into the country, the word spreads and they say, well, we're not doing that anymore? I got to believe it's effective, but at what cost? We need to see the tape of that second strike.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com. I mean this is it down and dirty. There's the question, should the U.S. destroy boats that are transporting drugs? Can't wait to see the end of the hour and how that stands.

Up ahead, the President's power to pardon is nearly unlimited. But does that mean that a January 6 pardon could cover a pipe bomb set the night before? The answer is more complicated than you think. Going to dig into the language and the loopholes and the real world consequences of a power that has no take backs. I'll do that with Elie Honig in a moment.

Don't forget to sign up for my newsletter when you're voting on today's poll question. You'll see the work on a daily basis of prized illustrators like Jack Ohman and also Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:20:29]

SMERCONISH: Almost five years after the crime, there's been an arrest in the pipe bomber case. Thirty-year-old Brian Cole Jr. of Woodbridge, Virginia has been charged with planting pipe bombs near the Republican and Democratic National Committee headquarters on January 5, 2021. Neither device exploded, but they were discovered at 1:00 p.m. on the day of the January 6 riot. And there's been much speculation as to how this fits into the overall narrative of the day. Cole appeared before a magistrate on Friday, has not entered a plea as of yet.

He told the FBI that he believes the 2020 election was stolen, which may point to his motivation. However, the criminal affidavit filed in this case notes that in 2019 and 2020, starting before the election, Cole purchased multiple items consistent with material used to make bombs. But here's a novel legal theory. What if he claims he's already been pardoned by the president? It sounds like a law school exam, right?

But it's not a stretch to think it will at least be attempted by a defense lawyer. You may recall that on the first day of his second term, President Trump signed a proclamation that, among other things, quote, "Granted a full, complete and unconditional pardon to those convicted offenses related to the events of January 6, 2021. Further, there was a dismissal of all pending indictments against individuals who for their conduct on January 6th." If this applies to Brian Cole, maybe he walks even before a trial begins.

Joining me now is CNN Senior Legal Analyst, former Assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Elie Honig.

All right, Elie, timeout. I have a special assignment for you and it is this. Take off that prosecutorial hat of yours, OK, you are now in Alan -- you're back at Harvard Law School and Professor Dershowitz says to you, Mr. Honig, I want you to be a defense lawyer and tell me how you'd argue that this guy deserves a pardon.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: OK, Michael, I love this because you have come across the perfect mind blowing law school hypothetical, only it's real. So I'm going to play the defense lawyer now for Mr. Cole. First of all, events relating to the conduct at or near the Capitol on January 6. First of all, the pipe bombs were laid the evening of January 5, but they remained there up until the attack on the Capitol was happening on January6. Second of all, at or near the Capitol.

OK. I used to work in this area. If you took Shohei Ohtani, the Dodgers slugger, and stood him at the RNC where that pipe bomb was laid and threw him a fastball and he crushed it would land on the Capitol grounds. That's how close it was. And then, most importantly, if you look at the language of the pardon related to the events.

OK. What is the single thing that united the thousands of people who stormed the Capitol? Most of them never knew each other. Most of them never met, have never met since. It's -- they believe the 2020 election was stolen and they were either trying to protest it or reverse it.

And if it's true that Mr. Cole told the FBI he believed the 2020 election was stolen, then I would argue he's within the scope of this pardon related to events that at or near the Capitol, January 6, 2021. There's my defense argument.

SMERCONISH: OK, let's put on the screen the language of the pardon, and let's parse what it says. "Grant a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January, 6, 2021." People looking at that right now, Elie, are saying, well, wait a minute, he hasn't been convicted.

HONIG: Right. Right. So now let me flip back to the prosecutor side. If that argument got made that he's already been convicted, I would say, no, no, no. This pardon was issued on January 20, 2024, Donald Trump's first day back in office.

And it says individuals convicted. I would say Mr. Cole was not convicted as of that day. He's not been convicted. Now, it's clear, I would argue, that Donald Trump's intent there, and I think language, I would argue, is anyone who had been convicted as of that day, it does not give a free pass for anyone who may come along in the future. So, Michael, this happens, you know, when lawyers draft documents, whether it's a will or a real estate contract, an indictment, a pardon, we think very carefully about what does this word exactly mean?

And then something unexpected happens in this case, this arrest happening almost five years later, and we go, oh, wait, now, what does that word mean? But that would be the process. I'm sorry.

SMERCONISH: OK. All right, all right, all right, all right. But now, Professor Dershowitz, back in your Harvard law days says to you, but Mr. Honig, how about if and when he's convicted, look ahead a year, 18 months. Now he is convicted. Can he now say, I have a pardon from President Trump?

[09:25:14]

HONIG: Right. Wouldn't that be odd if his almost his incentive might be to get convicted? I do want to say, by the way, I never took --

SMERCONISH: Right.

HONIG: -- Professor Dershowitz's class.

SMERCONISH: Plead guilty.

HONIG: Nonetheless --

SMERCONISH: Plead guilty.

HONIG: -- here's -- right, exactly. Here's another wrinkle, though, Michael. The guy who issued the pardon on January 2024, is still the president. And so we don't necessarily have to get into the crystal ball of what was his intent. That's the key question.

Because on the one hand, if Donald Trump meant to pardon someone like this, he can pardon Mr. Cole today. He can just say, I hereby issue a pardon for Mr. Cole. That's it.

Alternatively, Donald Trump might, he has the ability to get up there and make a public statement and say, when I issued that pardon on January 2024, I meant it to apply only to people who had been convicted as of that day. It is not my intent that it relates to Mr. Cole. Now, that doesn't necessarily shut down the defense argument here, but it certainly pours cold water on it.

SMERCONISH: I got -- I got to just say this. And it's a subject perhaps for a different day. Maybe we'll have it on radio, but what's to distinguish those who stormed the Capitol, the guy with the horns, feet up on the desk of Nancy Pelosi's desk, right, and this guy, weren't they united in purpose?

HONIG: Well, and let me add to that point, people might say, well, he wasn't physically present. This guy Cole didn't storm the Capitol. But let me throw a name at you. Enrique Tarrio. Enrique Tarrio, you might remember --

SMERCONISH: Right.

HONIG: -- was the leader of the Proud Boys --

SMERCONISH: Yes.

HONIG: -- convicted of very serious offenses, was not physically present, was not in Washington, D.C. on that day. And so that's exactly the argument I would make if I was defending Mr. Cole. I would say what matters here is the unity of purpose. Again, thousands of people, most of them have never met. What united them is they believe that election was stolen and they were trying to do something about it.

And that, if you go back to the pardon, relating to the offenses I would argue. That's what unifies them and arguably that's what brings them within the scope of this pardon.

SMERCONISH: Quick final question. Thank you for playing along. Does this get raised? Does a defense lawyer, does Mark Geragos, does somebody bring this on this guy's behalf?

HONIG: It has to, Michael, because if you're a --

SMERCONISH: Right.

HONIG: -- defense lawyer for Mr. Cole, it is your duty to raise every colorable, every reasonable argument you can make to defend your client. And now you've raised it, Michael, and so I'm sure it'll catch on. But look, these defense lawyers have a duty to make this argument. Is it a long shot? I don't know.

I think it's a really close call either way. But it would be malpractice to not even raise this.

SMERCONISH: Elie, that was fun and it was valuable. Thank you very much.

From the world of social media --

HONIG: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: -- X, follow me on X, follow me on Twitter, follow me on YouTube. The media is eating up the suspect's claim the election was stolen narrative while ignoring the fact that it took five years to make an arrest. The FBI found him using the same techniques they were used to find January 6 suspects. Was it racial profile?

I don't know how to react to that other than to say, thank God they've made an arrest. I don't know if the guy's guilty. I want to presume his innocence, but I'm just so grateful as an American because I had written this case off long ago, thinking, I guess they're just never going to catch whoever it was. But I'm not going to get all caught up in the, was it the Biden, Justice Department? The trust -- it's just destructive. We shouldn't be thinking of DOJ as the department of either party, but rather, you know, law enforcement arm of all of us, the United States. I know you're thinking I'm naive and I just fell off the truck.

I want to remind you, go to my website at smerconish.com, answer today's poll question, should the U.S. -- it's like really simple. There it is. I boiled it down. Should the U.S. destroy boats that are transporting drugs? I'm a yes vote.

I'm a yes vote with a caveat. And that caveat is that second strike, if it happened the way that I discussed with Admiral Stav, that's wrong and there need to be repercussions, but I don't know because I haven't seen the tape.

Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary. Plus, I love this, if a million dollars doesn't make you feel wealthy and some now claim you need $140,000 annually just to avoid poverty, then what does money even mean in America today? Sign up for my newsletter at smerconish.com when you vote on the poll question. Check out what -- that's a great cartoon. Check out what Steve Breen drew for us this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:34:01]

SMERCONISH: Here's a reaction to today's program, so far, that comes from a buddy of mine who chooses to remain nameless but provocative? The war on drugs since 1973 is about as successful as socialism, hopeless. Legalize heroin and cocaine, no one would need fentanyl, a million people get out of prison, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela become stable.

That could be tomorrow's poll question. Here's some of your social media reaction. From the world of X.

His actions were on the fifth. It's a hard no.

OK. So, this relates to this relates to whether the guy who is now charged in connection with being the pipe bomber could assert that he got to pardon us. And to that point that his behavior was a day before. I don't -- I don't accept that at all. I'm not saying this is an easy case, but hear me out on this. There were 1,500 who were prosecuted for January 6th offenses.

[09:35:01]

I don't know the answer to this, but my suspicion is that somebody did something on the fourth or the fifth as a conspirator and maybe wasn't involved on the sixth, per se, who would still be eligible for the pardon. Imagine that you plan the conspiracy on the fifth and you got out of dodge and you weren't there on the sixth. What would you say about that person? You'd say, they get prosecuted. So, I don't accept that.

More social media reaction. What do we have? Follow me on X and subscribe on YouTube.

If drug runners know that there is a very good chance that they will be killed on a narco boat, then they will think twice before they get on board. Deterrents matter.

Janette, I made the same point about border policy, OK? Remember all the film footage that we've seen in the last couple of years? I can't put it out of my head of people racing across the border. You think they're racing across the border today? We'd be watching it on CNN. They're not, because the word has spread and it is a deterrent.

I agree with your point. And I think the same thing is going to probably go on with these drug transporters. One more. I think I've got time. Let's see what we've got. I could do this all day.

So, on the street you see a drug dealer in plain sight. Are we to shoot them right there in the street? This is the U.S. board the boat, stop them, get the evidence, show us. Wow. I think you are part of a cult now.

No, we're keeping out a foreign entity or entities who are trying to invade our country with their drugs. It's a different standard that applies. Less of due process is necessary on the high seas than at home.

Make sure you're voting at Smerconish.com on today's poll question which is very simple. Should the U.S. destroy boats that are transporting drugs?

Still to come, the poverty line is $32,000, round numbers. A viral post argues that the real number is $140,000. And millionaires say -- millionaires say, we're not wealthy. Are our financial yardsticks totally broken? Make sure that you're signing up for the newsletter at Smerconish.com. You'll get the work of Scott Stantis who drew this for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:41:25]

SMERCONISH: A single question has been blowing up social media. What does poverty even mean in America today? A Wall Street portfolio manager named Michael Greene went viral for claiming that a family of four now needs nearly $140,000 a year just to survive. That's over $110,000 difference than the $32,150 federal poverty level set by the Department of Health and Human Services for a family of four.

So, how did Greene get to his wildly different number? Here's his breakdown of the basic needs and the budget of a family of four, meaning two earners and two kids. He uses a conservative national average data and estimates that for child care, you need more than $32,000, close to $33,000, housing $23,000 in round numbers, food almost 15,000, transportation almost $15,000, health care $10,500, other essentials $21,000, a required net income of $118,009. Add federal, state and FICA taxes of roughly $18,500, you arrive at a required gross income of $136,500, which many have rounded up to $140,000 for the conversation, and critics have called that nearly $140,000 figure absurd.

Others say he has captured a very real feeling of precarity that even a solid income can now leave a family holding on by their fingernails. But it all opens up the door to an even bigger issue, which is if we're arguing over what counts as poverty, we're also arguing over what counts as wealth. And that brings me to millionaires.

When we were growing up, right, a million bucks, that meant easy street. Today, that's up for debate. A new national survey from Northwestern Mutual, based on more than 4,600 Americans being surveyed by Harris, including nearly a thousand millionaires, found that only 36 percent of American millionaires consider themselves wealthy.

Let me say that again. A big chunk of millionaires do not think they're rich. Why? Because of inflation, geography, rising costs of child care, housing, health care, and something more intangible, comparison. People compare themselves to their peers.

And if your peers are also millionaires, then you might not feel rich. You just feel average. It's not just perception. The same research shows that many millionaires worry about outliving their savings. Only 53 percent expect to leave an inheritance. Nearly half say their financial planning needs improvement.

Joining me now is Jean Chatzky, founder and CEO of HerMoney Media. Jean, you worked on the Forbes' rich list. We used to think of that in terms of millions. Now, it's all in billions. What has happened here?

JEAN CHATZKY, CEO AND FOUNDER HERMONEY MEDIA: What has happened is that we're minting millionaires faster than we've ever minted them before. We're adding a thousand millionaires a day in this country. And to your point, that simply doesn't feel as special as it used to.

When I worked on what we called the rich list at Forbes back in the 90s, there were about 3 million millionaires in the -- in the -- in the U.S. at that point. And there were a few hundred billionaires worldwide. Today, we've got 20 to 22 million millionaires in the U.S., and there are -- there are several thousand billionaires across -- or a few -- yes, a few hundred billionaires across the country.

[09:45:08]

So, the numbers have simply gotten bigger, and Americans can't avoid comparing. It's in our DNA. We've learned this from the field of behavioral finance that we compare ourselves over and over and over again. And when we do it, we tend to compare up, not down, which just makes us feel worse.

SMERCONISH: So yesterday, my poll question, not scientific but interesting nonetheless, asked, are you wealthy with a net worth of $1 million in 2025? More than 35,000 people cast a ballot and 71.77 percent said no.

I want to show you something else. The folks at Charles Schwab did their survey last year and asked, what does it take to be considered wealthy? The number currently, 2.3 million. Does that feel about right? I mean, like, where's the Mendoza line in all of this? According to you what makes you wealthy?

CHATZKY: I mean, I think what makes you wealthy is being able to live a life where you feel comfortable. When we've done studies on money and happiness, and researchers across the country have done a lot of these, it's that level of comfort being able to put food on the table, pay your rent, pay your mortgage, get a car to drive that's not going to break down on your way to work, go on vacation and enjoy yourself once in a while. That's what tends to make people happy. Less than that, you definitely feel like you're struggling.

SMERCONISH: Jean, we are living amidst what's described as the greatest transfer of wealth ever as boomers check out and leave to their kids and their grandchildren. How does that factor in, do you think, to this perception of what it means to be wealthy?

CHATZKY: In part, it's concentrating the wealth more. It's making families that already have money even wealthier. I mean, the one thing to understand is that it's actually happening a lot more slowly than we expected it to happen. But when it does materialize and -- we're talking about $124 trillion, that will change hands.

What's expected is that it'll actually make women much wealthier, because women will inherit twice. They're going to inherit both from those parents, but also from the spouses that they'll outlive. So, that could really mark a big shift in how money is handled and managed in this country and across the world, because women tend to do it differently.

SMERCONISH: What's the role of inflation? What's the relevance of people living longer in this conversation about wealth?

CHATZKY: You can't downplay inflation. When we look at wage inflation compared with the cost of those big ticket items that you listed earlier, what we've seen over the past 20 years is that wages have gone up by about 50 percent, but the cost of big ticket items, houses, cars, health care, college tuition, childcare, those costs have more than doubled.

So. you are not imagining that you can buy far less of those items than you could in the past. And those are the kind of things, when we talk about millennials not being able to afford the American dream or Gen Z, that's exactly what we're talking about. And longevity is a factor that matters too, because we're all living longer, particularly women.

Again, it means that we have to take that money that we're shoving into our 401Ks and our other retirement accounts, and make it last for a much longer period of time. That's really, really hard to do. And it makes people reticent to spend during those retirement years which, again, makes them feel as if perhaps they're not even as wealthy as they are.

SMERCONISH: Jean Chatzky, that was fabulous. Thank you so much. From social media. We'll get to social media in just a couple of moments. You've got time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Very simply stated. Complicated issue very simply stated. Should the U.S. destroy boats that are transporting drugs?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:52]

SMERCONISH: OK. There's the result so far, 35,000, lot of votes, 627. Should the U.S. destroy boats that are transporting drugs? Sixty-nine percent say no, 31 percent of us, I'm in the minority again, have a different take.

Here's some o of your social media reaction. Follow me on X and subscribe to my YouTube channel. Maybe I'll read your comment aloud.

The democratic establishment who have been waging a war on drugs since the 80s, all of a sudden take issue with the president actively fighting the war that's incredibly hypocritical.

Hey, what about the suggestion of my unnamed friend who says, we will never win this battle. It has been an utter failure since the early 70s. And the way to actually get ahead of the curve is to create stability in those countries that are supplying us by taking away how their economy is totally dependent on drugs. Legalize it in the United States.

I'm thinking of making that the Sunday poll question. Here's more social media reaction from today. What do we have?

Showing the tape would not clear it up, each side -- we'll, this is really a great -- Mwallem. That's really a great question. The public is the same as the officials they elect.

[09:55:02]

I have no doubt that that's true that the public will in large measure imitate the way in which leaders walked out of that briefing with diametrically -- it was a Rorschach test, diametrically different. You know, it's almost like -- do you remember the Highlights Magazine, and you've got to look for the crow in the lady's shoe or whatever the hell it was. Yes, people are going to see what they want to see.

But there are some of us who will apply independent thinking to whatever that tape shows and speak our minds. So, that's not a reason for us not to see it. We ought to see it. Sunshine, transparency, that's the answer. More social media reaction. What do we have?

Already starting his patriotic pardon defense. I guess Dan means by that that, you know, this guy is taken into custody and reportedly among the first things he blurts out is, I think the election was stolen. I don't know, is he that sophisticated that he thinks the way to get on the right side of the White House is to -- is to say that? Time is going to tell.

If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you so much for watching. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)