4/17/25: US Dollar Weakens, Trump Rages At China, Judge Threatens Contempt, Elon DOGE Fail & MORE!

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Here, Independent media just played a truly massive role in
this election, and we are so excited about what that
means for the future of this show.

Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
Have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal, Indeed.

Speaker 4 (00:38):
We do a lot going on.

Speaker 2 (00:39):
We're taking a look at the markets, fed chair at
Jaypal speaking yesterday and Marcus not too happy about what
he had to say. President Trump not too happy about
what he had to say, so we'll get into that.

Speaker 4 (00:48):
We also have the very latest.

Speaker 2 (00:50):
On China's moves and taking a look which is appropriate
giving given a Sager being the expectant father over here
at the way this is all going to impact New parents.
Those strollers are about to become wildly more expensive than
they already are.

Speaker 4 (01:03):
We've got Richard Hanania on the show. We're going to
talk to.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
Him about the very latest with Kilmar Abrago Garcia, we
had more movement on the judicial front. We also want
to talk to him about why he has turned on Trump,
voted for Trump. He has come out publicly and said
he regrets that, so we want to get into the
way that he is thinking about all of that. We've
also got myriad of Elon updates for you, Big Wall
Street Journal expose into his like breeding legion cult, whatever

(01:31):
you want to call it. It's very strange, So we'll
break that down for you. I might actually ask Richard
about that because I'm kind of curious his take on.

Speaker 1 (01:39):
All of that.

Speaker 4 (01:39):
But in addition, we've been wanting to cover the fact.

Speaker 2 (01:41):
Look, DOGE has been very successful at a lot of destruction.
Social Security is completely hobbled, all sorts of agencies unable
to do their work. Even like the collecting of the tariffs.
Guys were DOGE and so they couldn't figure out the
customs duties as things were coming in. So they've been
successful at destroying things in terms of the advertised supposed

(02:03):
goal of cutting government spending, total and complete failure. It's
like blatantly obvious. Now there are no real public successes
they can point to, So we wanted to take a
look at DOGE and what they've been up to. We
also got some very significant and important breaking news yesterday
New York Times exposing that the Israelis were really pushing
the Trump administration to help them with a strike on

(02:25):
Iran's nuclear facilities.

Speaker 4 (02:27):
And at the urging of A JD.

Speaker 2 (02:30):
Vance, Tulci Gabbard and few others within the administration Susie
Wows in particular as well, the Trump administration decided not
to help them with that in favor of, at least
for the time being, negotiations. So what does that mean?
What's the broader picture? This also comes on the heels
of a purge of some senior staff over the Pentagon.
So there's a lot to put together there, and I'm

(02:50):
taking a look at how we may be entering an
even more dangerous face of Trump is in two point zero,
as his back is increasingly against the wall and his popularity.

Speaker 4 (03:00):
So I'll be looking at those pieces today.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
All right, We're excited for that. Thank you all to
our premium subscribers.

Speaker 3 (03:05):
A lot of people signed up with our major announcement
of five days a week and more importantly, more Ryan
and Emily here on the channel and more content for
all of you as well.

Speaker 1 (03:13):
As exclusives, etc.

Speaker 3 (03:14):
So if you can help us out Breakingpoints dot com,
I also just to show you to the links that
we go for our premium subscribers. You might recall that
we have been complaining about the number of advertisements that
were placed on our private YouTube link which we send
out to many of our premium subscribers to be able
to watch the show ad free and uncut before that
it drops for everybody else. We reached out to YouTube

(03:35):
shout out to our YouTube manager Victor. He has now
intervened and we have helped to keep the show ad free.
So we can't promise one hundred percent, but it should
be dramatically less than normal for all of you who
are out there off course, we're always thinking about you
and your experience. Don't forget, though, is that there's not
even a chance of being able to watch with ads
if you're watching on locals or on Spotify, so you

(03:55):
have many different options that you have there, so Breakingpoints
dot Com to be able to get access to our
premium show ad free on cut et cetera, as well
as support the channel. So with that though, let's get
to the tariffs, and as you said, the market reaction,
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell making a number
of comments that he will not bail out the stock
market even though he believes that inflation and tariff impact

(04:18):
on the economy remains very precarious.

Speaker 1 (04:20):
Let's take a lesson.

Speaker 5 (04:21):
The level of tariff increases announced so far is significantly
larger than anticipated, and the same is likely to be
true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation
and slower growth. Despite heightened uncertainty and downside risks, the
US economy is still in a solid position. The labor

(04:42):
market is at or near maximum employment. Inflation has come
down a great deal, but is still running a bit
above our two percent objective. Some people believe the Fed
will intervene at the stock market plumits. These are very
fundamental changes in long held in some cases policies in
the United States, and there's not any real experience. I mean,

(05:05):
the smooth Holly tariffs were actually not this large, and
they were ninety five years ago, so there isn't a
modern experience of how to think about.

Speaker 1 (05:11):
This, not a lot of experience on how to think
about this.

Speaker 3 (05:14):
But the most important answer was him saying, no, I'm
not going to bail out the stock market. Those comments
were taken quite literally by the stock market s and
P five hundred dropped about two percent yesterday. Futures as
of this morning look relatively flat, so we can continue
to see that. More importantly, though, is that Trump, it seems,
has been betting heavily on the Federal Reserve actually cutting rates,
and that is just not what the Federal Reserve chairman

(05:37):
is saying as of this morning. As of this morning,
as we also know, Donald Trump actually attacked the Federal Reserve,
saying the Federal Reserve Chairman Derrone pallet quote, termination cannot
come soon enough. But because of the way that terms
and appointments and all of that work, there's still a
significant amount of period before any movement on that is
even possible, as well as almost certainly some court challenges.
As they try to do there's complicated legal stuff going on,

(06:01):
but they're trying to set the ground to be able
to remove a Ftal Reserve chairman if they want by
challenging some long held scrutiny on that law, which could
be interesting under itself.

Speaker 2 (06:09):
Yeah, I think it relates to some of these you know,
they fired like you know, an l RB chair, some
of the in the CFPB, some of these agencies that
are supposed to have independence some distance from the executive's
wins that's being challenged in court. So that could relate
to what is going on here as well. But you know,
I mean from the perspective of the FED chair, right,

(06:30):
you are being put in a total bind here because
on the one hand, yeah, the terrafts are very likely
to slow growth.

Speaker 4 (06:36):
In fact, I think we.

Speaker 2 (06:37):
Already know the terriffs have slowed growth. You can see
it in real time, what's happening. So that would lend
its sword itself towards Okay, well, let's cut interest rates
to try to get the economy moving. On the other hand,
the terrats are inflationary, so cutting the interest rates might
help further fuel inflation. And so you know, this potential
stagflation bind really leaves the FED in a very difficult place.

(06:59):
And what you're our own Paul is saying is Hey,
for now, we're just holding where we are.

Speaker 3 (07:03):
Yeah, exactly, And so let's go ahead and put a
two up on the screen, because there's been major movement
here in the United States in terms of how this
trade war with China is positioning. We're going to talk
next about China and about some of the consumer environment
where we're all likely to experience quite a bit of
price hikes. But it is becoming clear now that Nvidia
is the quote biggest US China bargaining chip. I previously

(07:26):
had flagged the story in this so I wanted to
come I see.

Speaker 1 (07:29):
I want to come back.

Speaker 3 (07:30):
To this is that previously jensng Wog, the CEO of Nvidia,
had paid about a million dollars to attend a mar
A Lago dinner. At that dinner, he apparently convinced either
Trump or somebody around Trump not to put export licenses
on those H twenty chips that Nvidia had developed specifically
to be liable with these export controls be able to
ship to China approxim me five point five billion dollar

(07:50):
market segment for Nvideo. Well, it came out overnight that
as a result of the tariffs and despite some of
the previous promises that they had made to Nvidia, the
United States would be slapping export controls on those H
twenty chips now immediately. I just woke up to the
news this morning, Crystal that jensaying not here in the
United States.

Speaker 1 (08:09):
He's in China.

Speaker 3 (08:10):
He actually has just met with the Chinese vice premiere
and with the CEO of Deep Seek, trying to assure
them that they all still want to do business. But
it does tell us where, you know, to the extent
that we have any real leverage over China. It's not
really about consumer imports and stuff that they necessarily need.
We're going to talk a little bit about their consumer
like the injections that they're putting in in terms of

(08:30):
their support. A lot of this high tech manufacturing and
design specifically is really where things are landing for what
we are trying to do with them. The question is
of course about buckling, about technology transfer and more. But
the reason why it's important also for the pressure here
in America is that sent en VideA shares sliding with
the overall pressure right now and the consumer the retail environment.

(08:51):
So it really does show us that while we've had
almost sixty percent reduction in overall US imports just in
the last two weeks extraordinary, genuinely extraordinary. Who nobody has
any idea how that will even show up in the
price environment. With the Federal Reserve chairman, the nvidious strategy,
the chaos and everything moving back and forth, you can
just see that markets are very they're very uncertain right now,

(09:14):
which is part of what you see so much of
the wild volatility happening right.

Speaker 2 (09:18):
So, just to give a little bit of background here,
you guys may know some of this. So under the
Biden administration, with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, she said quite
directly that the point of the export controls that the
Biden administration put on the sort of like top shelf
chips was to slow China's development technological development, and.

Speaker 4 (09:39):
Perhaps it had some impact.

Speaker 2 (09:42):
But deep part of what the deep Seek innovation really
proved is that they were in a lot of ways
able to either directly circumvent or innovate around that particular
export control. And again that was for sort of the
top shelf like top of the line most advanced chips
in Nvidia produced this H twenty chip which was meant,

(10:03):
as I mentioned, to get specifically around those export controls
to be sort of like a lower grade like Okay,
well this is in the top shelf stuff. We can
still sell this thing. And so that's why they were
doing big business in China with regard to this particular chip. Now,
China does have their own chip capacity, especially when you're
talking about this level, not the highest of the highest
level chips are. It's largely through Huawei. And are they

(10:28):
exactly as good as the Age twenty You know, there's
some indicators that they aren't quite as advanced as at
Age twenty chips, but they do have some of their
own domestic chip capacity. And also what we learned under
the Biden administration is that this did not hobble them
nearly as much as the Biden folks were hoping that
it was ultimately going to hobble them. So in any case,
you know, this was a big hit to in Vidia stock.

(10:49):
In Vidia one of those Magnificent seven, huge impact in
terms of our overall stock market. So that was part
in addition to the j. Powell comments, that was part
of what has been going on in the markets.

Speaker 3 (10:58):
Yeah, exactly. So let's go ahead and then put the
next one up on the screen. So people can take
a look. You could see the quote the US and
China trade fighters quote slamming stocks, sending gold to record high.
The gold market has been absolutely insane. It's like I've
seeing a price target there of almost four thousand dollars,
which is absolutely extraordinary. But the reason why that we're
returning or starting off on this is just to show

(11:20):
people that Nvidia, because remember it makes up so much
of the S and P five hundred that if it's
going to be a major bargaining chip in the Trump
administration strategy, that if we're going to see stock sync
there on top of the overall global strategy that they're
putting into place, retail pressure. Just this morning, much of
the pharmaceutical tariffs are shaking out in the markets, as

(11:42):
well as some other regulatory action. United Healthcare stock down
by like eleven percent. Yes, I know, funny, like meme wise,
but it's actually a huge segment of the overall markets.
We have sector bisector decline in everything, which just makes
it so that there is huge pressure on the US economy.
If we do start to see mass layoffs in the
next ninety days or so, as Ryan Peterson predicted, that

(12:05):
will put a tremendous amount of pressure on all of
these different in terms of the regulators, on the government
and more. And the Chinese are absolutely buckling up. So
we just want to lay the groundwork for how things
look over here in America. That's the end vidia front.
There's also the dollar. This has been a major story
as well. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Quote what the weak dollar means for the global economy?

(12:27):
We have and this was not actually expected to see
such a dramatic decline in the dollar relative to every
other global currency. But what they point off here is
that the quote unexpected weakening of the dollar is suddenly
becoming the rest of the world's problem too, because for
foreign sellers all of these goods, cars, kognaks, Gottish tweed,
the dollar steep slide is a double whammy. It's compounding

(12:49):
losses caused by President Trump's import levees. So the central
banks around the world they either need to stop the
rapid strengthening of their currency, cut interest rates more aggressedly
to try and lower their overall target versus a dollar,
but that will have major macroeconomic effects in their own countries. Also,
of course, the dollar decline now means that currently has

(13:10):
slipped eight percent per year, which is the worst start
to the year in the indexes four decade trading history.
Just to put into a perspective how insane that is
there has been. It's not just lack of faith in
the dollar. It's really about US government and trade. And
then when imports are also being reduced, that will of

(13:31):
course mean that when there's a weeker dollar, it's going
to drive up the price of how much we're able
to buy and exchange globally. So this stuff has major
ramifications for reserve currency purposes for whoever is still able
to do business, you know, with importers. But then more importantly,
it can cause a global shock effect on interest rates,
where you could potentially see lower interest rates in other

(13:54):
countries while our stage in the federal reserve is like, oh,
I'm going to abide my time, which also has askating
effects for our comment. None of this is good, is
really what I'm trying to say.

Speaker 2 (14:03):
Yeah, and it's emblematic of a broader trend.

Speaker 1 (14:08):
Just the ECB just cut rates. There you go. It's
from the European Central Bank area literally.

Speaker 2 (14:13):
Part of a broader shift away from the US. I
mean that's what when you see this, when you see
the unusual market in terms of US treasuries. You know,
the US and the dollar and treasuries have always been
the safe haven no longer, and so now these sorts
of market responses with regard to you know, our currency
in particular, this is more like what you would expect
from an emerging market, like these sorts of dynamics playing out,

(14:36):
So you know, you don't want.

Speaker 4 (14:37):
To oversell it. Right. The US is still, you.

Speaker 2 (14:40):
Know, a global power, maybe not the global power, but
a global power. And you know, the dollar is going
to continue to be central. We're not dedollarizing like today.
But this shift away is probably the most significant thing
that we have seen to happen. And that also plays
into your mentioning the price of gold skyrocketing. So the

(15:03):
implication is instead of the flight to safety being like
US treasury bonds as it has traditionally been, instead maybe
it's things like gold.

Speaker 1 (15:10):
There you go.

Speaker 3 (15:11):
All of this is important, and let's get to the
next part here. This is a five please just to
show people about some things that are happening right now. Quote,
nearly nine hundred thousand fewer people went to the United
States in March, as the cross border travel continues to
go down, one of the worst year over year drops
recorded outside of the COVID nineteen crisis. A lot of
this is basically fear from a lot of incoming US visitors,

(15:35):
but a lot of it is Canada actually and specifically
over the trade war as retaliation for the initial trade
comments by the Trump administration. The irony, of course is
that you know, the vast majority of goods remain at
the overall zero terriff rate under the USMCA, but the
initial like shaking from the Trump administration and the fifty
first state language has made it so there's been a

(15:56):
precipitous decline. We are entering into summer territory, traditionally a
time where there's a lot of Canadian snowbirds who apparently
like to come down to America, and yeah, not good
if you if you run a business in northern New
York or Orlando, any of these other places. I remember
looking at some of the top Canadian destinations in America.

(16:17):
I think Seattle is also up there. There's a lot
of jobs and economic activity that generally rely on this,
and this just gets to my overall problem with the
Trump administration is that they both force people to experience
the consequences with none of the upside. So if you're
going to have a terrace on the Canadians and say
that ripping us off, then we should of course see

(16:38):
a major stimulus to the businesses which are supposedly getting
ripped off, as well as to make sure that there's
no pain for the people who do rely on it
and the after effects.

Speaker 1 (16:46):
None of that is happening now.

Speaker 3 (16:47):
Of course it's happening in China, which I'll get to
in a little bit, but we haven't seen that almost
you know, we're going to talk about strollers, We're going
to talk about groceries and all of these other things.
There's no like relief or PPP program that's currently being
even floated by the administration and or by the Republican Congress,
which in six months will soon pass a bill. At
that point, you could have mass layoffs and bankruptcies at

(17:09):
that point. You know, if we're thinking about a September passage,
good luck to a lot of summer tour operators or others. Sure,
are they the most critical part of the economy. No,
there's a lot of people pour their whole livelihood and
all their business money into this. And so that's my
major problem is even though we have the same tariff
rate as we did the day that Donald Trump basically
went into office effectively for most of the goods that

(17:29):
move across the Canadian border, he still has just invited
this thing with Canada and now all of these businesses
are going to stuffer the consequences and not get any
bailout or anything.

Speaker 4 (17:38):
That's right, Yeah, And I mean tourism is a significant
part of the economy, especially if you're talking about Center
gd Florida, you know, California.

Speaker 2 (17:44):
These are areas that rely heavily on tourism as a
really important industry for their economies. And that nine hundred
thousand number, that's just with regard to Canadian border crossings.
If you look at the number of flight bookings coming
out of Europe, I mean across the border, it's all dropped.
And it certainly has to do significantly with the terrorists
in the trade war. It also has to do with
immigration policy because you have stories like there was a

(18:06):
Canadian actress, Jasmine Mooney, who was held by Ice for
twelve days while she was just trying to like renew
her work visa, and there are other stories like that
of people who were trying to come and just like
visit as tourists or go speak at a lecture coming
over from Europe who are being searched and detained. And

(18:27):
people see those stories and like, I think I'll go
somewhere else on my vacation.

Speaker 4 (18:30):
I'm good. I don't really want to risk.

Speaker 1 (18:32):
All of that.

Speaker 2 (18:33):
The EU has told their diplomats, you know, to bring
a burner phone instead of their normal smartphone. These are
the sorts of things that are going on, and so
it's also not good for the tourism industry, and that's
going to have another negative effect on the economy and
impact businesses certainly significantly. And we talked yesterday Emily and
I I think it was United Airlines that's already they've

(18:56):
put on two separate guidance, like you know, earnings guidance
based on like we don't really know what's going to
go on, and they are already cutting back flights for
the summer. Yeah, they're already cutting back flights for the
summer based on what we already know about the economic
acountlook so not good.

Speaker 3 (19:12):
That is not good. It also softening economic demand. He
actually went back and was reading a little bit about
the airline industry.

Speaker 1 (19:18):
Oh nine was brutal.

Speaker 3 (19:20):
Nine in twenty ten were horrible years the airline industry
because of the overall fallout. They were thrown as many
incentives as they possibly could, and especially if there's a
major pullback the top ten percent of Americans, so the
people who spend the fifteen fifty percent on consumer spending.
So even if they reduced their amount of spend there,
the airlines are going to take a massive haircut because

(19:40):
they were making all their money. They're not making money
on economy. They were mostly making their money on this
premium economy and business class seas, which we're selling out.
So if those people stop booking or even if they
fly economy, oh my god, they're going to be devastated
in terms of their their earnings. Last thing on this
rount before we moved to China. Let's go to A
six please. This is on Albertson's. This is very very
interesting from our friend David Dan. Albertsons sent a letter

(20:04):
to all of its suppliers saying, quote, it is not
accepting cost increases due to teriffs, which means that the
suppliers are going to have to raise prices on Albertson's
competitors that have less market power of David Dan says, quote,
this is one way that Trump's tariffs and trench monopolizations.

Speaker 1 (20:21):
Interesting point. Actually, I hadn't thought about it that way.

Speaker 3 (20:22):
But what it does show you, again is if you
have a general policy, let's say here about alleviating cost
increases due to tariffs and making sure that there are
government incentive programs and others to make sure that grocery
prices across the board don't get propped up and that
these suppliers don't necessarily have to go out of business,
then you don't have to have Albertsons and all these

(20:43):
other people gaming the system. It's actually a good example too,
what we've talked about Walmart and all these peop Yeah,
they're going to survive, Okay, those Unfrankly, those are the
people who are most responsible for pushing for a lot
of this free trade nonsense with China, PNTR with China,
and a lot of these cheap consumer goods. But their
market power is such that they'll make it. It's really,
you know, as they're pointing out here, the suppliers will well,

(21:04):
they have the leverage over let's say smaller grocery chains
or other places, and that's probably rural, you know, other
areas which are not able to bargain, and so then
you'll see a cost increase overall.

Speaker 1 (21:16):
And then what happens. They're going to go bankrupt and
Alberts is going to buy them.

Speaker 4 (21:19):
Right, Yeah, no, that's exactly right.

Speaker 2 (21:20):
And the overall structure, especially with it being just directed
by the singular person of Donald Trump, of course, makes
it so the big guys are in a position to
get their benefits, get their car bounce, pay a million
dollars to go to their marra a lago dinner or whatever,
so that they can ride out the storm. You know,
I talked the other day about this woman who has

(21:41):
her baby, her busy baby mats, and so she just
Walmart just picked up her product for a retail for
someone who's you know, a producer making something to get
it into Walmart, Like that's like the holy Grail. But
Walmart accepts, Okay, we will take them at this price,
and that's it. She can't negotiate with them any for
that's done. So when you talk about now the tariff

(22:03):
is I don't know, it's like two hundred percent, and
he just keeps increasing it. But at a certain point,
at this point, it's like it doesn't matter what the
tariff is. It's high enough that for someone like the
busy baby lady, it's it's over. She can't bring in
her products. But let's say that she was able to
figure out the cash to get the tarraff and you know,
to pay the tariff and get her product over here.
She's the one one hundred percent eating the cost, so

(22:25):
earning a huge loss on this product that you know,
Walmart has agreed to buy it, I don't know, twenty
five dollars or something like that, and now she's having
to pay let's say, fifty dollars just to get this
thing over here. Like it's she is the one who's
going to get screwed. Walmart has all the power in
the relationship, and they don't care whether they have this
matt in their store or not. They don't care if
she goes under her. And that's so the small business,

(22:47):
the media business sized businesses, they are going to be
totally and completely screwed if this is not lifted, like immediately,
I mean we're talking they have months to be able
to runway, to be able to make it through and
ride out this storm, and not much longer than that,
just by the nature of these businesses.

Speaker 3 (23:06):
Unfortunately, that's very true. Okay, let's move on to China.
We're gonna break some of this down. Have some fascinating
stuff happening geopolitically.

Speaker 1 (23:16):
We'll start with Jijingping.

Speaker 3 (23:17):
As I mentioned in our last show, visiting Hanoi and Vietnam.
We have some video showing this, keep in mind, is
released by Chinese state propaganda, but.

Speaker 1 (23:25):
You know, it's still important. It's still a real video.

Speaker 3 (23:27):
So let's take a look and we can put it
up there on the screen. You could see Ji being
you know, all the communist flags waving as he is
visiting the streets of Hanoi. This is important because Vietnam
is our number eight trading partner. A key part of
the pivot to Asia of the Obama administration and actually
subsequent even with the Trump tariffs, was a basically finger

(23:49):
wagging at Nike and numerous other retailers saying listen, no
China anymore, you have to manufacture elsewhere. They said, Okay,
we'll go to Vietnam. We gave him a lot of
money to go to Vietnam. They built upply chains. Now,
I will be the first to admit that China absolutely
took advantage of transshipping via Vietnam, and they of course,
you know, we're trying to gain the advantage, etc. But

(24:09):
Vietnam was a critical US trading partner. Like I said,
number eight, very very little behind Taiwan. That's how much
I'm talking about their overall effect on the US economy.
On top of that, Vietnam, despite the fact that we
destroyed half of their country, has very favorable attitudes to
the United States. They have remembered they have beef with
China over the South China Sea and a few of
the island chains. These are not necessarily countries with super

(24:33):
close relations in the last twelve years or so, so
to see that it's a bit of a problem. And
actually even Trump has paid attention to this. Put the
next one, please up on the screen. Quote Trump grumbles
about China's lovely meeting with Vietnam, saying they are discussing
how to screw the United States of America. That's true,
That's actually true, because there's a reason that Jee went

(24:55):
to Vietnam and Cambodia and is going to Malaysia next.
These are all areas and you know, with critical US
trade relationships, a lot of US textiles moved through that area.
We are not seeing. You know, it's not even just
about good relations, don't you know. Forget crystal Vietnam was
one of the first countries to say okay, fine, no
tariffs zero and then they got nothing. They still got

(25:16):
to take Yeah, post they're good. Obviously that's been a
ninety day off, but you know.

Speaker 1 (25:21):
They're not stupid. They need to make money.

Speaker 3 (25:23):
And so in the interim period they're like, are we
really going to have a ninety day agreement?

Speaker 1 (25:28):
I mean, look at Japan.

Speaker 3 (25:30):
Japan, they're Economic minister flew here yesterday, they met with
Scott Besen, they met with the Donald Trump and Trump
was like, yeah, there's been a great, great movement.

Speaker 1 (25:39):
There's nothing that's been you know announced. That's Japan.

Speaker 3 (25:42):
By the way, we have a very well architecture trade
deal with Japan negotiated in twenty nineteen with Shinzo Abe.
If you want to update that, it's really not difficult.
So it's going to take this long just to do Japan.
We have seventy other countries that were supposed to do
way more complex trading relationships than we do with anybody else.
This is a g SEP nations very easy actually to
hammer that out. They have good statistics, etc. Rules we

(26:04):
can trust currency. These are all simple actually to hammer
out in an agreement. What are you going to do
with all these other countries which you slapped all these
huge tariffs on the the interim ninety days, where do
you think they're going to go?

Speaker 1 (26:14):
They're going to China, same as the European Union.

Speaker 3 (26:16):
They've just negotiated all that tariff exclusion with some of
the cars pumping away for BYD and Showman to have
more market entrants over there.

Speaker 1 (26:23):
So there's big problems that we have right now.

Speaker 4 (26:26):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 2 (26:26):
And I even saw Fox News grumbling about like, hey,
we thought we were going to get ninety deals in
ninety days.

Speaker 4 (26:33):
We don't have one.

Speaker 2 (26:34):
We don't have one obvious, right, But I mean that
Fox News is even saying that is incredible. And with
regard to this it she didn't come away empty handed
from this trip to Vietnam. They apparently signed forty five
different agreements on issues like supply chains and railways, and
it just underscores like for them, they have one big
problem our like trade war with US and the loss

(26:55):
of our very large and wealthy market. Right, our consumers
are very powerful. We spend a lot of money, There's
no doubt about that. That's a significant problem. They have
the entire world that they can go to, They can
use their own, you know, government programs to help subsidize
and support their own industry. They of course have their
own massive and burgeoning market. In fact, their exports as

(27:18):
a percent of their GDP has been going down as
their own domestic market has been increasingly powerful and they've
been turning towards that, and our percent of you know,
the of their exports has also been going down. So yes,
of course, we are incredibly important to China's economy. China
is incredibly important to our economy. Decoupling this relationship is

(27:38):
going to involve severe pain on both sides. But their
problems are number one, I think more straightforward. They have
fewer problems to solve because they didn't launch a trade
war against the entire world like we did, and they
are smarter, like they have been more strategic over long
periods of time than we have, and so I think

(27:59):
our you know, even the Financial times are saying they're
set up to in a much better position than we
are at this point.

Speaker 3 (28:04):
This is I mean, what did I just talk about
in our a block about oh we got to wait
on Jerome Powell. There's no Jerome Powell in China. The
CCPs like drop rates like, okay, got it? You know,
same with the raising rates done. Now I'll show you
guys for example, already you know we're seeing major price
increases hit here in the US. Go to B three please,
this is this is actually rocketing around new parent group

(28:27):
chats just like somebody.

Speaker 1 (28:28):
Like me new upp a baby price.

Speaker 3 (28:30):
Now keep in mind, look, this is an expensive stroller,
so let's let's keep that in mind. That said, the
price increase from expensive to ultra expensive is still not great.
And this company has been done millions and millions of
dollars in sales. Well, their flagship strollers are all increasing
by hundreds of dollars as a result of these tariffs.
And these are actually the first I would say, like

(28:52):
beloved product that I have seen on social media where
organic consumers are sharing it and are really complaining. So
you can see they're multip one hundred dollar increases that
were there. They also sent out up a baby an
email to all of their users saying, listen, we are
absorbing as much of this tariff price as we possibly can,
but there is just no way for us to be
able to do business without raising a lot of these prices,

(29:14):
and they're going to go into effect very very soon.
Our own friend Derek Thompson flagged this as well, about
how much of the child accessories are manufactured in China.
It's like something like ninety cents.

Speaker 4 (29:28):
I go, hold up, yeah, so he says.

Speaker 2 (29:30):
The business PRES's been good at reporting on China's global
leader in smartphone and electronics manufacturing. Consider also, as a
share of all US imports, China accounts for ninety nine
percent of child safety seats, ninety six percent of toys
for pets, ninety five percent of cooking appliances, ninety three
percent of coloring books for children, eighty eight percent of
microwave ovens, seventy plus percent of toys intended for children

(29:52):
under twelve. Yes, American AI, electronic, smartphone and clean energy
companies are not set up to thrive in a protected,
protracted trade war.

Speaker 4 (30:00):
Mary.

Speaker 2 (30:00):
Parents of young kids will be among the hardest hit.
So many of the things that new parents buy for
their kids and have to buy, you know, your crib,
your stroller, like the car seat, all of these things.
These are you know, must haves because they're not like luxuries.
So much of that, not to mention the you know,
toys and things you get for their Easter baskets and

(30:22):
things that go under the Christmas tree. So much of
that comes from China. And it's already extremely expensive to
be a new parent and all that that entails. So
new parents with young families are going to be very
hard hit.

Speaker 1 (30:34):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (30:34):
I actually, by the way, did do some research and
there's really no made in America stroller, Like there's like
one off ones. But you know, stuff breaks, crystal. I'm
sure you can tell us about that, and you need
new parts. It's like, so where are going to come from? Well, oh,
choker over ninety three percent same with it. Luckily I
bought all this stuff before these tariffs come into place.

Speaker 1 (30:52):
But if you're not so lucky, what are you going
to do?

Speaker 3 (30:54):
The other thing is, as I have discovered, is there's
a thriving secondhand market for a lot of these things
like that strollers, car seats, et cetera. Well, this is
just going to do the same thing that it's done
to the cars. Is that while yes, you could still
buy used you know, pre tariffed goods. Well, what do
you think supply and demand is going to show. You're
going to see an increase in the US stuff, So
you're actually gonna have to pay more, no matter if

(31:15):
you're buying new and or if you're buying used, And
it'll probably restrict the supply because of the overall number
of imports, which will only further skyrocket the amount of
the prices here. And you know, all of this is allegedly,
you know, for the benefit of the country.

Speaker 1 (31:27):
I would say, you know, my own bias.

Speaker 3 (31:29):
Otherwise, you probably want to make it easier for parents
to be able to have children.

Speaker 1 (31:33):
The law, you know, I don't know if people know this.

Speaker 3 (31:36):
There's literally a law you have to have a car
seat to be able to leave the hospital.

Speaker 1 (31:39):
That's right, it has to be installed. And do you
you don't have.

Speaker 4 (31:41):
A choice like and don't get a used car seat?

Speaker 1 (31:44):
Yeah, right, that's an obi Yes.

Speaker 4 (31:45):
Getting a stroller?

Speaker 2 (31:46):
Do you all don't get used car seat? You need
to get a new car seat. Ninety seven percent of
baby strollers, by the way, I just looked it up,
come from China.

Speaker 3 (31:52):
Yeah, and that's what I'm saying. I actually tried to
find one. I was like, hey, let's see if there's
anything made in America. Stroll, made in America, car seat.
I mean, the best you can get are some of
these that are designed in America. But that's not the
same thing, you know, like up a baby douna or
any of these other ones. But there's there's some Swedish
Swedish companies as well as some German companies. But guess what,
we also had tariffs on those countries, right, so, and

(32:13):
a lot of them are already more expensive. So you
know that, you know what it's like, don't screw with moms.
That's that's one of those where there's a lot of
moms out there, a lot of Facebook groups, Instagram and more,
where I actually guarantee that that will probably reach more
and have more political impact than a lot of.

Speaker 1 (32:29):
The other stuff that is happening. Yeah, it's important for
people to understand.

Speaker 2 (32:33):
Back in the George W. Bush era, they called them
like security moms. Now they're going to be like tariff moms,
anti tariff moms, free trade moms.

Speaker 3 (32:41):
Yeah, I mean think about Facebook, Marketplace or any a
lot of these other places people are already skating by,
and now there's going to cost even more money. One
hundred dollars, three four hundred dollars, that's a lot of money.
That's a significant portion of the average Americans paycheck. And
you know, then we have the rise of this buy now,
pay later debt, which we're already seeing. Credit card minimum
payments actually have skyrocketed just in the last two months,

(33:02):
so we can see that there's significant pressure on consumer households,
all right. And then last thing I wanted to flag
here is from the Chinese market and how they are
helping out their own customers. Show up this on please
on the screen. So visitors to Tauboo, which is one
of the largest online shopping platforms in China, are now
being offered steep discounts on products which are normally exported

(33:24):
to the United States. For example, rice cooker from forty
two dollars to twenty five eighty five inch TV from
five to twelve to six thirty five hundred dollars instead
of six hundred and thirty nine dollars. Offers are popping
up all across online apps.

Speaker 1 (33:37):
Quote.

Speaker 3 (33:37):
The first thing buyers are seeing is a section of
goods that's quote subsidized by the nation, basically the Chinese
government bailing out their own domestic online sellers to protect
their manufacturers, move goods, move into poory, and keep all
of the supply chains and everybody else still employed. Make
sure that we don't see the freeze that's happening here
in America. So that's what a functioning state actually looks like.

(34:00):
They have a bailout. They have the ability to put
pressure on all of their companies. They can drop their
interest rates, they can manipulate their currency, they can do
all of these different things. They're prepared for hundreds of
billions of dollars in domestic capital injection into their economy,
and meanwhile, over here, we've got basically none of that.

Speaker 2 (34:15):
Yeah, and it looks like they're painting it as like
a patriotic project to like upgrade your washing machine or you're.

Speaker 3 (34:20):
Like, no, they are, and guess what people probably will
do that. You know, they of course they will. They're
under like they feel as if they're under attack. We
are just we're literally the people who instigate it, right,
So of course they're going to be able to suffer
if they want to. Also, let's compare the uh, you
know the history of both of those nations. Who has
more and longer and capacity of suffering. I wouldn't put
my money on the most consumer obsessed country in the

(34:41):
also world.

Speaker 4 (34:42):
What are we suffering for?

Speaker 1 (34:43):
That's what I'm shy.

Speaker 2 (34:43):
We're not nobody, Like people don't want this. It's not popular.
It's not like we're behind this project. So there's no
unified like Americans are ready to you know, pay double
at Walmart or whatever.

Speaker 4 (34:53):
No, we're like, why are you doing this? To a
stop it?

Speaker 2 (34:55):
So, yeah, they're also in a in a much stronger
position viz a VI their population and their support of
the Chinese government's direction.

Speaker 3 (35:05):
Here go, all right, let's get to Richard Hanania standing by.

Speaker 2 (35:10):
So we had a fairly significant court development yesterday in
the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He is that immigrant
who was wrongly deported to El Salvador, and specifically to
Bukelli's torture dungeon in El Salvador. There of course, was
a question very early on with regard to how all
of this went down in the Alien Enemies Act where

(35:32):
the planes were in the air in a judge Judge
Bosburg said you have to turn them around. You cannot
do this, and the administration went ahead and flew those
planes anyway. So yesterday, let's put this up on the screen.
Judge Bosburg found probable cause to hold the administration in
contempt of court for defying his order to turn around

(35:53):
those planes. One of those planes had a Brigo Garcia
on it. Some I think two hundred and eighty three
is the number of migrants that were on those three
planes total. And he is demanding new details in order
for officials to purge their contempt, meaning basically to rectify
the situation. So this is different. They haven't been found
in contempt yet, but this appears to be building in

(36:14):
this direction if the administration continues to fail to comply.
So joining us to talk about this development and this
entire situation with Il Salvador and the Kelly and the
Trump administration denying these migrants any.

Speaker 4 (36:28):
Sort of due process, We've got.

Speaker 2 (36:29):
Richard Hannania He is a political commentator. He is the
author of a number of books, including the Origins of Woke.

Speaker 4 (36:35):
And also has his own substack. Good to see Richard.

Speaker 1 (36:38):
Good to see Richard.

Speaker 6 (36:39):
Glad to be here.

Speaker 2 (36:40):
Yeah, of course. So just give us your top line,
like what you have thought about this whole situation, and
especially the way the administration is insisting that even after
they admitted that they made an error with regard to
kill mar Abrego Garcia, now they are absolutely refusing to
do anything to correct that error, and Stephen has gone

(37:00):
so far to even deny that it was an error
at all in the first place.

Speaker 7 (37:05):
Yeah, So there are these two cases proceeding on parallel tracks.
There's the Abrago Garcia case, which is getting a lot
of attention. There's also don't forget the Venezuelan case where
they shipped off those hundreds of venezuelanstal Salvador, the country
that they weren't from, and that's where that's the case
where they are there's probable cost to find them in contempt.
So we're going to have a couple of weeks here

(37:25):
where the administration is going to come back.

Speaker 6 (37:27):
Either they're going to be able.

Speaker 7 (37:28):
To say we've answered your question satisfactory, satisfactorily, or there
could be a kind of going forward with a criminal
contempt charge. Yeah, the Abrego Garcia case, this one is
even more frightening. I mean, both of them involved disobeying
a court order. But this was the Supreme Court, and
they went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said,

(37:49):
you have to facilitate his return. Now, the lower court
had said you have to effectuate his return, and the
Trump administration has gone and tried to read that very
very narrowly. Now the so facilitate maybe is not as
extreme as effectuate. There's a reason the Supreme Court preferred
one phrasing in that nine oh decision over the other.

(38:10):
But I think everyone agrees that they have to do something.
They can't just sit there and do nothing. And the
and the administration argues that they've tried to argue at
the lower court level that basically, if he shows up
at a port of entry by himself, they'll let him in. Now,
what's ridiculous about all this is they are kind of
teasing the court system. I mean, somebody, uh uh, there's

(38:31):
a there's a tweet that this, uh, the plane of
Venezuelan's left after the judge's order, and then uh Bukele
tweets oopsie. And I think Rubio retweets it, and then
after the right as this is going on, Bukele comes
to the White House and they're sitting there and you
know whatever our facilitate means. He's sitting next to you,
you can ask him in a serious way, you can

(38:53):
try to do something. And they don't decided to sit there.
They giggle about it. Buke says, what am I supposed
to do? Smuggle him into? The UN say it's like, no,
this is part of an agreement the US paid you.
And now Senator Van Holland from Maryland goes down to
Al Salvador and he says that the Vice president of
the country tells him that basically, you know, what are
we supposed to do?

Speaker 6 (39:13):
Smuggle him in? And he says no.

Speaker 7 (39:15):
Pam Bondi said that if you guys released him, you
can go back. So they're playing this game. They're trying
to interpret it very very narrowly. What's frightening about this
is they go back and now they just deny what
the Supreme Court says. Now Stephen Miller and Donald Trump,
when they're talking to the press, we'll say we won
nine to oh. I mean, it's just there's kind of

(39:35):
not a connection to reality. So a lot of things
are at stake here. There's the principle that the president
cannot just take someone off the streets and send them
to a third world labor camp. They're floating the idea
now that they do it to US citizens. We've seen
people who are long term permanent residents being picked off
those streets because they've runten the wrong op ed or

(39:56):
had the wrong ideas about US policy towards Israel.

Speaker 6 (40:00):
And so you know what's kind of what's next.

Speaker 7 (40:02):
We have an administration that doesn't tell the truth, that
will lie about basic things. They'll say a guy he's
a convicted MS thirteen member, when he's not. They'll say
they want at the Supreme Court while they lost. They
don't see citizenship as a bride line. They don't see
any free speech respect for permanent residents. And so yeah,
I think this is probably the most important thing going
on in politics right now because the question is what

(40:24):
are the limits here and what is going to be
the pushback that stops them?

Speaker 3 (40:28):
Richard, How does this fit? So let's put let's say
C two up there on the screen. This was a
tweet from jd Vance that I saw you reacting to
this was somebody who was criticizing his initial defense of
the Abrego Garcia deportation. Who was Jesse Single saying, I'd
hate the smug, self asshirted bullshit. I know I'm right,
and people must be dumb or immoral to disagree with me.
It's easy to go through life because when you think

(40:50):
you've never had to seriously about why your worldview is
justification for the mass invasion of the country my ancestors
built with their bare hands. Now, I know you've criticized
some of this type of rhetoric in the past, but
break down some of the your analytical frameworks about the
Trump administration low human capital and how this all fits
into that.

Speaker 7 (41:10):
So JD is obviously not low human capital. He wrote
a very well regarded book on his life. He went
to a law school, a very selective institution. He's kind
of a tragic figure at this point. He's obviously very smart,
but he's part of a movement and he has ambitions,
and he became vice president because he's part of a
movement that has the characteristics of a cult of personality.

(41:32):
At this point, and so JD, it's kind of fascinating
to watch him. He usually doesn't just straight up lie,
but he always begins his statements with a criticism of
the media, somebody like Jesse Single or the Biden administration,
and a praise of Trump and then kind of goes
off in this direction where he's not directly answering the point.

(41:54):
And I think that that's what makes him a tragic figure.
I think he's a smart person who wants to be
respected by kind of the intelligency of people like us,
but he's working for a man who I mean, we've
all seen it. We've seen kind of what Trump is
at this point. It's been reported, and I've heard this
from people firsthand that when you go in to apply
for a job of the administration, one of the first

(42:15):
things they ask you is do you think Trump won
the twenty twenty election. And I've heard that's been reported
in the media, but I've heard it's actually worse than that,
because they go and they say how big do you
think the victory? And there's really no answer you give
other that can give other than all fifty states. Because
Trump is now saying he would have won all fifty
states if it wasn't for vote fraud.

Speaker 6 (42:36):
And I've always been encouraging the media.

Speaker 7 (42:38):
When you have these people on these Sunday programs, Bestn't
and these people like this, ask them if Trump won California.
They will not contradict him. There is no way they'll
contradict him. Stephen Miller might say he won California. Jd
Vance might deflect and start blaming the media for asking
a gotcha question. But these are the dynamics that we're
dealing with, and it touches on everything. So this morning,

(42:58):
Trump says Powell can't be fired quickly enough. And the
people who know anything about the economy say, you think
tariffs are bad for the stock market, wait until we
go after fed independence.

Speaker 6 (43:09):
And from everything.

Speaker 7 (43:09):
We've seen, there is just nobody in the room who
will say anything other than yes, sir, yes, or yester.
The movement has been purging everyone who has a spine
or has a kind of personal integrity, or who will
stand up to this man. And so this is why
kind of the possibility space of the things that could happen.
Sorry to be so dark, but I think the last
month or two have really been clarifying about what's at stake.

Speaker 4 (43:30):
I agree, I agree, you know you tweeted something this.

Speaker 2 (43:34):
So you wrote a great piece that I thought was
really insightful called The Based Ritual, about the social dynamics
within this movement. And these are not like random fringe
people on the internet anymore. These are people that, as
you point out, are staffing jd Vance, They're staffing Josh Holly.
They're increasingly in important, significant positions throughout the administration. And

(43:54):
you know about that based ritual direction and the way
that everybody's just sort of competing to be increasingly counter
signaling how how bad they are and how racist they
are and how sexist they are, and no one wants
to outdo or be outdone by the other people in
the group. You tweeted, it's funny that Trump isn't doing
mass deportations, but he's got all of the magas passionately

(44:16):
defending the idea of having a few hundred people in
a labor camp. It's all about vice signaling for them.
Give them one or two random guys to torture and
MAGA is happy. Now, I would say I fully expect
them to move on to mass deportations. The acting ICE
director is talking about setting up Amazon Prime for human beings,
and the New Republican budget would make ICE the I

(44:38):
think best funded law enforcement agency in the history of
the country, maybe of the world. So I'm not putting
off the table that they're going in that direction next,
but help us understand what are these internal dynamics that
lead to a situation where these people are cheering random
we don't even know who these guys are, but random

(44:59):
people with no criminal record being locked up in a
prison that is worse than what we reserve for serial
killers here in the US.

Speaker 6 (45:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 7 (45:08):
I mean, we thought that virtue signaling was bad when
everyone tried to show how anti racist and unseexist and
nice they I don't think we really adequately considered kind
of you can go in the opposite direction. And so
there's this kind of thing where you talk to young
conservatives or you're you're around them, and there is this.

Speaker 6 (45:29):
Yeah, I call it the based ritual.

Speaker 7 (45:30):
So basically they're trying to show that they are not
politically correct, and this goes in the direction of kind
of performative cruelty towards outsiders. I think we have our
regime that kind of operates on that principle. It's loyalty
to Trump, it's kind of performative cruelty. They you know,
they would spit it as try to look out for
the American worker, or look back, look out for the

(45:51):
forgotten men and women and so forth. You know, they
have these justifications in their heads. But you know there's
a there's a kind of disturbing and clear uh tendency
to downplay the rottenness of the Hitler regime or kind
of fascist states, or to defend literally anything Trump does,
or be completely indifferent to whether we're sending, like you said,

(46:13):
people who are innocent, not convicted of anything to these
labor camps potentially indefinitely. We talk about Abrigo Garcia. The
administration has been trying to find, you know, dig up stuff.
He had some kind of a domestic violence dispute, But
we forgot about the Venezuelans, including the gay makeup artist,
who I have not seen anyone say anything, as far
as he's ever heard anybody he has any gang ties,

(46:36):
he has any criminal work, nothing, just not even a
single allegation. And I think that the understanding of why
this happens, I think the movement it rots from the head.
It really is Donald Trump. If you have somebody who
lies this much, if you have somebody who just demands
loyalty above all else, who's not civil in public life,
who kind of delights it in cruelty to I think

(46:59):
that that attracts a certain kind of person, it repulses
a different kind of person. And I think that these
two dynamics, the base rituals so to speak, and the
loyalty to Trump, I think together their freighting combination.

Speaker 3 (47:13):
One of the things, Richard, that you were initially optimistic
about was the quote tech right right and some of
the more moderating influences. Let's say that you were praiseworthy
of and the first administration you did write an interesting piece.
Can we put d one please up there on the screen,
which I actually quite enjoyed, and it's called the cat
turd to Silicon Valley billionaire pipeline must be broken. Can

(47:37):
you break down kind of this phenomenon where you observe
that in your framework, elite human capital and or people
with skill sets and others who know better enter the
Trump orbit and find themselves actually being brought down to
the center of the gravity of the movement as opposed
to raising the collective capacity of the entire movement.

Speaker 7 (48:02):
So a few years ago, I wrote an article called
Understanding the Tech Right, and I was the first person
that I've seen use the phrase tech right. And this
was at the beginning when people like Mark Andresid and
Elon Musk were really starting to take a public role
as kind of more Republican leaning figures. And I was
optimistic at the time because, look, these were obviously smart,

(48:22):
accomplished people. They've done a lot of things in their lives.
I thought there was a human capital.

Speaker 6 (48:26):
On the right.

Speaker 7 (48:27):
There's been a fleeing from the Republican Party in the
Trump era of people who are college educated and people
who are informed and connected to reality, frankly, and I
thought that would they would make things better. It was
kind of the infusion of human capital that the right needed. Unfortunately,
it hasn't really worked out that way. And just from
watching these people and how they use Twitter, Musk particularly,

(48:49):
but a lot of the other ones, you realize that
as intelligent as they might be and as accomplished they
might as they might be in the business world, they
really have absorbed what's kind of swimming They've they've they've
imbued whatever is in the air in the conservative movement,
and talking to these people, they often you know, they're
so radicalized. I think by what happened with COVID and

(49:10):
what happened with wokeness and some of the personal coverage
they received from people like Kara Swisher and the mainstream
press that they they took a reaction that's understandable but
was not the right way to go, which is that
they shut out credible sources of information and they started
just listening to Twitter and ons and so Elon Musk
is sitting there all day, and I think he believes

(49:32):
the stuff.

Speaker 6 (49:32):
I think he believes the stuff about.

Speaker 7 (49:34):
Massive voter fraud, putting the election, about voter without voter.
I d our civilization is destroyed, and they're shipping it
legalsh to win elections because this is what everyone arounds them,
and everyone who they trust at this point believes. The
problem is the right as a whole. As smart as
any individual is, none of us are that smart as
an individual were. We only have intelligence because we're part

(49:56):
of a community, because we know what sources of trust,
because we have conversations like this, because we read newspapers
and talk to scientists and people in politics and people
with sensible views on these things.

Speaker 6 (50:06):
So once you shut yourself out.

Speaker 7 (50:07):
It doesn't matter how high your IQ is going to
you can follow into social media radicalization and you could
have the worldview that.

Speaker 6 (50:14):
Just doesn't make sense.

Speaker 7 (50:15):
And I think we see that most clearly in what's
happened with goage. Look, there's sympathetic to the idea of
smaller government, sympathetic to the idea that government can.

Speaker 6 (50:23):
Be more efficient.

Speaker 7 (50:24):
There's people at places like AI and Cato Institute, and
if those are your goals, there are smart people you
could find who will put you on the right path.
And they've been thinking about this for a really long time.
Elon Musk has not done this at all. He basically
came in and said it's going to be me and
a few of my engineering buddies and basically what the
priorities and government should be. I'm just going to listen

(50:45):
to kind of whatever is going viral on Twitter. And
in the end, he didn't save He's not going to
save a fraction of the money that he saved. A
lot of the stuff that they cut was ended up
being very valuable, things like basic scientific research, things like.

Speaker 6 (51:00):
Statistics, getting statistics to make.

Speaker 7 (51:02):
Sure government does run more efficiently, stuff that doesn't cost
that much and probably is some of the most cost
effective stuff in government you could do.

Speaker 6 (51:10):
But because the fact that he just has a.

Speaker 7 (51:11):
Simple idea, I'm going to cut government and not think
about how or why or I don't need to think
about that, it's kind of been it's been a debacle,
and I think we see that across the board with
these guys when they're when they're they're being part of politics,
but also like they're swimming in the waters of the
Trump movement.

Speaker 4 (51:29):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (51:29):
I mean, on the one hand, yes, in terms of
their stated goals, it's been a disaster. Like he's he
was a result, well I'm going to cut two trillion dollars.
Now he's like meekly in the cabinet meeting, like I'm
going to cut one hundred and fifty billion, and even.

Speaker 4 (51:41):
That's a freaking lie.

Speaker 1 (51:42):
Right.

Speaker 2 (51:42):
On the other hand, you know, he hates government, and
government function doesn't function now, like social Security. Try to
go to the Social Security Office and see how that goes.
The agencies that were regulating his businesses, they've been defenestrated,
Like they will not be able to regulate his business,
nor would they because of you know, the corruption, conflicts
of interest that are involved so I think from his perspective,

(52:04):
in certain ways it was also a success. But which
I do want to ask you a little bit about
your views. Is the first time having you on since
you were you know, revealed your anonymous writings back in
the day, which were you know, white nationalists, which you've disavowed.
But I still do have some questions about your ideology
that I wanted to, you know, to hear from you on.
Especially when I hear you making the distinction between low

(52:26):
human capital and elite human capital. It raises the question
for me whether this is just some sort of eugenics
ideology in another form, like you're no longer drawing the
lines around.

Speaker 4 (52:38):
Like strictly IQ.

Speaker 2 (52:40):
You'd previously supported for sterilization for people with low IQs.
You know, previously you had an idea of different racial
hierarchies in your head. Perhaps that's in the past, but
is this just a new way to separate down which
humans are worthy and which humans are unworthy?

Speaker 7 (52:56):
So I will say that I did write some things
that were very bad and straightforwardly advocating sterilizing people with LOIQ.

Speaker 6 (53:03):
I said, here's an argument for it.

Speaker 7 (53:04):
Now at what I won't litigate it because it was
all that and I just want to forget that stuff
ever happened.

Speaker 2 (53:09):
Okay, sterilization of the unfit is the only way to
stop the decline of the word.

Speaker 7 (53:13):
No, but it was a longer thing, like if you
believe X, Y Z. Anyways, whatever, it was terrible stuff.
Everything I believed in twenty eleven is bad regardless. But yeah,
as far as the human capital stuff, look, there is
you know what I write about these things like the
base Ritual, and I write about where the right has gone.

Speaker 6 (53:29):
I see myself.

Speaker 7 (53:31):
From twelve years ago, when I was an anonymous basement
dweller writing these racist creeds. I've seen that person become
the Republican Party, and I've kind of if I had
stayed that person, maybe I would be in the administration
at this point. But I changed, and I think it's horrifying,
and I think I have some kind of insights into
kind of what's going on here. And so the idea

(53:52):
that human capital is kind of a variation of that.
I'm not going to say that there's I'm not going
to go in the other direction to say there's no
such thing as intelligence.

Speaker 2 (54:00):
There is no such thing, or just to clarify sure,
there are human beings to have differences, right, It's fine
to note those differences, like, I have no problem with that.
Where I have a problem is when you interpret those
differences as meaning that different human beings get different rights.
And that's really my question to you, and to me,

(54:22):
that's sort of the foundation of like eugenesis type ideology
is like, well, we're going to decide these people are
better than those people, and that means that those people
that we decided are not as good. They're not going
to get the same rights, They're not going to get
to have the same to say, they're not going to
get to have children or whatever it is. The program
is that we decide for them. And you know, I
think that type of ideology is very much how you
end up, for example, cheering the you know, deportation to

(54:46):
a slave labor camp of people that you've decided are
unworthy of basic human rights.

Speaker 4 (54:52):
So that's my question for.

Speaker 2 (54:54):
You, is do you still have that view that some
people are less worthy of the same rights as other people.

Speaker 7 (55:02):
I'm glad you asked the question in that way, Crystal,
because yeah, I think you're right. I think that's the
right thing to be concerned about. Do you go to
a place where, look, there's one thing to analyze things
and say, why does the right accept anti VAX's arguments
while the left does? And human capital is I think
a way to understand that the right is now less educated.
They have all kinds of crazy ideas and all kinds

(55:24):
of things, and you kind of need that analysis. You
don't understand how anti vax goes from a left wing
cause to something that's embraced by Republicans without understanding this
and RFK and his general crankery. Now, the question is
does that mean that low human capital?

Speaker 6 (55:40):
As we say, it's.

Speaker 7 (55:41):
Kind of it's kind of a harsh term, and it's
something that was built on Twitter. But let's say people
with less cognitive capabilities or less education, do they deserve
less rights?

Speaker 6 (55:49):
And no, I've stood against that.

Speaker 7 (55:50):
I mean, when I talk about Abrego Garcia, I know
nothing about him personally.

Speaker 6 (55:54):
He may be a gang member for all I know.

Speaker 7 (55:56):
He's not a noble prize winning physicist or whatever. But
his rights matter, and the rule of law matters, and
the idea that we're all citizens equal before the government.
I mean, he's not a citizen, but still there are
some rules in how you treat people. Those are important
principles to me. So I think that we have to
create a space. I saw people on the Blue Sky
trying to cancel Mattic Galacias the other day because he

(56:18):
said some things where, oh, I don't like to look
into the origins of group differences, but you know, I
want to treat everyone equal, and we still should be
concerned about racism and we should have to have booze
against racism.

Speaker 6 (56:27):
All that stuff I agree with now.

Speaker 7 (56:28):
But they still wanted to cancel him because he kind
of cryptically according to Will Stancil, and these people on
Blue Sky expressed a belief in group differences, according to them,
And I think what we have to do is, yes,
hold on to this idea that everyone has value, hold
on to the idea of fair treatment and individual rights.
And that's the important thing. That's how we don't go
down the path of kind of where Maga is going.

Speaker 3 (56:50):
Got it, so, Richard, to push you a little bit here,
then I would say, it was pretty evident if you're
run in many of the same circles I do. I
knew a lot of these folks, and I knew that
they were going to get into power. You were pretty
well informed as well, and you still voted for Trump.
So what's with the about face in this expectation, you know,
despite the education, your own analysis and all this, in
what way was this not all that expected.

Speaker 1 (57:11):
In your vote and for the administration?

Speaker 7 (57:13):
So I over indexed, I think on the first term.
The first term was basically a normy Republican administration.

Speaker 6 (57:20):
I liked a lot of the policies.

Speaker 7 (57:21):
I thought they were going to do the things I
advocated for on de dei issues. And then they appointed
the Supreme Court justices that Trump appointed. That's really some
of the only pushback that he's getting in a second administration.

Speaker 6 (57:35):
And the and so I was expecting something of a repeat.

Speaker 7 (57:39):
I knew that MAGA had changed, I knew that the
Trump movement had become something different, but basically I thought
that we would get that. And then on the night
of the election, I was on Destiny's live stream and
he was we had we share a negative view of
RFK for his vaccine stance and basically everything else that
he believes. And he said something along the line of

(58:00):
RFK will be HHS Secretary, and I said, no, RFK
will not be HHS secretary.

Speaker 6 (58:04):
I actually put some money on it.

Speaker 7 (58:05):
I put my money where my mouth was, and I said,
if he does, I might have said something as explicit
as I will have made a mistake. And RFK does
get appointed as HHS secretary. People around me are telling
me these things, and we talk about some kind of
social circles, and everyone I talked to it's kind of.

Speaker 6 (58:24):
Things like I do. And so they're telling me, don't
worry about RFK.

Speaker 7 (58:26):
They're going to put people around him, Peter Teal, you know,
these bioaccelerationists. They're going to be his deputies, and they're
going to box him in. Now he's he's going after vaccines.
He's doing everything that we thought. And I eventually stopped
listening to these people, and you know, and then you
had the tariff thing. Now, look, I'm in good company
as far as the market goes. I mean, I believe

(58:48):
in the wisdom of the of the market. All else equal,
it's a good way to go. And people did not
think the tariffs would be this bad. Trump was promising
ten percent across the board. People say, WHOA, Okay, that's
the that's the extreme end of what he might do. Instead,
he comes out with this chart, with this, with this
formula that makes no sense and has like thirty forty
percent on different countries and one hundred something percent on China.

(59:10):
And so, you know, I was expecting Republicans to push
back a little. There was a little talk that they
might not confirm RFK. There was talk that Bill Cassidy
would vote against him, but they all kind of folded
in line.

Speaker 6 (59:21):
And so, look, I misjudged this.

Speaker 7 (59:24):
I underestimated just kind of how much of a cult
of personality it had become, and how kind of unrestrained
he is to indulge in his instincts. And you know,
a lot of these mistakes were understandable at the time,
but they were mistakes.

Speaker 6 (59:38):
I saw this wrong.

Speaker 2 (59:39):
What about the authoritarianism, because I mean, we all lived
through January sixth. You were talking earlier about how now
it's a litmus test to get in the administration, you
have to say not a lead to Trump win in
twenty twenty one, all fifty states this time around, all
of those sorts of things, like, it's just hard for
me to imagine how that could be a surprise. Like
we've known this man even before or the president. We've

(01:00:00):
known him for years. He lies about everything. This you know,
deep like racial and IQ view of the world has
always been embedded in him when he was up, you know,
when he was backed into a corner after he did
lose in twenty twenty, then his most authoritarian instincts come out.

Speaker 4 (01:00:17):
We knew in the interim, and.

Speaker 2 (01:00:18):
You were a contributor to Project twenty twenty five, so
you were directly involved in some of the planning that
was done.

Speaker 4 (01:00:23):
To make sure that all of the guardrails.

Speaker 2 (01:00:25):
That were in place last time were completely stripped away.
We knew the Supreme Court had also given him this
sort of like blanket immunity.

Speaker 4 (01:00:31):
So what about on that piece, like, did.

Speaker 2 (01:00:34):
You have any concerns going in about the likely suppression
of free speech and authoritarian tactics and authoritarian tendencies that
you know, even I have to admit have gone even
beyond what I expected, and I was pretty alarmist. I
think the record will show going into this administration.

Speaker 7 (01:00:53):
Yeah, I've always taken January sixth seriously, and I've always
taken the idea seriously that Trump did try to over
turned the election in twenty twenty And I said, I said,
he should have been in jail for it. I mean,
I basically was the only person who probably endorsed Trump
and thought he should have been and thought he should
have been in jail. At the same time, I can
look back and say, well, it was a one time thing.

Speaker 6 (01:01:12):
He can't run again. I was actually afraid he loses.

Speaker 7 (01:01:14):
He's going to be the Republican nominee every year for
the rest of our rest of our lives. And well
he's still you know, Steve Bannon is going out there
saying he's got to run for a third term. So
maybe that maybe that didn't even take care of it.
But yeah, you're absolutely you know, you're absolutely right. I
mean I think that, Look, there's a lot of things
that were totalitarian about the left, a lot of the
speech restrictions, a lot of the COVID stuff. I think

(01:01:35):
we still haven't had a full reckoning for what they
were doing at the state level, and here in California
they were masking students, high school students outside for three
years into twenty twenty two. I mean, it was really
kind of there was a kind of leftist authoritarianism too,
that's worth worrying about.

Speaker 6 (01:01:49):
But I agree with.

Speaker 7 (01:01:50):
You that Trump is kind of just in his personal
just his personal sort of disregard for any kind of
concern with truth or constitutional horms.

Speaker 6 (01:02:00):
Uh.

Speaker 7 (01:02:01):
And so yeah, it's something that's concerning. Look, like you said,
we didn't think it was this bad. I don't think
anyone said before the election that they're gonna they're going
to kick out forward students for writing op bets criticizing Israel.

Speaker 6 (01:02:15):
Uh. You know, it's.

Speaker 4 (01:02:16):
It's like he said, he's just saying.

Speaker 1 (01:02:20):
That they were going to foreign students he did.

Speaker 2 (01:02:23):
I mean, that's where I like that piece Actually doesn't
surprise me at all, because he did advertise that he
was ultimately going to do that.

Speaker 4 (01:02:30):
And I agree. You know, I was a critic from the.

Speaker 2 (01:02:32):
Left of like the excesses of wokeism and authoritarian tendencies
with regard to that. And you know, I think mistakes
were made in COVID as well, even though I think
especially the beginning, many of those mistakes.

Speaker 4 (01:02:43):
Were well meaning and we didn't know what the.

Speaker 2 (01:02:45):
Deal was going to be with kids in schools and whatever,
and the school closures were probably the biggest.

Speaker 4 (01:02:49):
Mistake that were made.

Speaker 2 (01:02:52):
People are being kidnapped off the street by masked officers
of the state for writing op bets like there's just
no equivalent under a Democrat administration, in my opinion, to
what we're seeing unfold under Trump is in two point zero.

Speaker 6 (01:03:05):
Yeah, and I don't disagree with you at all.

Speaker 7 (01:03:07):
I think that you know, my thinking, I'm trying to
get back into my.

Speaker 4 (01:03:10):
Mind before the election. I appreciate that.

Speaker 7 (01:03:13):
Yeah, But at this point, I think you're right. I
think I can say that I'm not on the fence anymore.
Like that stuff we complained about the left the other
you know, last year or two years ago, that happened,
it was bad, we can criticize them for it. But
this is completely on a different level. And I think
the thing we learned here is like character matters a lot.
Like what I talked about the Trump movement and it

(01:03:35):
becoming a cult and the base ritual and kind of
what I saw personally with these people who were in
kind of Trump's orbit and who are going to probably
be taking over the government. I should have taken that
more seriously. I was just thinking kind of at a
level of Okay, there's the Republican Coalition, there's voters, there's
the market checking him, there is you know, there is

(01:03:55):
kind of the Republican establishment.

Speaker 6 (01:03:56):
There are courts and so forth.

Speaker 7 (01:03:58):
I should have been thinking, like what kind of people
are going to be staffing the government.

Speaker 6 (01:04:03):
And it's not just Trump. It's the fact that.

Speaker 7 (01:04:05):
They're all trump Ists and true believing Trump is at
this point. And that was the mistake. I think these
ideas that like, it's funny because conservatives they have this
thing about you know, virtue and leaders and how we've
had a decline in morality. And it's not just Chris
Ruffo was treating this the other day and I got
in exchange with him. It's not just about IQ. You
might say there's lead human capital, but there's wisdom and there's.

Speaker 6 (01:04:26):
All the like.

Speaker 7 (01:04:27):
But Donald Trump. It's just like, but Donald Trump. That's
like the only thing you could say to that, And
it's kind of insane. There are arguments about character and
like you know, civility and the need to pay attention
to our inheritance and norms. All that stuff was right,
they just became part of a cult of like the
man who is the antithesis of all of that. So

(01:04:48):
it's it's a kind of remarkable dynamic.

Speaker 3 (01:04:51):
Yeah, so let's return to Elon. We're both very curious
about your take on this, Richard. Let's put D three
up there on the screen. This is some revelations about
Elon and the way that he manages kind of his
harem of a young women, some of them when he's
met on Twitter, often buying them off and encouraging them
to have his children. Apparently there's a non number of

(01:05:13):
what is it fourteen children, but could be as high
as fifty. We were just curious, how does this fit
into your elite human capital model here? Is is this
an example of elite human capital over? Well, yeah, you're
a pro natalist and this is a high IQ individual
and he's very really spreading his seed, just like Jenghis

(01:05:33):
Khan or any other person with absolute power.

Speaker 1 (01:05:36):
So what do you make this look?

Speaker 6 (01:05:39):
Yeah, you're right on the surface.

Speaker 7 (01:05:41):
You might say, well, if you're a natalist and you
leave at IQ God, and you know, I don't judge
these things. If people want to have a lot of children,
I generally think that's a great thing. I think that
what we've seen is the kind of person who thinks
like this, I'm just going to set spread my seed
to the greatest extent possible. There there's somebody like Genghis
Khan proNT to violence, or there's someone like Elon Muss
who just kind of doesn't really have a moral sense.

(01:06:03):
So I think this is the problem with you know,
a lot of ideas might sound good in theory, but
in practice you have to kind of look at the
kinds of people who are attracted to them and look
at how these things work out in practice. And I
think it's probably not a coincidence that the West had
a Christianity and a norm of monogamy and didn't think
like this and ended up creating the modern world.

Speaker 8 (01:06:21):
Yeah.

Speaker 7 (01:06:22):
I think it's a lesson here about taking starting with
IQ natalism and not kind of thinking about character and
what happens when you try to apply these ideas in
a person's life.

Speaker 4 (01:06:32):
Yeah. Well, and it's not only that.

Speaker 2 (01:06:34):
I mean he explicitly, according to the article, has told
people that he's worried about the high birth rates in
developing countries and so he wants to combat that with
his legion of you know, his high IQ whatever.

Speaker 4 (01:06:47):
Before the apocalypse.

Speaker 2 (01:06:49):
So I mean there's also these like directly, I would
again say, like eugenics inspired ideas that come out here.
So I don't know that it's he doesn't have an
eye ideology or I think you said moral compass or
moral I'm not sure the language that you use. But no,
I think he does have an ideology, and it's a

(01:07:09):
really evil one.

Speaker 7 (01:07:12):
Yeah, I think he does have an ideology. I think
he has kind of instincts and ideas about the world. Now,
to be fair to him, I've never seen him say
we've got to limit the birth rate in developing countries
or anything like that. But yeah, I think that his
entire idea of you know, it's weird because like you
would think, well, somebody who's kind of an IQ snob,

(01:07:33):
you might be like me, you might look down on
kind of the conservative influencer space. But no, I mean
he will denounce the entire class of educated people and
people who know anything about the world, but then love
these people who are less intelligent, less honest because they
all worship him. Right, So there's this ideology, but at
the same time, it's just kind of a classic kind
of selfishness, big man behavior, and that's not socially conducive.

Speaker 6 (01:07:56):
To anything good.

Speaker 2 (01:07:57):
So how would you describe your political ideology now, Richard? Like,
where do you kind of fit? How can people make
sense of you.

Speaker 7 (01:08:05):
I you know, the funny thing is, for you know,
for all the things I've written and all the little
bit of trolling I do online, I'm a pretty pretty
normy guy. I mean, the people I talk to these
days are like, you know, scholars at AI or you know, Cato,
just like normal kind of libertarians who are concerned about
norms and think the American experiment has been a good
thing and we should try to preserve it, and caring

(01:08:27):
about the well functioning institutions.

Speaker 6 (01:08:29):
So I'm a libertarianish classical liberal.

Speaker 7 (01:08:32):
For all the kind of you know, kind of eccentricities
that you see and the things I've written and the
things I still write today, my politics underneath it all
are actually sort of normal.

Speaker 2 (01:08:42):
All right, Well, I will I will say just you know,
I also have changed my mind on certain things because
of this Trump administration. And one of them is something
that you touched on, which is just how much character
does matter? And you know, I think the liberals were
right on certain aspects of that. I previously would have
been like, ah, who cares about the norms and they're

(01:09:03):
so obsessed with like these different things about his personality
or whatever.

Speaker 4 (01:09:08):
No, I think you're right.

Speaker 2 (01:09:09):
I think those things mattered a lot more than I
gave them credit for mattering. And now that his personality
traits have not only taken over the government, but I mean,
these are it's the fish does rot from the head down,
and that has to do not just with this administration,
but with the whole country. And when you see the
most powerful person in the country, in the world who

(01:09:31):
is narcissistic, utterly.

Speaker 4 (01:09:33):
Shameless, lies, is cruel, etc.

Speaker 2 (01:09:37):
Of course you're going to have people think that that's
the way to succeed, that those are traits that are
worthy of emulation. And so I also, you know, just
you know, since you're talking about your evolution and your thought,
I also have evolved in the way that I think
about these things and have changed my mind about how
important those things. In certain way, It's like it's made

(01:09:58):
me sort of more conservative in that way of like, oh,
you know what, actually the character of our leaders, like
these squishy traits and these norms, they actually did kind
of matter and I want them back.

Speaker 1 (01:10:10):
See it's interesting. I would almost do a reverse.

Speaker 3 (01:10:13):
I think, Richard, what you've convinced me most of all
is that competence and elite human capital matters more than anything,
and that, as you pointed out, let's say with the
JD Van's tweet, right, you and I both know that
that is a straw man argument about deportation. That's not
about Abrago, Garcia and El Salvador in prison and defying

(01:10:33):
a social Supreme Court order. But that is one where
somebody who has been through this process cannot debase themselves
to actually argue at the level of drump for lack
of a better word, to be like, no, this is
good and we're also sending American citizens. And so I mean, Richard,
you've been through many things. But I'll say this, man,
I've been reading you for probably five straight years. When's

(01:10:54):
the first time we talked twenty twenty, I want to say,
when you put out your CSPI study.

Speaker 6 (01:10:58):
Yeah, probably the report on the right.

Speaker 3 (01:11:01):
You were one of the first people who ever truly
caused me to change my mind, and you have caused
me to change my mind many of the time since.
So we'll have a link down the description to yourself
stack and I will always read you.

Speaker 1 (01:11:12):
You're a fascinating man.

Speaker 6 (01:11:14):
Well, thank you very much.

Speaker 2 (01:11:15):
I really appreciate that, appreciate the discussion Richard, thank you,
thank you. So guys, in terms of Doge's supposed aspirations
as a cost cutting exercise, we can officially now.

Speaker 4 (01:11:30):
Say it has failed.

Speaker 2 (01:11:32):
Elon has gone from claiming he was going to cut
two trillion dollars out of the federal debt budget to
now meekly at a cabinet meeting massively downgrading that estimate.
Let's go ahead and take a listen to Elon himself.

Speaker 8 (01:11:45):
How much do you think we can rip out of
this wasted six point five trillion dollar harvest Biden budget?

Speaker 9 (01:11:55):
Well, I think we can do at least two trillion.

Speaker 6 (01:11:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 9 (01:12:00):
Well, thanks to your fantastic leadership, this amazing cabinet, and
the very talented dog team, I'm excited to announce that
we anticipate savings in FY twenty six from reduction of
waste and brought by one hundred and fifty billion dollars.
And I mean, and some of it is just absurd,
like people getting unemployment insurance.

Speaker 6 (01:12:20):
You haven't been born yet.

Speaker 9 (01:12:21):
I mean, I think anyone can appreciate whether, I mean,
come on, that's just crazy.

Speaker 2 (01:12:26):
So from two trillion to one hundred and fifty billion,
and even that is just not even true. To put
this up on the screen from the New York Times,
they dug in to what they're even actually claiming.

Speaker 4 (01:12:36):
The headline is DOGE.

Speaker 2 (01:12:37):
Is far short of its goal and still overstating its progress.
Elon Musk now says this group will produce only fifteen
percent of the savings it promised, but even that estimate
is inflated with errors. And in particular, they went and
looked at some of the top cost savings here that
they had claimed and it still was inaccurate, or they
were double counting, or it's just you know, it's just preposterous.

(01:13:01):
And not to mention that some of the things that
they're cutting are actually going to make the government more expensive. So,
for example, the massive cuts at the IRS are going
to make the IRS less able to do his job
of collecting tax revenue, which means that the budget deficit
is going to get even larger. So layer on top

(01:13:24):
of that saga the political failure in Wisconsin. He seems
to have diminished power and sway within the Trump administration.

Speaker 4 (01:13:33):
But on the other hand, you know.

Speaker 2 (01:13:34):
I while those aspects have failed, DOG has been very
successful at making the federal government, destroying certain key elements
of the federal government.

Speaker 4 (01:13:43):
And I've always said that that.

Speaker 2 (01:13:45):
Was really more of the actual goal than any sort
of budget deficit, fiscal hawk type of stuff, and that's
pretty clear from the beginning of what they were actually
trying to accomplish.

Speaker 1 (01:13:55):
I'm not so sure I think that it was.

Speaker 3 (01:13:58):
The initial goal was to actually do allegedly what they
wanted to do, and then it became eventually convenient and
acknowledged internally that that was impossible, and the longer that
the chaos and all of that began to happen, then yes,
it became like destruction in and of the end for itself,
as in I wouldn't underestimate like genuine stupidity. This comes
off of our discussion with Richard, and one of the

(01:14:20):
things that I as well, you know, talking about Richard,
is what the hypocrisy on all of this is what
actually drives me the craziest, because look, even if you
believe as you do, it was a cynical effort from
the beginning, there are many people who actually do believe
in reducing government.

Speaker 1 (01:14:35):
Right.

Speaker 3 (01:14:36):
As I said initially before the election, one of the
most popular bro elements that I would often hear about
from Trump was does. It was one of the things
people were most excited about. Do not underestimate this. People
hate the government. Yes, you know, they may like Noah
or whatever, but like broadly people's interaction. I mean, who
all just paid their taxes right, it's a pain in
the ass or the E file service or whatever, which

(01:14:57):
by the way, does took away to talk about them
in a second. My point broadly is that the animus
and behind that was popular. I still think it's actually
quite popular, although maybe less so now that it's happened
with Doge. But the problem is is that for you
exploit that in then not only reduction non permanence stupidly chaotically,

(01:15:21):
and then even if you take their initial numbers now
at face value, put the next one please up on
the screen, is that Trump and Hegseth are promising a
one trillion dollar Pentagon budget, which would mean that you
would actually take all of your new alleged savings and
you would then just give it to the Pentagon.

Speaker 1 (01:15:39):
And so what have we actually accomplished?

Speaker 3 (01:15:43):
Noah has reduced capacity, social security phone lines are there.
The entire team responsible for green lighting nuclear energy permits
have been fired or are trying to be brought back
right now, My friends in the nuclear regulatory space are
freaking out about dos.

Speaker 1 (01:16:01):
Can we all didn't we all vote for that?

Speaker 3 (01:16:03):
I think so about abundant energy. And then so meanwhile,
we're also doing a trillion dollar Pentagon budget. And then
let's zoom out to the Congress. The US Congress, Republican
led Congress, wants to cut a trillion dollars in spending
and they want to increase the budget for the Pentagon.
That's not possible, not possible without cutting massive social services.

(01:16:25):
You could even do discretionary what you could wipe out
the entire thing. You couldn't wipe out a trillion dollars.

Speaker 1 (01:16:30):
Its basic math.

Speaker 3 (01:16:32):
If you don't believe me, go play with chet, GPT
or any of these AI thinks. Say cut one trillion
dollars from the budget, don't touch any social services or
the Pentagon. See how easy it is to get there.

Speaker 1 (01:16:41):
It's not.

Speaker 3 (01:16:41):
Look this is simple balance sheet arithmetic. And so when
you look at all of that, the Republican Congress has
decided not to increase taxes.

Speaker 1 (01:16:51):
On anyone making over one million dollars per year.

Speaker 3 (01:16:53):
They've decided to extend the vast majority of the TCGAA
tax cuts, they want to attack manufacturing tax credits. Not
a single thing is in line with each other. And
I think that is what is that is what is
now being coming clear to the American people over time.
I think they genuinely did give Doze and all that
a lot of runway. Like I said, do not underestimate
how much.

Speaker 1 (01:17:13):
People hate the government. You really cannot underestimate that.

Speaker 3 (01:17:16):
But it has been what is it now, how many
days of the Trump administration? Eighty something. We're coming up
on the end of the one hundred days, the story
of the worst hundred this is going to be a
crazy book. And then Oxford History from one hundred years
from now, the story of the first hundred days from
the Trump administration will be Doge, tariffs and El.

Speaker 1 (01:17:36):
Salvador, which is nuts.

Speaker 3 (01:17:38):
That is not what you would want if you want
a successful administration, you are effectively hanging yourself for the
duration of your presidency. You had a left which has
never been more moralized in modern history or unpopular, and
then you reinvigorated it for no reason or discernible impact

(01:17:59):
in the future.

Speaker 1 (01:18:00):
I mean, look, I am famously wrong and could be.
He could be massively popular.

Speaker 3 (01:18:05):
And JD could be cruising to twenty twenty eight, but
a lot of shit would have happened in the interim.

Speaker 1 (01:18:11):
Yeah, let's look, let's be honest too. Three years is
a long time, all right, Nobody would have predicted that
we're here today, right.

Speaker 3 (01:18:16):
Vive shifted to quote unquote a lot more than people
would have thought, so it can shift back, it easily, could.

Speaker 1 (01:18:22):
I don't particularly see it. But I didn't see this either.

Speaker 2 (01:18:25):
Well, and here's the thing with Doge and with the tariffs,
the real negative impacts of those things have not yet
even hit.

Speaker 1 (01:18:35):
Well, they will, they have not.

Speaker 4 (01:18:36):
Yet even hit.

Speaker 2 (01:18:38):
And so I mean, this is why I I just
don't believe Doge was ever really about cost cutting because
it is just basically, I mean, we were saying from
the very beginning, right, even if you cut every single
federal government worker, you're not saving a significant percent of
the federal budget. And a lot of not all of,
but a lot of the playbook from Doge has also
followed from Project twenty twenty five. So it's not like

(01:19:01):
there wasn't some level of a concerted plan here. And
with Elon himself, like obviously he's this huge federal government contractor,
and he hates that these government agencies were daring to
regulate his businesses. They're not going to be doing that
anytime soon. The level the amount that they have cut
enforcement of what white collar crime is truly insane. And

(01:19:23):
that comes from the you know, the National Labor Relations Board,
which governs obviously labor relations, so that's gutted and cannot function.
You had the cpp B, which is like the anti
scam Bureau that helps consumers who've been scammed by you know,
big business or small business or any business that's been
completely gutted, and they were the ones who were set
up to regulate x if X moves into as they're

(01:19:47):
planning they have to deal with visa into payment processing.

Speaker 4 (01:19:50):
You know.

Speaker 2 (01:19:50):
He went after the particular board within the National Transportation
Agency that was regulating automated vehicles, something that he was
hating and you know, was bothering him with regard to
his tesla's. So in those ways he got what he wanted. Now,
I do think that the probably more maximalist original goals

(01:20:13):
of effectively and this actually this came out in the
article about him and his Harem too. He said, well,
I can't be president but I can make Trump be precedent,
with the implication being like, oh, but I'll basically be
the one running the show.

Speaker 4 (01:20:26):
Like the more maximust goals of I'm just.

Speaker 2 (01:20:29):
Going to be able to effectively take all of the
government's money for my SpaceX Mars boondoggle dream project. I
think that is not going to come to fruition. And
I do think that the fact that he has now
been politically hobbled by going so hard in Wisconsin, going
all in in Wisconsin and then getting you know, smacked

(01:20:52):
down with a double digit loss, I think that has
probably significantly diminished his political power within Trump's fear. As
you know, all of the these guys are optics, branding people.

Speaker 4 (01:21:02):
So even that image I showed you of.

Speaker 2 (01:21:04):
Him like seated at the table at the cabinet meeting
he wasn't even invited to, He just like showed up
for as one of many around the table, is so
different compared that image to the image of him standing
hovering over Trump, who was at the resolute desk with
his kid running around and web these bars on the desk.

Speaker 1 (01:21:23):
And what askrit is still there?

Speaker 3 (01:21:24):
By the way, I'll never understand that kid well, So
you've got fourteen kids.

Speaker 1 (01:21:28):
Why that one?

Speaker 3 (01:21:28):
I mean, not to be mean, but like's not kind
of favoritism for real though, for sure, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:21:32):
For sure, But putting the kid the dynamics with the
kids aside, there's a whole other conversation like that. The
imagery of him sort of standing lording over Trump and
doing things and then asking permission later and Trump giving
him all sorts of runway is a is a massive
contrast from him sitting one of many around the cabinet,
around that table and you know, having to meekly submit

(01:21:55):
his You know, oh, mister King, you're amazing and thanks
to your wonderful leadership, dear, we were able to cut
one hundred and fifty billion dollars from the federal budget deficits, So.

Speaker 4 (01:22:05):
You know, I think we are.

Speaker 2 (01:22:07):
I do think DOSE is sort of like petering out
as a project. But again that doesn't mean they haven't
done tremendous damage that will take many, many years to
recover from and that services won't be damaged. Social Security IRS.
We actually have the chart we can show you here.
This is E five. Put this up on the screen.

(01:22:27):
In terms of the IRS staffing levels just fell off
a Cliff.

Speaker 4 (01:22:33):
Now, in fairness, they were.

Speaker 2 (01:22:35):
The number of staffers of the IRS were significantly increased
under the Biden administration with the idea of like, we
need more people to be able to go after rich
tax cheats in particular, and not just be going after
like waitresses for their tips. Well, but now it has
plummeted down to fifty thousand. We haven't seen this level
in years, I don't know when was the last time.
So that's going to have a huge impact, Like which

(01:22:57):
people are going to be able to get away with
not paying their taxes. It's going to be much easier
for them if you can hire lawyers and you've got
the money to be able to fight and have set
up tax shelters and all this sort of stuff. The
IRS is going to be very hard pressed to be
able to go after those people. So while DOGE as
a project has in some ways failed, it doesn't mean
that it hasn't done long term damage.

Speaker 1 (01:23:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:23:17):
Sure on the IRS front. I'll just say this to
blue in the face. They made themselves unpopular. They're the
ones who got their new money and then did their
little Venmo rules and turn the entire small business in
poor community against them. From years of automated like those
what is it, automated automated investigations into people making less
than twenty two thousand dollars per year. They blame resource allocation, etc.

(01:23:39):
But you know their own practice is not exactly one
where people are going to be shedding a lot of
tears maybe a decade from now if there's less in
our deficit. But I would say broadly on the Doze project,
you could view it two ways. Yes, there is quote
like damage done. I also am like I've been saying,
I really think that the legacy of the stupidity currently

(01:24:00):
of much of the Trump administration will be to negatively
polarize the American public in the same way that people were.
I mean, if you think back to the nineteen seventies
and the chaos of the nineteen seventies, people were negatively
polarized on trusting government.

Speaker 1 (01:24:13):
That's why they'd like to Jimmy Carter.

Speaker 3 (01:24:15):
They were negatively polarized on inflation, part of the reason
that they were so broadly accepting of the Reagan administration.
They were negatively polarized around what they saw as a
failure of the prolonged New Deal period. Same thing why
neoliberalism was really ushered in. So in a similar way,
we are seeing failures in DOGE. We're seeing failures on tariffs,

(01:24:38):
we're seeing failures on immigration, and in all three of
those you will find then that the sea saw nature
of politics will swing back in a much more different direction.
So if look, I mean Trump was elected, I would say,
with a broad enough mandate on all three of those issues,
if you actually wanted to stop him, this is a
pretty good outcome for you, because you're going to win

(01:24:59):
a east An argument. They're in the future and be
on pretty strong ground. Especially I think whenever it comes
to government capacity, prices and tariffs and those other things.

Speaker 1 (01:25:09):
I do not want this to happen.

Speaker 3 (01:25:11):
And as part of why I think it's really bad
the way that this is all basically shaken out in
the first hundred days. And I know enough looking in
the past to say it's pretty hard to crawl out
of a hole like this once you've actually done it.
That's what I was saying about the first one hundred days.
While it's certainly possible vibes etc. Could swing back, I
don't see that path right now. I think they have

(01:25:33):
dug themselves deep, deep, into a hole that.

Speaker 1 (01:25:36):
Crawling out of.

Speaker 3 (01:25:38):
You know, even politically, for them not to mention policy
wise is just going to be I just don't see
the way there's possible.

Speaker 2 (01:25:45):
Yeah, you're crippling the economy, potentially sending it into a recession.

Speaker 4 (01:25:50):
You're cutting taxes for the rich.

Speaker 2 (01:25:52):
Yeah soon, you're cutting social services for everybody else. You know,
you've made it so that the some of the things
that people actually appreciate and about the federal government being
able to get their Social Security checks has been completely broken.
So yeah, of course there's going to be reaction against that.

(01:26:13):
And you know, we've been tracking, especially this week, the
approval rating for Trump really across the board has fallen
off significantly, not just with regard to his overall approval,
but specifically is handling of the economy completely reversed. He
has the worst numbers with independence of any president, including
himself ever at this point in their presidency, and the

(01:26:36):
pain of tariffs has not yet hit. Whatever dos just
been doing in the government, which we have very little
transparency into. By the way, whatever they've been doing in
the government is going to hobble these agencies and incapacitate
them for years and potentially cause the kind of crises
that we've been concerned about over time. Those things haven't

(01:26:56):
even hit yet, so it's hard to imagine how they
on this current path. You know, Trump's not going to
do a one ed that's not who he is. Right Instead,
and this is just a quick preview of my monologue, like, instead,
he's going to lean more into the authoritarian, like let
me suppress the descent. As there's more of a sort
of like grassroots and institutional backlash to him and resistance

(01:27:18):
to him, You're going to see more authoritarian tactics in
the same way that after he lost the election in
twenty twenty, you know, a referendum on his popularity and
you know, the threat to obviously the greatest threat to
his power, that was when he was at his most
unhinged and most authoritarian in the first term. And I
fully expect us to be heading into that.

Speaker 3 (01:27:38):
Yeah maybe, well, you know the other possibility of that
is that when you lose your grip on the government
and you began explicitly challenging the court. I mean I
saw a Supreme Court watcher be like, if you're Justice Roberts, Now,
that whole what we remember, we talked about the facilitate language.
You're just not going to do that in the future.
You're going to be like, no, I think that's what
it's not happening.

Speaker 2 (01:27:56):
I think that's right because they have to be watching
the way that the admitted station is just lying about
their order and be like, oh, we cannot give them
an inch at You know.

Speaker 3 (01:28:05):
You can crack down all you want if you're Trump,
but any Republican, good luck to you who is in
power right now, because when the Dems take the House,
you are Elon alone. It will probably have to spend
one hundred million in legal fees just in terms of
what the House committees are going to investigate on SpaceX
and on Twitter and Tesla alone. So that's just Elon

(01:28:25):
for everybody else in the administration.

Speaker 1 (01:28:28):
Oh my god.

Speaker 3 (01:28:28):
I hope you people have lawyers upon lawyers on retainer
because it's going to be not going to be fun
for all those you know, the contempt challenges. Remember Bannon
went to prison for contempt, so did Peter Lamarro.

Speaker 1 (01:28:39):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:28:39):
I mean these people they can literally lock your ass up.
And then in the future, let's say, you know, if
this continues and you have a Democratic president, who's in charge.
I mean, yeah, I wouldn't want to be a Christian
charity right now when we're talking about Harvard University and
tax exempt status and all that. So still I still
see a major backfire. That's I'm in there for Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (01:29:01):
Last thing, I do want to put this last alum
eight e four guys up on the screen just so
you know what we're not like cooking the books here
or lying. This is cumulative federal spending by day, and
where we are in twenty twenty five is.

Speaker 4 (01:29:14):
Above where we were in twenty twenty four.

Speaker 2 (01:29:17):
So you know, all of those purported savings not showing
up here whatsoever. And as I mentioned before, you know,
even their one hundred and fifty billion dollar claim is
total bullshit. That New York Times report they found that
one of their largest claims involves canceling a contract that
did not even exist.

Speaker 4 (01:29:34):
So those are the sorts of things that we're talking
about here.

Speaker 1 (01:29:37):
There you go.

Speaker 2 (01:29:37):
But there is one good thing sort of maybe maybe
I'll get to that caveats, but maybe encouraging news coming
out of the Trump administration.

Speaker 1 (01:29:45):
Let's get to that.

Speaker 3 (01:29:45):
Let's get to that, Onie Ron, Let's put this up
there on the screen. There's so many things that I
want to say about this. First of all, it's the
headline Trump waved off Israeli strike after divisions emerged in
his administration. Let's break down this extraordinary report clearly leaked
from the administration kind of has a screw you to
Israel and showing their plans for what they presented in
the Oval Office.

Speaker 1 (01:30:06):
Quote.

Speaker 3 (01:30:06):
Israeli officials recently developed plans to attack Iranian nuclear sites
in May next month. They were preparing to carry them
out and at the time were optimistic the United States
would sign off. The goal of the proposal was to
set back Tehran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon by
a year or more.

Speaker 1 (01:30:22):
Quote.

Speaker 3 (01:30:23):
Almost all plans would have required United States help, not
just to defend Israel, but also to ensure that the
Israeli attack was successful, making the United States a central
part of the attack itself. For now, Trump has chosen
diplomacy over military action. However, in his second term he
is eager to avoid being sucked into another war in

(01:30:44):
the Middle East, and his open negotiations with Tehran, giving
it a deadline of just a few months to negotiate
a deal over its program.

Speaker 1 (01:30:51):
Earlier this month.

Speaker 3 (01:30:52):
Trump informed Israel of his decision the United States would
not support an attack, discussed it with Netan Yahoo when
he visited Washington just last week, and told him in
the Oval Office that that was not going to happen.

Speaker 1 (01:31:03):
Quote.

Speaker 3 (01:31:03):
Israel has long planned to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, rehearsing
bombing runs and calculating how much damage you could do,
but support within the government has grown after Iran suffered
a string of setbacks just last year. They think that
they're weak and that they can strike now now. According
to them, there were plans on the table not just
to facilitate the bombing, but then to require and push

(01:31:26):
the United States to bring more military assets to the region.
Remember how we were covering here on the show about
all new military assets that are headed that way. It
was specifically after a push by the Israeli government on
this now, thank god for now.

Speaker 1 (01:31:41):
Exactly Ye, we're exactly right.

Speaker 3 (01:31:43):
And so looking inside, it's very interesting. There were quote
a range of officials who spoke out against any of
these attacks. Tulsea Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, said
that the build up of American weaponry would potentially spark
wider conflict with Iran. The United States does not want
jd Vance, Pete Hegseth, and apparently also Susie.

Speaker 1 (01:32:03):
Wiles, the White House Chief of Staff.

Speaker 3 (01:32:05):
However, the idiot dunce Mike Waltz was also in the
room quote frequently one of the most hawkish voices on Iran,
and while he was skeptical about our Israel's plan to
succeed without US assistance, back to the plan anyway, And
there are several people who are inside the administration who
are openly supporting this, people like Marco Rubio, many other
outside voices that are in the admin. So I do

(01:32:26):
not want to downplay this is good news and it's bad.
So the good news is that they have opted for
a deal quote on a timeline of a few months
for now before any sort of strike is on the table.
The bad news is, I happen to remember the Iran deal,
it took years to get the JCPOA to be negotiated.
Second to that, as you guys cover yesterday on Counterpoints,

(01:32:48):
there is a full scale purge happening right now in
the Pentagon. There have been three top officials who have
been kicked out of the building in some sort of
crazy power struggle. I haven't fully gotten all the detail.
Nobody really seems to know. All I happen to know
is that the people who are most on Pete Hegsett's
side and are the most America first just happened to
be frog marched out of the building. Okay, that's not good, right.

(01:33:10):
These are the very people who I would want right
around Pete Hegsett, who would be quashing some of the
stuff that's happening. Mike Walltz meanwhile, even though he literally
put Jeffrey Goldberg on a signal chain, Oh, he gets
to stay right. But these people who they're accusing of leaking,
they're getting frog marched.

Speaker 1 (01:33:26):
Interesting, got it.

Speaker 3 (01:33:27):
The point is that personnel around Trump is pure chaos.
In some days, Marco Rubio's in charge. Mike Wallace is
still around there. Some days he's listening to JD and
he's listening to Tulca Gabbard, but there is no guarantee
that he doesn't just turn his head and listen to
the other guy. We have Steve Wikoff, all those guys.
They're in control for right now, but as we saw

(01:33:49):
with the ceasefire deal, they can be out of power momentarily.
Nothing is guaranteed and or certain right now. I don't
think the stakes could literally be higher because Israel, you
have to admire their hutzpa. They don't even develop war
plans without US backing. They they don't even pretend to

(01:34:09):
have operation. That doesn't mean, hey, big daddy, you have
to come in here and actually do something about it.
So let's all be very clear about what this strike
and all that means. It's also the thing about BB
is he's not even creative. This is the exact same
plan that he came up with in nine that Jeffrey Goldberg,
by the way, is the one who revealed about and

(01:34:31):
tried to push President Obama to support Bebe to do.

Speaker 1 (01:34:34):
This is fifteen years ago.

Speaker 3 (01:34:35):
It's the exact same plan, almost to the letter, about
what the US is going to do and how Israel
is going to be the tip of the spear, but
the US would be the overall security umbrella there. So
that's where we're at right now. The deal is currently
being negotiated. The timeline is not good. Trump could change
his mind at any time, and the fate of the
world is hanging in the balance.

Speaker 2 (01:34:55):
And what Emily was saying is that the people who
want him to go with BB bomb Iran plan. They're saying, like, oh,
you're just negotiating a deal just like Obama.

Speaker 4 (01:35:06):
You know, they are get under his skin.

Speaker 2 (01:35:08):
And I mean, unfortunately, there is some truth to the
fact that any deal that he would get would probably
bear some similarities to what Obama did. But that is
I mean, first of all, I think the original deal
was actually a good deal. It was one of the
signature achievements of the Obama administration. It's really unfortunate Trump
back down. It's also unfortunate Biden didn't get back in

(01:35:29):
something covered extensively at the time.

Speaker 4 (01:35:32):
But I have.

Speaker 2 (01:35:33):
Doctor Tree DEPARSI you evaluated and analyzed this New York
Times article. I just wanted to share his insights because
he's such an expert.

Speaker 4 (01:35:41):
Here, he says.

Speaker 2 (01:35:41):
Number One, last week, Trump told Israel that the US
would not support an Israeli attack in Iran while talks
were being conducted. That's the headline from the PC saying,
these are the key pieces to take away from it.
Number Two, in the Israeli plan of attack, the US
would have to play a central role. Israel itself has
no military option. So that's what Zager was saying keep
that in mind. Number three. Still, the Israeli plan would

(01:36:02):
only push back the Iranian program one year. More attacks
would be needed after that. That means Israel wants to
bring the US into a forever war with Iran.

Speaker 4 (01:36:14):
Yes, that's what we're talking about here.

Speaker 2 (01:36:17):
Number four, he says, More importantly, the twenty fifteen nuclear
deal pushed back the program much more than a year,
so that was way more successful. And then he says
Trump appears to understand negotiated solution better.

Speaker 4 (01:36:26):
Achieves his goal. Well, we'll see. We'll see on that front.

Speaker 2 (01:36:29):
I hope so, I hope he can be persuaded of that,
and I hope they're able to negotiate a deal, because
this is This would be insanity, This would be utter insanity.

Speaker 1 (01:36:38):
Not good.

Speaker 3 (01:36:38):
I did want to put some positive news. Let's go
to the next one.

Speaker 1 (01:36:41):
Please.

Speaker 3 (01:36:41):
Trump has reappointed Adam Bowhler. He'll all remember Adam. I
remain a Bowler.

Speaker 1 (01:36:46):
Stand.

Speaker 3 (01:36:47):
He's the guy who said that we're not a client
state of Israel, and who was relentlessly attacked by the
Israel lobby for daring to want to negotiate with Hamas directly,
and who said we're not a client State of Israel,
and who knows, maybe they're good guys. Remember this guy
is friends with Jared Kushner and they still were able
to sideline him. Seems to be back is appointed to
quote expanded hostage envoy roll. We're not yet sure how

(01:37:10):
that is all going to work out. I'm told the
Israeli ambassad directly intervened to try and to screw over
Adam Bowler.

Speaker 1 (01:37:16):
So that's what we're dealing with.

Speaker 3 (01:37:18):
Let's go to the next one here again, just more
a little bit insight. This is from Barack Revid. He's
mostly getting leased, it seems, from the Israeli side. But
what he's saying is basically that the President kind of
needled bb Net and Yahu in the Oval office when
saying he would not green light the Iranian attack and
kind of tried to force him to accept the fact
that the US was going to pursue a deal. But

(01:37:39):
they have several senators and others Mike Wallace, Marco Rubio,
Tom Cotton, Lindsea Gram people who have their ear of
the president, and then the Israel lobby specifically behind the scenes,
is whipping harder than they have ever done since I
have seen since two thousand and fifteen. They have the
entire infrastructure in place. They're the beats are being sent,

(01:38:01):
the calls are being made. I mean, these people never
underestimate their abilities. As I said, as I watch people
who I know, America first year is getting frog marched
out of the Pentagon. So I don't remember Mike Walt's
getting frog bars out of the White House even though
it obviously deserved to and they went to bat for him.

Speaker 1 (01:38:16):
So don't forget that.

Speaker 4 (01:38:17):
Well, Laura Lummer did claim some scoffs.

Speaker 3 (01:38:20):
Yeah, some low level guys. Okay, I don't care about
some guy who's staffing Mike Walts. Mike Walts is in
the Oval pushing war. That's what matters more than anything,
you know, that is actually the only thing that matters
at the end of the day, because this is all
up to Donald Trump in the situation room. Right now,
we have relative parody with between Tulsea Gabbard, Pete and JD.

(01:38:40):
Versus Rubio and Mike Walls and a few of the
other neo cons that would be on the National Security Council.
But I mean, you can see how quickly like things
can turn just like that with Donald Trump's so I
have no idea, and I do not underestimate the Israel lobby.
Their ability to get on Fox News is to pump
all this bullshit straightened into Trump's brain, and so things
could be he had it in a bad direction.

Speaker 1 (01:39:01):
All right, Christal, what are you taking a little at that?

Speaker 2 (01:39:06):
Senator Chuck Grassley was recently confronted by angry Iowa constituents
who are demanding the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

Speaker 4 (01:39:13):
Take a listen, you gotta bring that ship from El Salvador.

Speaker 8 (01:39:23):
Why not, Well, because that's not that's how power of Congress.

Speaker 6 (01:39:31):
Yeah, Comdia.

Speaker 8 (01:39:38):
Trump don't care a freeform order taking for twelve hundred dollars.

Speaker 6 (01:39:43):
And I just say no, Does that stand up?

Speaker 2 (01:39:46):
Because he's gotten order from the Supreme Court and he
just said no.

Speaker 8 (01:39:50):
Yeah, the president of that country is not subject for
US Supreme.

Speaker 4 (01:40:04):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:40:05):
The reason that this administration has decided to fight so
hard on this one particular case to keep this one
man locked in the dungeon for life is pretty simple
and obvious, because if they can stonewall even in a
case where they admit that they screwed up, then there
is nothing to stop them from sending whoever they want

(01:40:25):
to the torture dungeon for a life. All they have
to do is get the planes in the air before
a court can weigh in. As one reaganarppointed judge wrote
of Trump's plot, quote, it takes no small amount of
imagination to understand that this is a path of perfect lawlessness.
What I want you to understand, though, is that this
is only the beginning of Trump's authoritarian crackdown. And in fact,

(01:40:49):
if history of other authoritarians and Trump himself are any guide,
as Trump's popularity falls, he will only become more dangerous
as he reaches for more and more tools of suppression
and control. This is in fact the exact spiral that
led to the January sixth riots and Trump's attempted election subversion.
But if there's one thing we know about Trump two

(01:41:09):
point zero, the man himself is more unhinged, and any
prior guardrails have either been demolished or are being bulldozed
right through now. In many ways, the early days of
Trump's administration have been a complete failure. We're just discussing dosee.
It's floundering, no public achievements, even as it destroys key
government functions. Elon himself has seen his status EBB after

(01:41:31):
a political dropping in Wisconsin, it seems on his way
to limping out of town. The Ukraine War and Israel's
genocide and Gaza they grind on with no apparent end
in sight, and perhaps most devastating politically, Trump's Grand Trade
War has been a catastrophic mess, which somehow managed to
unite Wall.

Speaker 4 (01:41:50):
Street with Main Street in their revulsion for.

Speaker 2 (01:41:53):
The chaos and the damage that is being inflicted for
no good reason. Polls increasingly reflect the public's consensus on
these failures. A Liberation Day has accelerated a downward trend
in Trump's overall approval rating. He's gone from plus one
with independence to minus twenty two. That is the worst
any president has ever fared with this group at this

(01:42:13):
point in their presidency. His economic approval has fallen even
more precipitously, with terrorists dominating when people are asked what
negative things they've seen recently about the Trump administration. Even
on the strongest issue immigration, even that is starting to
slip away from him.

Speaker 4 (01:42:27):
In a Quinnipiac poll that.

Speaker 2 (01:42:29):
Was taken before the Abrego Garcia case blew up to.

Speaker 4 (01:42:32):
A full national scandal.

Speaker 2 (01:42:33):
Trump was already underwater on immigration by five points, and
on deportations, he was under water by eleven points. Now,
at the same time, resistance is swelling, both at the
grassroots and the institutional level. Hundreds of thousands of people
have turned out to Bernie and AOC's Fight Oligarchy Tour,
including large crowds in red states like Idaho. Millions turned

(01:42:54):
out coast to coast as part of the hands off protests.
Members of Congress cannot hold the town hall without being
flooded by outraged constituents. Universities are beginning to fight back
rather than get rolled. Law firms are starting to think
twice about their capitulation bribery deals. Democrats have moved from
Corey Booker's show speech to Chris Van Hollins's genuinely courageous

(01:43:16):
flight to tangle with Bikelli in El Salvador. The courts
are becoming increasingly assertive, and bond traders are apparently the
actual deep state. Now, how will Trump respond to this
rapid political shift and mounting backlash. It won't be by
backing down or changing course. It will be by cracking down.
Some of this project, of course, is already well in motion.
He's used supposed national emergencies and national security threats already

(01:43:39):
to claim extraordinary powers by his terrorist program and by
invoking the Alien Enemies Act.

Speaker 4 (01:43:45):
But there's more.

Speaker 2 (01:43:46):
On April twentieth, pursuit to an executive order that Trump
signed on day one of his presidency, he is going
to receive a report from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and
fascist Barbie Christinoum about whether or not he should invoke
the Insurrection.

Speaker 4 (01:43:59):
Act of eighteen oh seven.

Speaker 2 (01:44:01):
Now, such an invocation would open up extraordinary powers for
this president to use our military in our streets against
our citizens. Of course, there are any number of ways
which he might deploy that power. Perhaps he deployed the
military to the border part of an expanded militarized immigration response.
Acting head of ICE has mused about ramping up mass
deportation on an industrial scale, even fantasizing about fleets of

(01:44:24):
trucks scooping up immigrants the way that Amazon efficiently delivers
packages on a mass scale. Quote, we need to get
better at treating this like a business. Acting ICE director
Todd Lyons said, explaining he wants to see a deportation process.

Speaker 4 (01:44:38):
Like Amazon Prime, but with human beings.

Speaker 2 (01:44:41):
Trump and the Republicans are pushing for a much larger
budget for ICE and for private prison contractors to run
detention centers. But if you really want to go for
industrial scale, it'd be hard to beat the military. Now,
even if you are hawkish on immigration, think of the
genuinely evil way this administration has already conducted itself. Do
you feel comfortable handing them the tools for a militarized,

(01:45:03):
industrial scale human removal and incarceration system.

Speaker 4 (01:45:07):
Do you really think the.

Speaker 2 (01:45:09):
Horror is going to be just reserved to the criminals,
the gang members, when we already know that ninety percent
of the men that they send to a slave labor
torture dungeon were innocent, Like Amazon Prime, but for fascism,
I guess a notorious Blackwater war profiteer, Eric Prince, he's
been pushing his own plans for mass expansion of the
Bekelly torture dungeon operation. According to Politico, he wants to

(01:45:31):
send thousands of migrants to Seacott and avoid legal scrutiny
by designating a portion of the prison as American territory.
That way, they could hold people indefinitely in Bekelly's gulag
as easily as they can scoop up and detain immigrants
right here in the US. But that is just one
of a myriad of disturbing authoritarian possibilities. The Trump administration

(01:45:52):
has also been cracking down on protesters, specifically targeting pro
Palestine activists and those involved in the anti Tesla movement.

Speaker 4 (01:46:00):
Describing both groups as terrorists.

Speaker 2 (01:46:03):
What's more, Ken Klippenstein is reporting that Trump's law enforcement
apparatus is increasingly targeting all protesters against this government, including
those who participated in the recent hands off protests. This
effort is being spearheaded by Trump's counter terrorism Zar Sebastian Gorka,
who Ken writes frequently compares all his political opponents to
terrorists and is in a significant position of power in

(01:46:25):
this administration.

Speaker 1 (01:46:26):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:46:26):
Gorka is also looking at considering those who oppose deportations
as providing material support for terrorism.

Speaker 4 (01:46:33):
That would be a felony.

Speaker 2 (01:46:35):
It is not hard to imagine Trump using the Insurrection
Act against any mass protest movement, giving they are already
laying the administrative and rhetorical groundwork of painting these protesters
as terrorists, as criminals, and as paid operatives. Another dark
possibility is that Trump moves from using wartime powers to
start to starting an actual war. We've been covering and
covered in this show for a while the seeming build

(01:46:57):
up towards war with a run now on the hopeful
Trump has enlisted Steve Whitcoff in direct talks in an
attempt to achieve a deal reportedly rejected, and Israeli planned
to directly strike Iranian nuclear facilities, at least for now.
On the ominous side, Trump's Pentagon has already drawn up
war plans for Iran, including a nuclear option. Key anti
war voices, including Dan Caldwell, were just purged from the Pentagon.

(01:47:20):
Signal Gate also revealed just how hawkish the internal chat
really is, and Trump himself has long seemed to believe
that war makes for good politics and the Obama era,
Trump theorized multiple times that Obama would start a war
with Iran in order.

Speaker 4 (01:47:34):
To bolster his popularity.

Speaker 8 (01:47:36):
Take a listen, Our president will start a war with
Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate.

Speaker 6 (01:47:44):
He's weak and he's ineffective. So the only.

Speaker 8 (01:47:47):
Way he figures that he's going to get re elected
and as sure as you're sitting there is to start.

Speaker 6 (01:47:53):
A war with a Ran.

Speaker 2 (01:47:54):
Now, if he still thinks war with Iran is good politics,
he is a complete and utter fool that possibility to
put off the table. By the way, but he also
may not really care about his approval ratings as much
as he cares about the power he can grab. And
everyone who lived through the post nine to eleven power
grab knows that a president can grab a hell of
a lot of power during times of war. Now, these

(01:48:15):
are just a few possible directions Trump could take as
his poll number slide, and he must resort to ever
more extraordinary means to stifle dissent. Obviously, they're already trying
to coerce universities, law firms, media courts, and business. I
would pay, though, very close attention to what happens on
April April twentieth, since the Insurrection Act seems like the
easiest cheat code for this administration to expand their lawlessness

(01:48:38):
on immigration to lawlessness with regard to.

Speaker 4 (01:48:41):
The entire population.

Speaker 2 (01:48:42):
After all, Trump sends out right, they want to be
able to disappear Americans, just like they did kill Abrego Garcia.

Speaker 8 (01:48:50):
Yeah, yeah, that was in Why do you think there's
special category of person.

Speaker 6 (01:48:55):
They're as bad as anybody that comes in.

Speaker 2 (01:48:57):
Now, the Insurrection Act to me seems like the most
likely path to effectuating that outcome. Trump considered it, of course,
invoking the Insurrection Act twice in his first term, once
against Black Lives Matter protesters again leading up to January sixth.
In both instances, he was held back by some more
establishment figures within his administration. But this administration none of
those types of voices remain this time around. You should

(01:49:19):
take him seriously and literally and assume that whatever your
worst case scenario is, the reality is likely to be worse.
And Sagur, I do think you know, we both talked
about after that meeting with Kelly in his office, where
number one, they're completely flouting the Nino Supreme Court ruling.
They are refusing to do anything to bring a Brego

(01:49:39):
Garcia back, and they are completely lying about all of that,
and he announces we want the homegrowns next. I wasn't
able to add it into this monologue, but I saw
that the Kelly has said he wants to double the
size of Seacott and said specifically it will be up
to the Americans to fill it. So that's the landscape
that we're facing as his popularity slides, and he's going

(01:50:02):
to face more and more descent and more and more resistance.

Speaker 3 (01:50:05):
I think it's possible, but it's like I said, I
would not I would further not underestimate he both trying
to quote save face. But even more importantly, we're already
watching a we are already watching here in the Supreme
Court and other era. They know in some ways that
they're in a difficult position. I think there's a reason

(01:50:25):
that there hasn't been another Alien Enemies Act deportation since
the It's been a month right now since that has happened.
I mean it presumably if they thought that they were
on good standing, that's something they would continue to do.
They've been blocked in right now, They've been blocked in
multiple jurisdictions under Tros. I guess for now they have
decided not to participate in that in some ways. Like
with Dose, what we watched is they start extreme and

(01:50:48):
then they pair back over time. So I don't I'm
not going to dismiss that. I also would not count
out the possibility that as they continue to get backed
and backed and back into a corner that they are
also become frankly a little bit more of what they
were like in the twenty twenties, not or sorry, in
the late twenty tens whenever they were first in office,

(01:51:09):
where largely like Trump, did not really do anything after
the TCJA outside of foreign policy.

Speaker 4 (01:51:16):
Well he's January sixth.

Speaker 1 (01:51:17):
Yeah, it was at the end. I mean it's a
little different.

Speaker 2 (01:51:19):
Yeah, but that is. It is analogous though, because that's
when his you know, he loses the election. Whether he
believed that in his mind or not, I don't think he.
I think he did know that he lost, and that's
when his most extreme authoritarian instincts came out, is when
he actually had suffered his most severe political blow. And
you know, I mean, if you look at other authoritarian regimes,

(01:51:42):
you see a similar thing. When the public rises up,
then what do they do. They crack down, right, Because
to your point about hi quote unquote saving face, his
version of saving face is making sure there aren't mass
protests in the street, making sure that he can do
what he wants and not have to listen to the courts,
et cetera.

Speaker 4 (01:51:56):
So listen, I could be wrong, but.

Speaker 1 (01:52:00):
I'm not just missing it out of hand. I know
you alleing it.

Speaker 4 (01:52:02):
I know you aren't.

Speaker 3 (01:52:02):
I think I think three months ago I would have scoffed.
I would have been like, that's a joke. I'm I'm
not going to say that, Okay, Like I'm being honest.

Speaker 2 (01:52:08):
Yeah, well, I do think I'm just putting the pieces
together of we know this direction with them designating pro
Palestine activists, hands off protesters, anti Tesla protesters, now people
who oppose deportations as terrorists, right or giving material support

(01:52:30):
to terrorists.

Speaker 4 (01:52:31):
So you have that in place.

Speaker 2 (01:52:33):
You have this executive orders signed on day one that
says he's supposed to get this report about whether or
not he should invoke the Insurrection Act. So you have
that piece in place, and you have him saying we
want to send the homegrowns to this El Salvador dungeon.
So when I look at that landscape, I am very
concerned about what's going to be happening in the next weeks.

(01:52:55):
And you know, I think everybody should be paying very
close attention to what happens in the comings.

Speaker 1 (01:53:00):
In particular, I don't disagree at all.

Speaker 3 (01:53:02):
I also think, you know, let's calibrate and say Insurrection
Act on the border is like categorically different than insurrection
Act on to whatever hands off protests. Like you said,
yeah right, that is just completely different. I mean, you
could be against it if you want to. Yeah, I
think the former is probably pretty popular. The difference, I
think is that on the court cases and on the precedent,

(01:53:26):
it's become clear to me that it's not even about
because I'm not so sure. I know there's a lot,
there's a leftist straight of thought. They believe that they
intentionally grabbed up Garcia.

Speaker 1 (01:53:37):
I don't think so.

Speaker 3 (01:53:38):
I think it was complete incompetence and stupidous.

Speaker 4 (01:53:41):
I agree with that. I don't think that they intentionally
grabbed him up.

Speaker 2 (01:53:45):
But I do think the fact that they've leaned into
this so aggressively. I mean, look at Jade Vance posting
all over Twitter all day long, Pam Bondi coming out
and releasing, you know again, the Field report that supposedly
claim from this like dirty who got fired weeks later
that he was a gang member because of the Chicago
bulls at you know, Caroline Levitt lying and saying he's

(01:54:06):
a human trafficker. No one has ever said that. There
is no evidence that has ever been the case. So
I think it was an accident, just like I think
with Machmukulio, I don't think that they knew that he
was a legal permanent resident.

Speaker 1 (01:54:18):
Agree.

Speaker 2 (01:54:18):
But I do think once they find those things down
and they insist on saying the course and taking this
maximal's position, I think that's what ultimately matters. And with
Abrego Arcia, the reason they don't want him to come
back is because if you open up the possibility of
some sort of legal process of course to retrieve these people,
these plans are done. You can't send American citizens there.

(01:54:40):
You can't send these you know, ninety percent of these
people had nothing, no criminal record whatsoever. And so that
plan and that avenue towards the lawlessness that is over.
And so that's why they're fighting so hard on this,
because if they can get away with this one, they
can get away with anyone with anyone right.

Speaker 1 (01:54:57):
Which is of course why they're doing it. I don't
I will.

Speaker 3 (01:55:01):
We'll have to check back in a couple of weeks,
like you said, because I think it could vary.

Speaker 1 (01:55:05):
I'm not downplaying at all.

Speaker 3 (01:55:06):
I absolutely think it could go in that direction. I
also would not count out the same petering out that
we've seen with Doge. I mean they've effectively surrendered. No,
like we just did a whole block about that.

Speaker 2 (01:55:16):
Now.

Speaker 3 (01:55:16):
I'm not saying the damage wasn't done, and I don't
think it's good. But you know, Trump and all of that.
He is in the past was relatively nimble in moving
away from certain things. But you know, with the people
around him and others, he may decide not to do that.
But he did back away from several unpopular things in
his first term. But he also views doing that and

(01:55:36):
getting into media pressure as one of the great mistakes.

Speaker 1 (01:55:38):
Was closed to see, which is definitely one of the
differences that we see here around.

Speaker 4 (01:55:42):
So that's a good point.

Speaker 1 (01:55:43):
We'll see, Okay, we will see you all. I guess
no Friday show tomorrow.

Speaker 4 (01:55:46):
I'll forget

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}4/17/25: US Dollar Weakens, Trump Rages At China, Judge Threatens Contempt, Elon DOGE Fail & MORE!

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

4/17/25: US Dollar Weakens, Trump Rages At China, Judge Threatens Contempt, Elon DOGE Fail & MORE!

On Purpose with Jay Shetty