And our next guest, Vivek Ramaswami, who is also, hey, 2024 Republican candidate, joins us now. The field growing this much, do you think that is helpful or is that only going to be helpful to Donald Trump? I think it's net helpful. As a candidate myself, I welcome the competition. I think more debate, especially on that debate stage, starting in August, is going to be good for the Republican Party, good for our country, defining what we stand for and why we stand for it. I think it makes us better and I'm ready for it. Do you see Chris Christie's campaign as some others see it, which is kind of this kamikaze mission to take out Trump? Look, I don't have an analysis of Chris Christie's campaign on the politics of it. I'm running against Christie, Trump, Dishanis, and everybody else in this race looking forward. But I will say that a lot of Christie's criticism towards Trump is his vengeance and grievance and backward-looking attitudes. I don't know that more vengeance and grievance towards Trump helps us look forward. So the reason I'm in this race, Caitlin, is that I think conservatives have gotten too much into the habit of running from something. I'm the person in this race who's leading us to something, what it actually means to be an American, and the more we can look forward, the more we can ask ourselves, what are we running to, the better off we're going to be as a country. Well, Trump is still the front runner of this race at this moment. Do you believe his grievances helped the party look forward? I don't. No, I think that we go further when we do it based on first principles and moral authority, not vengeance and grievance. I think Reagan said a good example in that respect, reviving a missing national identity that we lacked in the late 1970s. I think we're in the middle of a national identity crisis now, and I'm running to lead us out of it. I'm 37, Caitlin. I'm the first millennial ever to run for U.S. President as a Republican. And I think it might just take someone from my generation to actually reach the next generation with the sense of civic pride and American identity that we've long lacked. You don't get it from the Democrats. I think it's going to be up to the Republican party to revive that. That's why I'm in this race. You've talked about your polling lately comparing it to where Trump stood in this time in the 2016 race. I think one question people have when they see how big this field is getting is not just who's getting in, but when you know if the time comes to get out, do you feel like you would be able to identify when that time is, when it's time to leave the race if that happens? Yeah, look, I think that we have a clear path through the debate stage. The two early, I think the debate stage is going to be critical. Any polling before the debate stage, just like when Trump ran in 2016, is irrelevant. I think it's irrelevant this time around as well. I think the dynamic of this race changes dramatically, starting in August with that first debate stage, and the series of debates through this fall. Iowa and New Hampshire exist as early states for a reason. I spend a lot of time there. The voters there keep a very open mind. They're actually able to tell who's real from who's a plastic politician. I think after that, I think you're going to see people needing to make decisions about stepping out between New Hampshire and Super Tuesday. And I'm confident that our path takes us all the way to the nomination, just as Donald Trump did in 2015. I'm the outsider in this race. And Caitlin, one of the things I see on the ground in the GOP, that people on the outside may not appreciate, is that we are destined to become the party that puts the outsider in the White House. A real disdain for professional politicians, let the Democrat put up the career politician. I predict the GOP is going to be the party that regularly nominates the outsider for the White House and on the outside of this race. We certainly saw that happen last time. You've been running and you talked recently about your position on Ukraine and Russia. You said that you believe if you become president, that you would allow Ukraine to make pretty major concessions to Russia in order to end that war. What are those concessions exactly? Specifically the deal that I would do is that I would freeze the current lines of control, Korean war style armistice agreement. I would further commit that NATO would never admit Ukraine. Permanent stop on Ukraine ever entering NATO. That's big concessions to Putin. I will admit that. But in return, I would demand something even more that the U.S. gets out of this, which is that we split up the Russia-China alliance. I think the China-Russia military alliance is the top military threat that the United States faces. The biggest nuclear stockpile in Russia compared with the biggest economy and other capabilities in China, those two nations are allied. And that's why China is now coming to Russia's aid in this war. What makes you think that Russia would accept that? Given Putin wants to control all of Ukraine, not just the parts that they have now. Well, I think that it's a net win if also we make the commitment that Ukraine is not going to join NATO. Putin also does not enjoy, I believe. Well, you know what? Angela Merkel made some, I think, ill-advised Merkel made some ill-advised comments late last year saying that the Minsk Accords were really just about Ukraine biting time. Putin then asked for a commitment that NATO would not admit Ukraine before he actually went on to invade. Similar pattern that played out in Georgia in 2008. So I actually do think that Putin does not enjoy being Xi Jinping's little brother and a move from a bilateral international order to a trilateral one is actually a net win for Vladimir Putin, but it's an even bigger win for us. It's the reverse maneuver of what Nixon did with Mao in 1972. Mao Zedong was not a hero then, Putin is not a hero now. But we pulled China away from Russia. Today Putin is the new Mao. That's my sweeping foreign policy vision of how we also deter China from going after Taiwan. Because China's number one bet is that the US will not want to go to war with two nuclear allied superpowers Russia and China at once. And Xi Jinping is probably correct about that. But if we pull apart that alliance, we deter Xi Jinping from going from Taiwan. Speaking of Taiwan, would you defend, would you order a US military response if China did invade Taiwan and you're in the Oval Office? Well, to be clear, the plan I've laid out is aimed at deterring China from going after Taiwan. I know, but if you can't deter, then what would you do? Yes. Yes. Or a US military response. For as long as the US depends on Taiwan for semiconductor and US semiconductor self-sufficiency, yes, I would, because that island nation powers our modern way of life. So I'm an America first conservative. I look after American interests. That's what Taiwan matters in a way that Ukraine does not. Vivek Ramaswamy, thanks so much for your time tonight. Thank you. And a quick reminder that on Thursday, I'm going to sit down with the British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, in Washington.