TERRY GROSS, HOST:
This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross.
In the early days of internet startups, tech innovators in the Silicon Valley were seen as young idealists who developed their creations in their garages, bedrooms or at the universities where they were students. But recently, many Silicon Valley leaders have become identified with the right, with President Donald Trump and MAGA. These tech billionaires are now often referred to as oligarchs because of their money, power and access to the White House.
How and why this alliance was formed is the subject of a new report in The Atlantic by my guest, George Packer. He shows how lucrative this alliance has been for the venture capitalists and for Trump. Packer writes that Trump’s crypto wealth has grown by at least $7.5 billion since 2024. His article is titled “The Venture-Capital Populist: How David Sacks And The New Tech Right Went Full MAGA And Captured Washington.”
Sacks co-founded the venture capital fund Craft Ventures. He served as President Trump’s special adviser for artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency. He’s now co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Sacks was an early investor in Facebook, Uber, SpaceX, Palantir Technologies and Airbnb, was PayPal’s first head of products and served as COO. He’s also one of the hosts of the tech podcast “All-In.” George Packer is a staff writer at The Atlantic, focusing on American politics, culture and U.S. foreign policy. He previously was a staff writer at The New Yorker. He won a National Book Award for “The Unwinding: An Inner History Of The New America.” His latest book is the novel “The Emergency.” George Packer, welcome back to FRESH AIR.
GEORGE PACKER: Good to be back with you, Terry.
GROSS: I want to start with a clip, and this is a clip of Sacks speaking at the White House in March of 2025. The occasion was a cryptocurrency summit at the White House.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
DAVID SACKS: Thank you, Mr. President. We’re all here today because of your leadership, your vision and your generosity, and I really want to thank you for that. We’re also here because of your desire to make America great and to introduce a golden age in America, including for digital assets. And we’re here because of your love of innovators, or, as you might say, high IQ people.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Yeah, high IQ.
SACKS: We know you love high IQ people.
TRUMP: We love them (ph).
SACKS: We have about 30 of them here in the room today. These are the top people in the digital asset industry. And one other thing that I think that you love is legal fairness. This is an industry that was subjected to prosecution and persecution for the last four years. Horrible lawfare, and nobody knows what that feels like better than you do. So we really appreciate the fact that you understand legal fairness and that you’re always willing to fight for the right thing, for legal fairness. You never back down. You stand defiant, even in the face of an assassin’s bullet. It’s an inspiration to everyone in this room, I think. So it’s an honor.
(APPLAUSE)
GROSS: So that was recorded in March of 2025. You describe Sacks as a venture-capital populist. Why did you put those two usually oppositional words together to describe him?
PACKER: It’s a bit of an irony because I don’t think the two are compatible, and I think we’re finding out almost by the day that they are not compatible. But I put them together because Sacks puts them together. Following the January 6, 2021, insurrection, which he called an insurrection and which he declared would finish Trump in national office and put him in an ignominious place in history – he was quite categorical about that – very quickly, Sacks began to creep back from that position and to make amends with Trump and with MAGA.
He didn’t support Trump right away for 2024 for the Republican nomination. He was for Ron DeSantis. But in his public words, in what he said on his podcast it was clear that he was trying to align himself with MAGA. So he began talking about things that you never heard him talking about before, such as our terrible trade deals, mass immigration, free speech, by which he meant the big platforms – Facebook, Twitter – banning Trump and other right-wing purveyors of falsehoods. For Sacks, that was kind of like the big red line that he claimed made the left unacceptable and brought him back into sort of a tolerant position, eventually a really sycophantic position, toward Trump. But those are the the things he began to talk about, and then he began to say, I’m a populist.
And he actually quite openly said, I’m on the side of the working man. I’m on the side of the working class against the elites. Now, who are the elites, if not David Sacks? Well, the elites are the heads of tech companies who are – to Sacks are kind of giving in to the woke younger staff who are putting pressure on them to say these things. He is for the working man against the tech oligarchs, as he calls them. So there is this underlying irony that you can’t get away from, but Sacks uses the word populist. So I used it because it basically was his effort to form an alliance between the tech industry, Silicon Valley and MAGA.
GROSS: Well, you use Sacks as a kind of stand-in for the tech billionaires who have become aligned with MAGA. So what changed? Why the sudden shift from people who used to support Democrats? Even if they identified as libertarian, when it came to Democrats versus Republicans, the political support often went to the Democrats. So how do you account for the switch to Trump?
PACKER: I think for Silicon Valley, libertarianism has always been the default political view, but it’s not a hard-edged Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek kind of libertarianism. It’s softer. It’s a liberal libertarianism. You know, the issues that got support in Silicon Valley – where, by the way, I grew up before it was ever called that – pro-choice, pro-immigrant, pro-gay marriage, for socially liberal causes. I think what happened was the Biden administration came in and began to push harder on issues like monopoly. They had a much more robust antitrust posture on enforcement of laws against money laundering in the crypto industry. They were more wary of AI, although supportive of it – also wanted the federal government to have a role in making sure companies were testing it for safety and sharing the results of those tests with the federal government.
So all those things, I think, began to drive tech leaders and investors – who were used to a free hand in their own business – crazy. It’s like they couldn’t believe that someone was actually telling them how to do their business – ’cause that had never happened before. Tech has been totally unregulated, which is why there’s a crisis of social media among American teenagers. And I think that change coincided with a cultural change that I call the new progressivism – others call it wokeness – that caught on in Silicon Valley, especially among younger engineers and staffers at these companies, and that began to push hard against their leadership. And some of the leaders, you know, kind of compromised with it, gave into it – said, we’ll do what you want. We’re going to start monitoring speech in our internal deliberations, etc. And all these things, I think, for a certain number of very powerful tech people were just unacceptable intrusions on their right to rule – to rule their industry. It was just an unacceptable affront to have young people, the left, the federal government pushing hard against their business, and that led them all the way over to Trump.
GROSS: You write that the courtship between Silicon Valley and MAGA consummated on June 6, 2024, in San Francisco’s Pacific Heights neighborhood on a street known as Billionaires’ Row at the $45 million French limestone mansion of venture capitalist David Sacks. So what was this dinner? It was a fundraising dinner. Why was it so pivotal in creating the alliance between Silicon Valley billionaires, venture capitalists and Trump and MAGA?
PACKER: Well, as Sacks said on his podcast just a week before the fundraiser, he knew that a lot of people in the tech world, people up at his level – and by then, he was one of the leading venture capitalists – were for Trump. But they were afraid to say so because it was still socially a bit unacceptable in their world. It’s not something you announced at a dinner party. You didn’t tell your employees. But it was something he knew from internal conversations, and he wanted them to come out of the closet. He wanted to make it socially OK to be for Trump.
And he believed that this fundraiser, where especially a lot of crypto executives but also investors and people in other parts of the tech industry would have a chance to meet Trump, to hear him out on tech and to try to influence him, that they’d be there. And they were there, and it raised something like $12 million. And JD Vance was there, too, by the way. And Sacks had played an important role in bringing Vance into the sort of inner circle of Trump, along with Don Trump Jr. So there was a kind of a coalescing of these two worlds – Trump world, tech world – that Vance represented part of and that Sacks was instrumental in sort of catalyzing. And the…
GROSS: I just want to interject here that – for people who don’t know or who have forgotten that Vance used to work for Peter Thiel. And Peter Thiel was a founder of PayPal and is one of the billionaire venture capitalists.
PACKER: And we should talk about Peter Thiel ’cause he has played a very important role both in JD Vance’s career, but also in the life of David Sacks. They were at Stanford together, Thiel as a law student, Sacks as an undergrad. They were on the Stanford Review together, which was a conservative publication that Thiel founded. And they co-wrote a book called “The Myth of Diversity” that was sort of an anti-PC, as the term was back then – this was in the mid-’90s – anti-PC, antimulticulturalism diatribe against sort of the takeover of elite higher education by the left. And it was kind of consciously in the tradition of William F. Buckley’s “God And Man At Yale,” except it was the left at Stanford. And it got them both a lot of attention, and I think it formed a bond between them.
And so when Thiel co-founded a – an online payments company that became PayPal – co founded it, by the way, with Elon Musk – he brought his friend David Sacks in as the chief of products. And Sacks played a very important role in developing email as the system of payments. And he was a big part of what came to be called the PayPal Mafia, which was a lot of Stanford grads plus Musk, who had been on the right at Stanford. Many of them were conservatives. Not all of them. Reid Hoffman, a liberal, was also part of PayPal.
And it was a hugely important company in sort of bringing Silicon Valley from its earlier era to the era that we’re still living in – what’s called web 2.0 – the era of Facebook, of these online platforms. And PayPal survived the dotcom crash of 2000 and made all of the people I’ve just mentioned rich and set them off on their course as entrepreneurs and investors, including Sacks.
GROSS: At this fundraising dinner, they raised $12 million for Trump. And then when Trump was in office – I’m quoting you here. Back in office, he pardoned convicted crypto executives, neutered consumer protections, ended investigations by the Security and Exchange Commission into crypto firms with ties to Trump’s businesses and disbanded the Justice Department’s Crypto Enforcement Team. That seems like a lot. How quickly did he do all of that?
PACKER: I mean, within the first six months, it was a very quick payback to the crypto industry for their support. He became their biggest champion. He said he was going to make the U.S. the crypto capital of the planet. In other words, whatever you want. And in turn, the crypto industry has increased Trump’s wealth by orders of magnitude. As you said at the start, his paper wealth in crypto has increased by $7.5 billion, according to some sources, since he began to invest in it in 2024.
GROSS: Well, we need to take a short break here, so let me reintroduce you. If you’re just joining us, my guest is George Packer. He’s a staff writer at The Atlantic, and we’re talking about his new article, “The Venture-Capital Populist: How David Sacks And The New Tech Right Went Full MAGA And Captured Washington.” We’ll be right back. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF PAQUITO D’RIVERA QUINTET’S “CONTRADANZA”)
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let’s get back to my interview with George Packer, a staff writer at The Atlantic. He writes about American politics, culture and U.S. foreign policy. His new article is about the Silicon Valley billionaires and their alliance with President Trump. It’s titled “The Venture-Capital Populist: How David Sacks And The New Tech Right Went Full MAGA And Captured Washington.” Our interview was recorded yesterday.
The first related thing that Trump did in office – related to AI or crypto – was to push through Congress a bill that would create a regulatory structure for crypto. And this was through the GENIUS Act. What did this do? Like, how did he tie a regulatory structure for crypto in a way that actually benefited crypto? ‘Cause, you know, the venture capitalists don’t want government regulation, but in this case, they wanted some regulation.
PACKER: Right. I think they wanted – and they said this over and over. They wanted certainty. They wanted to know where the lines were drawn on what was allowed, and they blamed Biden for failing to do that – for keeping everything uncertain so that, in their view, it was very easy for crypto firms to cross a line and find themselves on the wrong end of a federal investigation.
And this was the first and really the only piece of legislation that Trump passed – major legislation – on technology. Because, as you say, the rest of it was keeping the government’s hands off. In this case, the GENIUS Act required these private issuers – these crypto firms – to have one-to-one backing for their currency called stablecoin, which has different names, different – there’s different varieties. But it is a coin whose value is supposed to remain constant. It required them to have dollar or short-term Treasurys or some other reliable backing for the stablecoin currency that they issued. And so that seemed like a good way to make sure that the industry didn’t have sudden, you know, collapses, bankruptcies, etc., because it turned out there was nothing behind these digital assets.
Critics say that the danger of the GENIUS Act is that it ties the federal government to crypto in a way it was not tied before. And so if crypto turns out to have major failings, it could pull down parts of the regular banking industry, and it would require the federal government to intervene. And they also accuse it of not providing enough guardrails to prevent crypto from being used for fraud and other illegal purposes.
GROSS: Well, then the GENIUS Act is certainly a boon to the venture capitalists who are invested heavily in crypto companies.
PACKER: It is. That’s…
GROSS: It’s a safety net.
PACKER: …Why they wanted it.
GROSS: Yeah.
PACKER: That’s why they wanted it. I have to say, it was a bipartisan bill. There were a lot of Democrats who voted for it as well. And then there were some Democrats who were vocal critics, like Senator Elizabeth Warren, who considered it a gift to the crypto industry and a potential abettor of fraud by the crypto industry. So this digital currency, this digital asset that has become the main tool of enrichment for the people pushing these policies, is now going to have the backing of U.S. currency and potentially of the U.S. government. And that opens up a kind of whole world of conflicts of interest and puts a shadow over the whole thing.
Crypto is not showing itself to be the currency that, you know, will liberate mankind from the tyranny of the banking system, which was kind of the original libertarian view of crypto. PayPal’s original vision – founded by Peter Thiel and Elon Musk – was a vision of private currency being liberated from the onerous regulations of governments, and that would allow people who did not have access to reliable banking to have access, including in poor and corrupt countries. Well, that’s the sort of idealistic version. But in – it turns out in practice it’s become much more of a speculator’s game and of a money launderer’s game.
GROSS: Another advantage for venture capitalists invested in crypto companies, another advantage of tying crypto stablecoin to the American dollar, is that it makes it seem like investing in stablecoin is safe because it has some connection to the American dollar. And the more people who invest in stablecoin, the wealthier the venture capitalists invested in stablecoin become.
PACKER: Right. And Sacks, I think, said that one of the things the GENIUS Act would do is to make the dollar the global digital currency. In other words, if we’re moving toward a worldwide digital currency system, the U.S. should lead it, should dominate. The dollar should be the currency of that system, and the GENIUS Act would make it so. I don’t know that we have enough evidence yet to know whether that has played out, but one thing that we do know is that crypto remains incredibly volatile.
GROSS: Well, we need to take another break here, so let me reintroduce you. My guest is George Packer, a staff writer at The Atlantic. We’re talking about his new article, “The Venture-Capital Populist: How David Sacks And The New Tech Right Went Full MAGA And Captured Washington.” We’ll be right back after a break. I’m Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF STEREOLAB SONG, “METRONOMIC UNDERGROUND”)
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. Let’s get back to my interview with George Packer, a staff writer at The Atlantic. He writes about American politics, culture and U.S. foreign policy. His new article is about the Silicon Valley billionaires who are now often referred to as oligarchs because of their money, power and access to the White House. Packer looks at how and why this alliance between the venture capitalists and the right was formed in his piece titled “The Venture-Capital Populist: How David Sacks And The New Tech Right Went Full MAGA And Captured Washington.” Our interview was recorded yesterday.
You describe the tech billionaires as almost a parody of crony capitalism, signaling the final union of America’s interests with those of its wealthiest citizens – tech power fused with state power. Can you talk about that a little bit more?
PACKER: Well, think of the lineup behind Trump at his second inaugural. All of the tech CEOs and others who were jockeying to be seated closest to Trump because closeness and proximity means power. Think of who Trump named to this commission that Sacks now co-chairs since he stepped down as the special adviser – the Commission (ph) on Science and Technology. Who’s on that commission? Jensen Huang of NVIDIA, Sergey Brin of Google, Mark Zuckerberg, Marc Andreessen of Andreessen Horowitz venture capital, Michael Dell of Dell Computers – one of Sacks’ fellow cohosts on the “All-In” podcast, who’s a billionaire investor – a crypto CEO and Larry Ellison of Oracle, whose son now has a huge role in controlling media. It was as if they were saying, we’re not going to even try to pretend that there is any daylight between billionaire industrialists and the White House. They’re practically one and the same.
I think there’s one academic scientist on that 15-person commission, which you would expect to be more the norm for a commission on science and technology. That means the public interest is not represented. What’s represented is the interest of one part of American business, and that is a kind of corruption in itself. It may be legal corruption, but it’s institutional corruption because it is perverting – skewing – a public trust toward private ends, and that has been what we’ve seen Trump and Sacks doing throughout the year. And it’s shown that Trump, for all of his connection to a base that is largely working class and that has put him into office twice now, Trump’s real affinity is with plutocrats. And I think Sacks knows that and used it, exploited it. And I hope we’ll talk about why this might not be good for Trump and for his movement because I think it’s actually leading to a real fault line that’s opening up between Trump and his mass base.
GROSS: Steve Bannon agrees with you (laughter).
PACKER: Yeah. We had a nice chat, Steve Bannon and I, and he said some typically incendiary things, and one of them was that David Sacks – whom he is on record as really disliking, if not hating – has been the best thing that could have happened to MAGA because, as Bannon sees it, Sacks’ maneuvering in favor of the tech industry has been so blatant and clumsy and incompetent that he’s made what Bannon calls the AI supremacists look bad – that he’s defeating his own cause. And I heard this from others, too. One former official said to me, yeah, he’s won the battles. He’s gotten crypto the backing of Washington. He’s got – kept Washington’s hands off AI, but he’s losing the war because he’s actually alienating some important parts of the MAGA coalition, including members of Congress, who Sacks sort of pushed hard to prevent bills or amendments that would have put American companies ahead of China for those valuable AI chips – an amendment called the GAIN AI bill that was defeated because Sacks and Trump decided to tell the Congressional Republicans that they didn’t want it.
Well, this was a very popular idea, to have American companies ahead in line of China. But, no, that’s not what NVIDIA wanted. It’s not what Sacks wanted. It’s not what Trump wanted. These are policies that are alienating what you might call the true populace in MAGA, and Steve Bannon speaks for them. The others don’t really speak out ’cause they don’t want to get crosswise with Trump. But you can see the administration beginning to realize it has a problem with its own populace base. This week, the White House announced that it’s considering requiring AI companies to share the results of their safety testing with the federal government – exactly the thing that Trump and Sacks got rid of, that Biden had done, when they came back into office.
So I think there’s a genuine worry among some of the smarter political minds around Trump that Sacks has actually been bad for politics. He may have been good for business, but he’s been bad for politics. And they need to start backtracking ’cause they’ve gotten way out ahead of the American people, who are actually quite worried about the effects of AI.
GROSS: There’s speculation that the left and right might unite against the venture capitalists.
PACKER: Well, you know, there were some bills in Congress, or some amendments, that were co-sponsored by a far-right MAGA senator, Jim Banks, and a far-left Democratic senator, Elizabeth Warren – not far left, but progressive, let’s say – that would have done what the AI industry did not want done, what NVIDIA didn’t want done, and put American companies ahead of China in line for advanced AI chips. This is a small thing, hardly got any attention, the White House crushed it, but it’s the kind of thing that’s going to keep happening because the public is so alarmed about data centers coming into their communities, about chatbots stealing away and maybe even harming their children, about AI agents wiping out whole sectors of white-collar jobs.
All of these things have been completely ignored by the Trump administration, which has done nothing to regulate AI. They claim that they want to bring in some kind of federal structure, but they’ve done nothing. In that vacuum, there’s a public alarm that’s growing, and some people said to me AI will be the No. 1 issue in the 2028 presidential election. And if that’s true, and if JD Vance is the candidate, he’s going to have some explaining to do because he has been one of the biggest let-the-private-sector-cook advocates in AI. And that doesn’t seem to be a winning political position with either Democrats or Republicans right now. It’s a bipartisan recoil against both the technology itself and the amount of money that is flowing into AI investors and executives, the incredible levels of wealth that are flowing upward while ordinary Americans continue to struggle.
GROSS: Well, we need to take a short break here. So let me reintroduce you. If you’re just joining us, my guest is George Packer. He’s a staff writer at The Atlantic. And we’re talking about his new article, “The Venture-Capital Populist: How David Sacks And The New Tech Right Went Full MAGA And Captured Washington.” We’ll be right back. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let’s get back to my interview with George Packer, a staff writer at The Atlantic. He writes about American politics, culture and U.S. foreign policy. His new article is about the Silicon Valley billionaires and their alliance with President Trump. It’s titled “The Venture-Capital Populist: How David Sacks And The New Tech Right Went Full MAGA And Captured Washington.” Our interview was recorded yesterday.
So David Sacks made a very provocative statement about immigration. And do you want to describe what he said?
PACKER: Yeah. This was on his podcast, and I listened to many, many, many hours of “All-In” because Sacks himself wouldn’t speak to me, and so I thought the best way to find out who he is and what he thinks would be to listen to him on his podcast. And at one point, they were talking about – I think it was during the height of the Minneapolis ICE crisis, which – by the way, Sacks essentially defended the conduct of ICE agents in the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good.
GROSS: He blamed antifa, didn’t he?
PACKER: He said that this was antifa-style operations intended to prevent federal agents from carrying out the roundup of criminal aliens, which the public elected Trump to do. So for him, this was like a political organized effort to stop legitimate law enforcement actions that the public voted for. And we can go through some of his views of other Trump policies ’cause, one after another, he lined up right behind Trump on everything Trump has done in the first year. But on immigration, he said to his co-hosts, look, if we were just talking about letting in immigrants with a 150 IQ – and then he cited Elon Musk and Jensen Huang of Nvidia – we wouldn’t even be having this argument. And in another place, he has said, the only way to ease the public’s fears of immigration is to stop this mass immigration of people with average IQs and instead only let in these titans of technology with high IQs – Elon Musk from South Africa, Jensen Huang from Taiwan. And then the public will see that immigration and technology are to their benefit. And so the real problem with immigration is that we’re letting in subpar people who aren’t smart enough to contribute to the country. We should only be letting in the masters of the universe.
GROSS: There have been periods when – and there’s still special visas to come in if you are considered special or are considered somebody who would be an asset to, you know, medicine or science.
PACKER: They’re called H-1B visas. And there’s a big argument at the beginning of the Trump second term over whether those should be continued. Elon Musk wanted them because they’re important for his sector. Steve Bannon was virulently opposed to them. And this, again, is where the populist side of MAGA and the tech side of MAGA have real differences. And now, because immigration has been brought to a near standstill, there’s all kinds of industries that are quietly or not so quietly telling Trump, you’re really hurting us – hospitality, construction, but also medicine and also tech, because it turns out that with our declining population, our aging and declining population, and with sectors of the country that are in decline being where there’s the fewest immigrants, immigration turns out to be part of what makes America prosperous. But that’s something that David Sacks probably knew all his life until he stopped knowing it around the time that he began to get close to Trump and MAGA.
GROSS: You’ve confessed that crypto is not your thing. Like, you don’t fully understand it.
PACKER: No.
GROSS: But you wanted to write about the tech venture capitalists who are invested in crypto and AI and their alignment with MAGA and President Trump. Why did you want to write about this alliance?
PACKER: ‘Cause it’s important, Terry. It’s hugely important. And even if I’m not the world’s best expert, I do have a nose for politics and power and where power flows and where it’s flowing in a way that just doesn’t seem quite right. And it just began to seem inescapable to me that with Trump’s return, power like we maybe have never seen and wealth like we maybe have never seen was flowing into the hands of a few people who had aligned themselves with Trump. And one thing I do know something about is democracy. I care about it. And that concentration of power and money is the enemy of democracy. And we’ve seen this over and over in our history. We saw it at the beginning of the 20th century with the robber barons in the Gilded Age, and that’s why decades of reform and legislation from the Progressive Era to the New Deal changed American politics, because ordinary people saw that the deck was stacked against them and that Democracy itself was under threat. Not just economic inequality, but the concentration of power in a few hands of people who could then arrange politics and policy to their benefit. That’s happening again. It’s happening right in front of us, and it’s happening most dramatically in this alliance between Washington and Silicon Valley. So even if crypto makes my head spin a bit, I couldn’t ignore it. It’s too important to just let it happen and then gnash our teeth afterward.
GROSS: One more thing. Thinking back to years ago during the war in Afghanistan, I think you wrote a lot about people who – from Afghanistan who were helping the U.S. troops as interpreters, as guides, as fellow reporters. And their lives were at stake, and a lot of them needed to get out. And they weren’t always getting refugee status or weren’t getting it swift enough to protect them in the U.S. Have you kept in touch with any of those people?
PACKER: For sure, Terry, with a number of them. And especially with one family who I’ve written about over and over again – husband and wife, Afghans, young Afghans in their 20s. She is a Hazara, which is a very highly persecuted Shia minority in Afghanistan. They both served in the Afghan military, and as soon as Kabul fell, their lives were in danger because they were seen as enemies of the regime and maybe even as heretics because they had a mixed marriage. He was a Tajik Sunni. She was a Hazara Shia. They began to flee from house to house and even mountain cave to mountain cave in the center of the country. She was pregnant. It was a terrible situation. I would have these conversations with them on WhatsApp, where she would say, I don’t know if my baby is going to survive. I don’t know if I’m going to survive. I can feel the walls closing in. I don’t know where to go.
So I wrote about them over several years. They ended up in Pakistan, where they became refugees. But that was not the answer to their prayers because they were in line for resettlement in this country as former allies – people who fought alongside Americans and whose connection to America was what put them at risk in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. And instead of making good on our promise to them, when Trump came back, he closed the doors and locked them so no Afghans can get into this country.
And this family was about to be resettled with two very small children. And instead, they’re trapped in Pakistan, which is turning against its Afghan refugee population. There’s now a kind of low-grade war between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghan refugees are being deported back to the danger of Afghanistan in the hundreds of thousands. And this family was in hiding for many months from the Pakistani police so that they wouldn’t get deported.
And I sort of, in writing about them, also just got pulled into their story and began to try to help them get out of Pakistan. And I will be telling readers of The Atlantic what the final outcome of my efforts and of their efforts to get out of Pakistan have been. I’ll just say it’s about the only story I’ve been a part of or written about in the last years that has made me feel pretty good about the future.
GROSS: Well, that gives me a bit of a preview, and I’m really glad to hear it. George Packer, it’s a pleasure to have you back on the show. Thank you so much.
PACKER: Thanks for having me, Terry.
GROSS: George Packer is a staff writer at The Atlantic. His new article is titled “The New Venture-Capital Populist: How David Sacks And The New Tech Right Went Full MAGA And Captured Washington.” Our interview was recorded yesterday. After we take a short break, David Bianculli will review the new TV adaptation of “Lord Of The Flies.” This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF WILLIE MITCHELL’S “SOUL SERENADE”)
Copyright © 2026 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
