April 21, 2025 • 47 mins
Recorded April 20, 2025 Get ready for explosive political battles with Jamie and Jennifer! RFK’s shocking autism remarks ignite outrage—did his claims go too far? Trump’s jaw-dropping cuts aim to slash government waste and drug prices, but do they really work? And what’s the inside story on Elon Musk’s Pentagon fiasco, with aides facing a stunning dismissal? Our raw, personal perspective, packed with real-world insights, has got you covered. Subscribe, like, and dive into the conversation: RFK's controversy or Musk's drama—what's grabbing your attention? #RFKAutismOutrage #TrumpCuts #ElonMuskPentagon #PoliticalNews #AutismDebate #PentagonScoop #USPolitics #StunningCuts #Trump2025 #SocialSecurity #DrugPrices2025 #PentagonFirings #PoliticalPodcast #CurrentEvents #RFK2025 @DonaldJTrumpforPresident @robertfkennedyjrofficial @RealPeteHegseth
RFK autism outrage, Trump cuts 2025, Elon Musk Pentagon, autism controversy 2025, Trump budget cuts, Pentagon scoop, political podcast, US politics 2025, RFK autism speech, government spending cuts, Musk Pentagon drama, social security fraud, prescription drug prices, Pete Hegseth Pentagon, conservative commentary
Chapters 00:00 Autism Awareness and RFK's Controversial Statements 13:06 Federal Office Space Reforms Under Trump 19:18 Trump's Executive Order on Social Security and Immigration 24:32 Prescription Drug Pricing Reforms 24:41 Executive Order on Drug Pricing 29:00 The Pentagon's Chaos and Elon Musk's Involvement 48:05 Outro Video Updated 021325.mp4
CONTACT US Newsletter - https://substack.com/@reasonablearguments Website - https://reasonablearguments.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ OUR CHANNELS YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@Reasonableargumentspodcast
FACEBOOK Jamie - https://www.facebook.com/repjam Jennifer - https://www.facebook.com/jenniferbashsrq Reasonable Arguments - https://www.facebook.com/reasonableargument/
INSTAGRAM Jamie – https://www.instagram.com/repjam/ Jennifer - https://www.instagram.com/jennifer_srq/ Reasonable Arguments - https://www.instagram.com/reasonable_arguments/
TIKTOK Jamie - https://www.tiktok.com/@repjam Jennifer - https://www.tiktok.com/@jenniferbashsrq Reasonable Arguments - https://www.tiktok.com/@reasonablearguments
X Jamie – https://x.com/repjam Jennifer - https://x.com/jennifer_srq Reasonable Arguments - https://x.com/reasonableargue _________________________________________________________________________ HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT US? Please Subscribe and Share!! It means more than you will ever know. _________________________________________________________________________ CHECK OUT OUR BOOKS Jamie’s – American Speeches That Changed History - https://amzn.to/3CGtkYS Jennifer’s – Sarasota Summer Adventures - https://sarasotasummeradventures.com/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:49):
All right.
Well, happy Easter.
Yes, we're both in Easter.
We didn't even plan this.
I changed.
Yeah, yeah.
I changed after lunch, but Jesus.
All right, so let's get into the program.
(01:10):
So we are going to be talking about just some updates that are going on and happeningsthat are going on in the political world.
(01:34):
Great.
Okay.
Yes.
Okay, so the first thing I want to talk about is RFK and his autism speech.
so the CDC just dropped a new stat that got everyone talking.
Autism now affects one in 31 children in the US, which is up from one in 36 just a fewyears ago.
(01:56):
In RFK's response in the press conference that he just held last week where he called itan epidemic and announced a full blown investigation into environmental causes.
I didn't go at the, and I don't know if you're going to go into, but it's much worse inboys.
And in California, it's something like one in
12 boys is what I read.
(02:19):
Like one in 12 boys and I think it's one in 20 boys nationwide.
just incredible statistics when you start thinking about 5 % of boys nationwide or almost8.5 % in California.
And that could be better diagnoses earlier.
(02:40):
There's a lot of question about where...
you know, or is it just more people who are getting diagnosed or it'll be interesting tolook at blue state versus red state or, know, or, or anyway, go ahead.
This is what happens when I want to the show notes.
So one of the things that happened during this press conference that had everybody in anuproar was where RFK claimed that autistic individuals will never pay taxes, never hold a
(03:12):
job, never go on a date, and that did not go over well.
Well,
and I understand why people are very upset about that.
But, and then he came back and said that he was really talking about people that arenonverbal, which I kind of disagree with too, only because, you know, we have autism in
our family.
So we have Caitlin, who is going to be 30 years old this year.
(03:35):
She wasn't supposed to live past the age of 13.
She is verbal.
mean, she's like Rain Man and everything that she knows, but she will never live on herown.
She will never do any of those things that he talked about.
about.
And those are the types of people that he was referring to.
The people who really need to be taken care of.
that they cannot live independently.
(03:56):
Caitlin will never be able to live independently.
But she can talk.
I mean, she's fine like that.
So his comments were seen as deeply stigmatizing, implying that people with autism can'tlead independent or fulfilling lives.
And again, I think that he was referring to the people that can't.
know, there's people that are diagnosed with autism that it's, you know, just somethingsimple.
(04:20):
And I think it is more now because of the mental health crisis and everything like that.
And yeah, and we use words like,
the spectrum, like what does that mean?
And you know, we've kind of talked about different people who we've run into and like,they're on the spectrum.
And whether, you know, there's a famous politician in Florida, people speculate is on thespectrum somewhere, but he's an elected official.
(04:44):
And so you wonder, you know, if that entire spectrum, how much has that grown over theyears?
You know, when I was growing up, autism was probably defined as Caitlin, right?
Now it's defined as
kind of on the spectrum, I think.
Like it's not my expertise, but I think that's kind of the difference in what we're seeingand why we're seeing more of these numbers grow and more people identified because people,
(05:10):
well, you know, and we know from working with Sertoma's past presidents that, you know, ifwe know that if you're not on a reading level by third grade, you have a 50 % chance of
being on welfare or jail.
And yet most people don't know that if you're not,
verbal, if you're not up to your verbal skills by the time you're free, you only have a 50% chance of being on reading level by third grade.
(05:38):
So by the age of three, 25,
% have kind of been pre, I don't want to say preordained cause that just sounds so likeyou can't do anything, but 25 % are likely to end up at three likely to end up either on
welfare or jail.
And so now you take people like Caitlin,
that includes those folks, right?
(05:59):
So who aren't gonna be verbal, on verbal track by three, they're not gonna get a thirdgrade reading level.
So maybe that's a skewed statistic, but that is the statistic.
Well, and like we said, autism, I mean, there's so many different degrees.
I mean, you have people like Caitlin that have a rain man mentality where she can rememberthings from when she was four years old.
(06:20):
mean, she can give you a video with the date and where we were at was something someonesaid when she was four.
And, you know, but then she doesn't have the dexterity in her hands to write well, or, youknow, she loves to read and things like that.
you know, she just will never be a full functioning adult on her own.
(06:41):
Right.
So advocates, families, and even celebrities like Holly, Holly Robinson Pete pushed backhard.
She clapped on X saying her autistic son has a job, pays taxes and absolutely hasn'tdestroyed their family.
You know, so of course.
everybody, the offense that the people who get easily offended took this all the wrongway.
(07:05):
knowing what we know with Caitlin, I don't think that's what he meant at all.
know, our opinion later did say that he was specifically referring to nonverbalindividuals with severe autism, not everyone on the spectrum.
He accused the media of taking his words out of context, which, you know, happens all thetime.
Goodbye then, the damage was done.
(07:28):
It's.
Right.
so, you know, this one is, you know, I like.
beating up on the media just as much as the next guy.
But this one doesn't sound like it's completely media driven.
He said what he said without, you know, assuming that people knew what he was talkingabout.
And so I would throw this in.
(07:50):
You know, it's partly his responsibility not to use lazy language and to and to be moreclear in his language.
Right.
So what is actually in the executive plan is he's ordering studies into possibleenvironmental causes, things like toxins,
pesticides, food, and additives, which I think is amazing.
He wants preliminary findings by September, which has many scientists rolling their eyesbecause complex neurological disorders don't exactly hand over answers on a tight
(08:18):
deadline.
So there's always tensions between raising awareness and respecting lived experience, buthow should public officials handle talking about autism without alienating the very people
that it helps?
you know, one thing I'd like to just step back on, know, yes, we're not going to start astudy today and have answers by September, but there's no reason why we can't go back
(08:43):
utilizing AI to pass studies and input these environmental factors.
You know, we know that, you know, whatever in 1985, maybe there was more, more dye or adifferent dye that has since been outlawed, you know, that, that people, the food
companies were using.
(09:03):
And so we can go back and adjust some of those things, probably looking using AI to maybeget a better grasp and, you know, not come to a full conclusion by September, but maybe
have a better idea.
Yeah, I don't know that.
I mean, I'm not an AI expert.
It certainly seems like that would be viable.
Yeah, I mean, you you have to look at it in and also, you know, the
vaccines, everything like that.
(09:25):
mean, you know, there's, there's one of the nonprofits here in Sarasota for childhoodcancer was talking about how there's a place in Northport, where there is an alarming
amount of kids who are suffering from the same type of leukemia.
So you can't tell me that there's not something environmental that's happening there.
(09:46):
environmental factors that affect, you know, impact cancer, you know, and they impactpeople at different ages sometimes.
So we know that the environment can be part of it.
you know, which would say, you know, I know that the number of vaccines children receivetoday is much greater than the number of vaccines we received.
And so, you know, that's probably a good thing, you know, but do we need to study more?
(10:13):
Maybe some of these can be stretched out over, you know, eight or 10, first eight or 10years, instead of trying to pack them all in prior to...
you know, children going to school at five or they're going to pre-k, you know, at threeor four or whatever age, you know, so maybe there's some other, you know, practical
(10:35):
applications, things we can do as a society to say, Hey, you know, I know plenty of peoplewho are vaccine afraid.
they're, not anti-vaxxers, but they're a vaccine, you know, afraid.
so instead of having, you know, all these vaccines by the time their children were,
one or 18 months, they're just like, let's put them on a program so they have them by thetime they're five.
(10:59):
And so they spread them out.
so, the doctor will do that.
You know, yeah, they're scheduled for this, but if you ask, you know, if you work withyour doctor, that's something you're concerned about.
I don't see any problem with spreading them out.
Right.
OK, so next we're going to jump into President Trump just signed an executive order thatbasically changes the way federal agencies pick their office spaces.
(11:21):
So I thought this was interesting.
OK, so how federal agencies pick their office spaces.
Yeah.
OK, so I was under the impression that, say, the IRS building is the IRS building.
That hasn't changed.
It's like.
you're talking about the office spaces within the IRS building or?
Okay.
All right.
(11:42):
This is what happens.
Before this thanks to old rules from Carter and Clinton years government offices had to beplaced in expensive downtown areas or historic buildings Which sounds great, but it's
expensive for maintenance and upkeep and all that, right?
So Trump's new plan says no, we're gonna cut costs and put these offices wherever it makessense.
(12:03):
Think cheaper rent, more flexibility, and maybe closer to where people actually live.
So on paper, it's a money saver and a government efficiency booster, but could this meanless access in big cities or even worse, a bunch of bland office parks in the middle of
nowhere?
So what this means is agencies will now get to pick their own locations, no more forcedleases in high cost areas, obviously,
(12:27):
part of the bigger push to cut down cost in underused government buildings.
It could free up billions in real estate and leasing costs over time.
And supporters say it's about efficiency, but critics worry it might reduce access tourban residents.
So you've worked in and around government for decades.
Do moves like this actually lead to cost savings or just press release headlines?
(12:52):
Both is the short answer if it's implemented and done in a fair way.
So I was under the misunderstanding.
You were talking about offices in Washington, DC.
You're talking about like the Social Security Administration in downtown St.
Petersburg.
You know, is there a place that's cheaper that they can serve as many people?
You know, and this also has to do with who you get to work there.
(13:15):
You know who travels to work there.
So, you know.
people back to the office to.
So it's not only that, you know, what is the commute to downtown St.
Petersburg where if you put it in Brandon, would you have you would have cheaper rent,know, but now people who live in St.
Petersburg would have to drive across the bridge.
Yeah.
(13:36):
And so.
So yeah, so there's pros and cons.
But we are in spot as a federal government.
and citizens who support a balanced budget.
we have to make cost cutting measures.
We have to.
There's no question about it.
So I love the idea of our government supporting historic buildings.
(13:58):
But I have an idea of a company supporting those historic buildings.
We don't have to get rid of those historic buildings.
so why is the government having to rent
these higher
dollar places that like you said, not to mention that the historic building now has to gothrough asbestos compliance, lead paint compliance, down the list of all the things that
(14:28):
happen that you have to comply with so your workers are safe.
so, that has to be, so the federal government's encouraging those costs.
And so it sounds to me like some of the, especially the historic building part could bekind of a boondoggle for whoever owns the historic building.
And so this administration's not about boondoggles.
(14:48):
It's about cutting costs and trying to balance the budget and reducing our debt.
And so in that regard, sounds like a great idea.
The devil will be in the details, but I think that it's something that can and will bedone.
it probably takes this administration and the next one, if the next president reverses it,because...
(15:11):
leases aren't these leases aren't short-term leases in all likelihood they're you knowthey're probably cheaper to stay in in the short term then get out because if you get
getting out of it you who knows what the what the cause is to get out of out of a lot ofthese leases
agree and I mean, even some company like I remember when I worked, you know, in town, theydidn't pay for my parking.
(15:34):
So, you know, I mean, I had a parking pass, but it was two miles away from where I worked,you know, so if I if it was raining, if it was snowing, whatever it
was if I wanted to park closer, I had to pay to park closer or try to find a spotsomewhere, you know, on the street or whatever.
kind of surprised the government doesn't own more of those buildings.
So that's perplexing why the government that's going to be here a hundred years from now,hopefully the maintenance.
(16:02):
Yeah, sure.
But if you own the building, that's a whole different
Yeah.
But we are, but I also know just from, you know, dealing in government for a long time,the government doesn't own any of the post office buildings.
Those are all privately owned and rented back to the post office, which also makes nosense.
You know, you have the post office there for a hundred years and you know, why isn't thepost office buying that building, paying it off in 30 years like everyone else and then
(16:30):
having it for 70 years only with maintenance.
So, you know,
It sounds to me like it can be a great cost cutting measures.
Devils in the details.
Seems like probably one of the easier things to get done to save money.
And somehow, look at how hard it is.
Yeah.
Are you going to get it done in four years?
Absolutely not.
(16:51):
And moving an office is not cheap.
Moving 100 employees or- Well, I mean, you have to think if the majority of people wereworking from home.
We've let some people go from the federal offices.
It's the right time to do it.
Let's just do it, cut costs and.
Well, it's the right time to do it because we have a president who's willing to cut costsinstead of just line people's pockets with money just for the sake of doing it.
(17:19):
Okay, so, and this kind of leads us into the next one, which is sparking outrage andapplause, depending on where you're sitting politically.
But President Trump just signed a memo aimed at preventing illegal immigrants from gettingsocial security benefits.
So it's already illegal for them to have it, but it doubles down on the new enforcementtactics, like ramping up fraud prosecution, reviewing how social security checks get
(17:46):
issued, and going after errors in government data.
of bases.
So it isn't just about stopping fraud, it's a bold political move with where no freebiesfor those, you know, here illegally.
So what it actually does is it expands fraud investigations in at least 50 US attorneyoffices, reinstates civil monetary penalty programs for people or entities involved in
(18:11):
benefit fraud.
targets mismatch social security records including the serious weird problem of peopleover 100 years old still earning wages in worn states and localities to verify eligibility
or face consequences.
So it's a big deal because it's not just policy, it's campaign messaging in an executiveorder form and it opens the door to state versus federal battles, especially in sanctuary
(18:37):
cities or blue states with more lenient documentation rules.
that legit citizens and legal immigrants might get swept up in the chaos.
So especially if the databases aren't accurate, which we know they aren't.
So is this about stopping real fraud or is this more about signaling Trump's base thathe's taking a hard line on immigration?
(19:00):
Yeah, again, probably both.
is, you know, the fraud that exists in Social Security is real.
I think it's probably just as real for people who have...
a dead parent to slip through the cracks and still get in checks as much as illegalimmigrants.
right?
Because there's probably a whole lot more of those than, so I think you have to look atthe basis of it.
(19:28):
But the thing here is to ensure
and to codify that we're going to stop fraud wherever we can.
And if you are committing fraud, you're now being looked at.
So it's sort of like Walmart having the greeter.
You know, if you have a greeter at Walmart, there's less shoplifting.
Cause it's like, you feel like somebody's there and they've got an extra person just sayhello to you as you walk in the door.
(19:53):
So they must have people watching all the cameras.
And so, so I think it's, I think it's as much a
a signal to people who are committing fraud to stop it, or you're going to get caught andyou're going to be prosecuted for it.
And I think that goes for citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.
(20:15):
know, the issue about blue sanctuary cities or blue states, it appears that per capita
people get more government funds in these blue states than in red states.
And so is that because blue states are committing more resources to trying to get peoplethe proper funds they deserve or is it fraud?
(20:43):
And so I don't have the answer to that, but I think it'll that I think that will play outover the next three years with this administration because there's clearly seems to be
some lines between the
effectiveness of people getting government funds in blue areas versus red.
Yeah, and I remember when I when I moved on here the first job that I had that moved me toFlorida They came in were taking one of my employees out and she was a Hispanic girl and
(21:16):
they didn't tell me why.
They just said that they had to, there was a problem with her I9 and they had to let hergo.
And I caught up to her before that she actually walked out the building and I'm like whathappened?
And she said my social security number was fake.
And she had been working for the company for almost 10 years.
(21:40):
Yeah.
Well, there's plenty of that.
It's not hard.
I understand it's not hard.
I've not tried it to get a fake social security number.
So.
you know, lot of things are still, I mean, you have your credit that goes with socialsecurity number, but even now, like, you don't even have to, you know, you used to have to
report your social security number on medical and everything like that, and you don't haveto do that anymore.
(22:03):
You know, I...
I don't know.
I don't know if this is security numbers gonna be Well, there has to be something I meanlike especially with your name, right?
I graduated in a class of 92 people with another James Miller
(22:24):
Yeah, so like how is the social security number the only thing that keeps you from, helpsyou identify yourself?
Like it's crazy to think that, that it's just, know.
Yeah.
Yeah.
our...
Yeah.
coming back from our honeymoon.
so...
(22:45):
All right.
I don't know why this cat is chewing on this chair, but he's making me crazy.
Stop it.
Okay.
We do it.
I don't know what it is with this room and us being in here.
right, so.
We're gonna have to start charging tickets ticket prices.
(23:10):
boy.
of prescription drugs.
So President Trump just dropped a new executive order aimed at slashing those prices andit's packed with everything from Medicare reforms to insulin for pennies.
So we've heard these promises before, he did it in his first run also, right?
But the difference is this time is that it's going after hospital pricing.
(23:34):
the Medicare will now have to pay based on what a hospital would pay for drugs.
So we're talking about the payments could be cut down by 35%.
Standardized cancer drug pricing, so treatments like chemotherapy would cost the samewhether you're getting them in a hospital or a clinic, potentially slashing prices up to
(23:55):
60%.
and insulin and EpiPen access for uninsured and low income patients.
Insulin can cost as little as three cents plus a service fee.
Epinephrine injectors like EpiPens could drop to $15.
This is huge.
And this is right in your wheelhouse.
This is more in your wheelhouse than it is mine.
I mean, that's that's all of what you just shared are things that I haven't heard beforeand it's exciting.
(24:21):
and I don't I don't read every press release believe it or not so thank you for doing thatand pointing out that I don't but but this is certainly in your wheelhouse
I mean, it's the drug importation from countries like Canada.
States can set up their own programs to buy drugs from abroad cheaper, same quality andFDA approved, which is fantastic.
(24:48):
So my question for you is, you know, obviously we've heard these promises before.
Do you think this one has teeth to actually bring the prices down or is it more headlinethan change?
And I know you said you haven't read about it.
No but like I am familiar with the re-importation of pharmaceuticals from say Canada youknow and maybe they've closed this loophole you know so I'm going back a few years but you
(25:11):
know in the past they would come
straight from China, come into Canada, never get tested, never get confirmed as themilligram dosage, the actual drug that they were, and then be sold in the United States as
drugs from Canada.
And so they were just kind of.
looping them through Canada and not really doing the due diligence of, know, the part thatyou say is FDA approved.
(25:36):
You know, if these drugs are FDA approved, even if they're coming from foreign countries.
And we know that most of our pharmaceuticals are coming from China now anyway.
So hopefully those checks and balances are already in place that I haven't, you know,since the last time I caught up with this issue, which has probably been more than five
years ago.
I think it's awesome.
mean, if they if they can get this done, I this is going to be a huge, huge thing for
(26:00):
there such a, you know, for instance, you know, it was when I first went on Crestor, I wasusing a different generic and, you know, it's like, oh, quit working.
You know, so let's move to Crestor.
Crestor was the new cholesterol drug at the time.
$800 a month.
This is 2008 or 10.
(26:22):
Like it was.
you know, $800 a month.
like, oh, okay, well, let me, at that point, there just started to be kind of apps orprograms you could go on and look, it seemed like.
So, you know, I'd go, I'd shop it.
Oh, Publix 600.
There's a difference price between this CVS and that CVS, you know?
(26:46):
And so you really had to go, when you were dealing with them, and I got it down to like350.
What I ended up doing though, was going to Mexico and I'd,
just go buy it over the counter and I'd buy a year's dose and you know, I would basicallypay for my trip to Mexico to covering my drugs.
And so, and they seem to work for, for as long as, know, I did that.
(27:11):
did that probably, I probably did that for five or 10 years.
Yeah.
I mean, it's crazy.
Well, you know, the public's we've talked about this before is kind of
Okay, so our final story is This this one kind of caught me off-guard and I know that thisgoes back to signal gate and all of that but
(27:41):
Which reared its ugly head again today.
Yeah.
But go ahead.
and it bleeds into that so.
So the Pentagon is actually is in chaos, right?
So three top aides to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were abruptly fired.
And it all seems to circle back to Elon, which this is what really threw me.
(28:02):
So the briefing that blew on back evil in your book?
No, no, no, no, because
In honesty, it's going to sound funny the way that I'm going to explain how I see this,how I see what's happening.
So the briefing that blew up was in March, Elon Musk was scheduled to attend a Pentagonmeeting about US military plans if tensions with China escalate.
(28:25):
So why Musk, right?
I mean, he has companies, Starlink are increasingly integrated into US militaryinfrastructure, but there's a catch.
He also has major business interest in China, which made some officials uneasy.
Trump didn't know about this.
So when he found out that Musk was going to be part of this meeting, he actually said whatthe F is Elon doing there and make sure he doesn't go, which
(28:52):
to me is great.
Good for him, right.
Don't stay in your lane, buddy.
There's no reason for you to be in that meeting.
And just like that meeting was shut down in the late time period.
So I asked AI who invited Elon to this meeting.
so here's a little back behind the curtain view of Washington, DC.
This is an old Washington, DC trick.
(29:14):
They always say when you're, when you're hired, that you walk into every meeting until youget to a meeting that's high enough that somebody kicks you out.
And so I don't think that that was this was the case, but I get it.
Well, you know, is not true.
So Pete Hegseth actually invited him to this meeting, okay, which here's all I'msuggesting is that it's not abnormal.
(29:42):
No, I get it.
All levels of Washington DC government to try to speak in the meetings that they're
there is either no reason for them to be there or it's above their pay grade.
try to gain or make it look like they have more power than they have to.
Right, and I get that, I absolutely get that.
That's I was kidding with that.
Yeah.
You're telling me he was invited, I hear what you're saying.
(30:05):
Yeah, and in my thought process, I don't have a lot of, I don't have a lot of, what's theword I'm thinking of?
confidence in Pete Hegseth.
I really don't.
Like I think that he's a new kid that, know, you know, he didn't come out and tell Trumpabout Signalgate.
(30:25):
He didn't tell him what was happening, which he should have.
And now he's inviting Musk to meetings that Musk has no right to be involved in.
And so to me, it's like Hegseth is at
cold
(30:46):
and he just got raked over the coals, which you would think would make him a little bitmore cognizant and be like, okay, well, maybe I need to watch because now we found out
that the information from Signalgate was actually given to his sister given to hisbrother, giving to other people, which is going to be a problem.
(31:07):
Yeah, don't, you know, what broke today is exactly that.
You know, I'm gonna stand by the information if it's exact same information.
If it's exact same information, it's not like he's shared classified.
or anything.
But if he's Department of Defense information with non-government family members.
(31:33):
That seems to be a problem.
mean, that's, know, um, just reminds me of that person who has, who has power and iswanting that power.
Is he, is he flaunting it or is he just, is it, is it kind of the opposite?
And not that we are going to do a psychological profile, but why not?
(31:54):
You know, is he flaunting that power or is he looking for acceptance?
Is he looking for acceptance from his family?
Look, I made it.
Look what I know.
Look what I'm.
You're in a position of your what is he the Secretary of Defense?
I mean, are you freaking kidding me?
Excuse me.
There's no fighting on the podcast.
(32:15):
Except between me and Jamie, not the brothers.
Yeah, mean, grow up.
Like seriously grow up.
I mean, you need to know this job enough that you should know who needs to be in the room.
You should know who you can and can't talk about things to.
Like, he just seems like that kid that yeah.
(32:41):
and you know, and that was the concern ever.
You know, a lot of people had with him going in, you know, we a lot of us kind of said,hey, it's Trump's person.
Let's continue to, you know, support Trump by supporting his people.
And, know,
You're the one who said that people get hired day one for the purpose of getting firedsome day.
(33:04):
There are some people.
You have to show that.
You have to be able to show that you to get reputized.
For me, he'd be gone.
Like already he'd be gone.
So these three guys.
Well, I'm sure the president made an internal thought, not a commitment to any of thesepeople, but you know, there is a thought of you try to get as much done as you can within
(33:25):
the first 100 days and getting people hired is hard enough without then going through thechaos of firing them.
And that consumes a newsweek, you know, so you're, you know, four or five days of your100.
You know, start getting into percentages of, you know, your first 100 days where you'retrying to lay the foundation for the rest of your presidency.
(33:47):
And so, you know, I know that you wouldn't want to fire somebody within the first 100 daysif we're approaching.
so we'll see.
but I do you know I have said to you that there are time I don't know that you bring insomeone at a cabinet level position for the sole purpose of firing them
(34:08):
You know, but I have said to you that there are people who you bring into the, into thefold or they force themselves into the fold and then you cut them so that, you know,
you're, you show not only your opponents, but your supporters, you know, that there's,expect a certain level of contact while you're here.
(34:30):
Right.
So the fallout was multiple senior Pentagon officials, including Dan Caldwell and DarrenSelnick, were placed on leave or fired.
So the accusation was they were leaking details of the planned Musk briefing andpotentially other classified info.
Now, again, this is where I come back and say, well, why wasn't Hegseth?
You know, why isn't he put on administrative leave if he's the one who's inviting Musk tothese these meetings?
(34:54):
So Musk responded that he denied ever planning to receive classified intel and called
Well, to split a hair, to split a hair, to split a hair here, it sounds like.
Hegseth maybe wasn't outside of the scope of his role of inviting
But if these folks were outside of their role of leaking the information about Musk being,Musk being invited, that's unacceptable behavior.
(35:22):
Leaking to the press or to whomever that, you know, I don't like what's going on with mysuperiors and leaking it is an activity that very few people in DC will, will tolerate.
So I think that's where, not to interrupt you, but that's kind of the hair I think that'sbeing split here.
(35:45):
And it's a fine hair, but it is one.
OK.
So why it matters is obviously if a civilian billionaire is as close to sensitive militaryconversations, what happens when his business interests don't align with US national
interests?
The firings show a real breakdown of trust inside the Pentagon and raise questions aboutwhether Hegseth can control
(36:05):
zone in our circle.
And it isn't just drama, it's about who has influence over war planning and how secure ournational security really is.
So how dangerous is it to have someone like Musk close to top level strategy talks,especially when he is doing business with China?
Yeah, you're putting a lot of trust in them.
(36:26):
And I know that people have talked about this with Doge too, you know, him having access.
Democrats have with Elon Musk is that he hasn't gone through the confirmation hearings,right?
Hegseth did.
You know, so if you want to put these two in the hierarchy of federal government, Hegsethat least went through confirmation hearings and Elon Musk has not.
(36:47):
know, granted Hegseth is probably the only one in that meeting with
That maybe not, isn't true.
But he's one of maybe a handful of people in that meeting with confirmation approval,right?
Because some undersecretaries, generals, things like that get some level of, you know,national security.
(37:09):
wasn't like a unanimous vote either.
That took a couple days, didn't it?
Yeah.
it's nobody's I mean Rubio I think was unanimous and that is a that's part of being partof the US Senate.
So US senators as a general rule if you don't get a unanimous vote out of the US Senateit's normally because you're you have a personally personality conflict with fellow US
(37:34):
senators because that's just the way that that's the way that body works and so
I think Rubio was unanimous or 99 to zero or whatever it was.
But as far as people getting fired,
for leaking, I don't see a problem with that.
You know, I do think that that is part of, you know, Hegseth, if people are being criticalof him not controlling his inner circle and those folks are in the inner circle and
(38:01):
they're leaking.
Yeah.
talk about that.
mean, had that had they not leaked this information, had that meeting gone on and Trumpdidn't know about it.
And then Elon is sitting in on this month on this meeting that could have containedinformation.
(38:21):
is that not so so here's the way that would be I don't want to put Musk I don't want tomake Musk more important or less important than he is he is as important as he is to the
president you know so but it seems like he's
probably at the level of like a chief of staff where he can go directly to the presidentif he wants.
(38:45):
Everybody who works for the president can't, right?
So, can go directly to the president if he wants.
So yes, I agree with that.
So, so he's at that level of whether it's includes confirmation or not, where he, if hedoesn't have the trust of the president, he's certainly, certainly appears to have the
trust of the president.
(39:06):
And so,
You know, now it's worrisome that I think, I don't know that worrisome is too strong aword.
It's, I think it does raise some concern if Hegseth invited him and for whatever's beingtalked about.
But for whatever reason, Hegseth wanted his experience and expertise in the room.
(39:28):
For whatever reason.
We don't know that.
And I'm, I certainly don't want to speculate on it.
I can certainly see where people are critical.
But my guess is the people who are being critical are the people who
about everything.
You know, so, so just like people will take a great, you know, my opinion of being for thepresident with a grain of salt who are against the president.
(39:50):
We also have to kind of be extra critical of people who are critical on every singlething.
Right?
So if you're, you're one of those 49 senators or 48 senators who are critical against the,about the president for everything.
And this is just the next thing for this week.
It's getting work.
It's getting Bob.
That that's just as bothersome to me as Elon being in the in the in the mixture.
(40:14):
But if but if you're talking about people who are who are you know from both sides of theaisle who say hey listen what's going on and I think that's the I do think that's probably
the case here, but I don't know that to be the case.
But if that's the case here.
You know what power does Elon Musk have from the president and you know and if thepresident.
(40:37):
wasn't aware of his activities on this so you're worried you're concerned about PeteHegseth inviting Elon I'm not gonna disagree with you on that but but we're talking about
(41:03):
two different issues
Well, and I understand that, the Elon thing was walking into this, but then thinking aboutthe whole thing, like, I'm not mad at Elon.
He was invited to a meeting.
He's like, I'm going to go.
Right.
The Secretary of Defense invites, hey, if the Secretary of Defense invites me to ameeting, guess what?
I'm flying to DC and going.
(41:24):
Right.
So yeah.
I understand where, you know, and yes, that's the question, you know, could there beissues with him being in the meeting?
The way that Trump
responded to it?
Yeah, there's probably some issue.
comes.
So now you're you're concerned and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you'reconcerned just so I can understand it is more what was Pete Hegs's motivation.
(41:47):
is he just not confident enough in his own ability that he like this is just like I toldyou this is the way that I'm seeing it.
Like he needs to have that little buddy, you know, that work friend that he gets alongwith that, you know, he wants him to be part of all this stuff.
so he's inviting them like I don't know this is just not sitting right
(42:09):
some of the stuff that I wrote in one of my, uh, sub stacks was that when you're, whenyou, very few people are, have the experience to manage a federal department, the size of
the department of defense.
mean, you think about the people who quote have experience, you know, there's 50 who mayhave run companies the size of the department of defense and with the importance.
(42:32):
of everyday decisions being so very critical, in critical worldwide.
And, you know, the question I had, you know,
Hegseth was, you know, yeah, you're, you're in this silo, but have you ever been in a, ina position where, you know, you think there's three silos and two of them are with you and
(42:55):
one's against you, but then you get in a position, you realize there's actually eight or10 silos.
you know, the intra-department of defense politics, not even Republican, Democrat, justthe internal politics of, you know, even take Army versus Navy versus Air Force, you know,
(43:16):
all of those things, you know, you have those politics.
Well, then you have the politics of, you know, just every layer of, you know,
this one needs a billion dollars for this weapon system or that one needs a billiondollars for this weapon system, which one wins this year?
So there's a lot of moving parts in the Department of Defense.
(43:37):
And so the question was, you know, does Hagseth have what it takes to lead that?
And, you know, it's a, it's something, seems like a good guy, you know, and yeah, that's apoint.
I'm not trying to say that that make, you know,
in spite of him being a good guy, seems like he's certainly treading water fast.
(43:59):
and, you know, some people tread water and then swim.
And so as, is it the question, you know, that you have other people have, and I think morepeople are going to be concerned with if there are more missteps is, you know, is he, is
he drowning?
I don't know.
Like that's not up to me.
That's up to the president of the United States.
(44:20):
So it's, you know,
is he drowning?
And the question is, does the President the United States think he's drowning?
Number two, who's on deck?
you know, so you have another, cause again, go back to there's 50 or a hundred people whoqualify to be secretary of defense.
You know, so are you, you know, who's on deck to do that?
(44:44):
You know, governor, Ron DeSantis, I still think that DeSantis should have taken.
you know, I don't know that it was offered to them, I speculate.
His 10 million was going somewhere else.
Well, and maybe they knew about it and they're like, hey, this guy has a problem that wedon't want to take on.
Yeah.
And, you know, so, you know, but I speculated that he was offered the secretary of thenation and that I speculated as well that the Santas probably felt like that was an easy
(45:15):
thing.
And then when Hagseth stumbled during his confirmation hearings, DeSantis pushed to be.
the DOD secretary.
that may still be something that gets worked out.
mean, like I said, despite kind of looking at the political landscape and saying, behindthe scenes, DeSantis is trying to for Trump or take the credit for all the things that
(45:38):
Trump is doing, he in case you're still going to meet with President Trump once a month.
Yeah.
And so what's happening in the
meetings is undetermined from what I can tell.
mean, I've.
you know, can speculate, but I certainly have not spoken to anybody who has shared whatreally has happened in those meetings.
All right.
Well, that's all I have to talk about.
(45:59):
So do you have anything that you want to?
No, I think this is a great show.
All right.
Hopefully, I, those of you who backed Dex during the show, I didn't make too many thingsup.
I think you together a great show.
Thank you.
guests.
I mean, look at this guy.
Look at him.
(46:20):
He's so sweet.
can't even see him on camera.
All right.
See you next time.
All right.
Well, happy Easter.
Yes, we're both in Easter.
We didn't even plan this.
I changed.
Yeah, yeah.
I changed after lunch, but Jesus.
All right, so let's get into the program.
(01:10):
So we are going to be talking about just some updates that are going on and happeningsthat are going on in the political world.
(01:34):
Great.
Okay.
Yes.
Okay, so the first thing I want to talk about is RFK and his autism speech.
so the CDC just dropped a new stat that got everyone talking.
Autism now affects one in 31 children in the US, which is up from one in 36 just a fewyears ago.
(01:56):
In RFK's response in the press conference that he just held last week where he called itan epidemic and announced a full blown investigation into environmental causes.
I didn't go at the, and I don't know if you're going to go into, but it's much worse inboys.
And in California, it's something like one in
12 boys is what I read.
(02:19):
Like one in 12 boys and I think it's one in 20 boys nationwide.
just incredible statistics when you start thinking about 5 % of boys nationwide or almost8.5 % in California.
And that could be better diagnoses earlier.
(02:40):
There's a lot of question about where...
you know, or is it just more people who are getting diagnosed or it'll be interesting tolook at blue state versus red state or, know, or, or anyway, go ahead.
This is what happens when I want to the show notes.
So one of the things that happened during this press conference that had everybody in anuproar was where RFK claimed that autistic individuals will never pay taxes, never hold a
(03:12):
job, never go on a date, and that did not go over well.
Well,
and I understand why people are very upset about that.
But, and then he came back and said that he was really talking about people that arenonverbal, which I kind of disagree with too, only because, you know, we have autism in
our family.
So we have Caitlin, who is going to be 30 years old this year.
(03:35):
She wasn't supposed to live past the age of 13.
She is verbal.
mean, she's like Rain Man and everything that she knows, but she will never live on herown.
She will never do any of those things that he talked about.
about.
And those are the types of people that he was referring to.
The people who really need to be taken care of.
that they cannot live independently.
(03:56):
Caitlin will never be able to live independently.
But she can talk.
I mean, she's fine like that.
So his comments were seen as deeply stigmatizing, implying that people with autism can'tlead independent or fulfilling lives.
And again, I think that he was referring to the people that can't.
know, there's people that are diagnosed with autism that it's, you know, just somethingsimple.
(04:20):
And I think it is more now because of the mental health crisis and everything like that.
And yeah, and we use words like,
the spectrum, like what does that mean?
And you know, we've kind of talked about different people who we've run into and like,they're on the spectrum.
And whether, you know, there's a famous politician in Florida, people speculate is on thespectrum somewhere, but he's an elected official.
(04:44):
And so you wonder, you know, if that entire spectrum, how much has that grown over theyears?
You know, when I was growing up, autism was probably defined as Caitlin, right?
Now it's defined as
kind of on the spectrum, I think.
Like it's not my expertise, but I think that's kind of the difference in what we're seeingand why we're seeing more of these numbers grow and more people identified because people,
(05:10):
well, you know, and we know from working with Sertoma's past presidents that, you know, ifwe know that if you're not on a reading level by third grade, you have a 50 % chance of
being on welfare or jail.
And yet most people don't know that if you're not,
verbal, if you're not up to your verbal skills by the time you're free, you only have a 50% chance of being on reading level by third grade.
(05:38):
So by the age of three, 25,
% have kind of been pre, I don't want to say preordained cause that just sounds so likeyou can't do anything, but 25 % are likely to end up at three likely to end up either on
welfare or jail.
And so now you take people like Caitlin,
that includes those folks, right?
(05:59):
So who aren't gonna be verbal, on verbal track by three, they're not gonna get a thirdgrade reading level.
So maybe that's a skewed statistic, but that is the statistic.
Well, and like we said, autism, I mean, there's so many different degrees.
I mean, you have people like Caitlin that have a rain man mentality where she can rememberthings from when she was four years old.
(06:20):
mean, she can give you a video with the date and where we were at was something someonesaid when she was four.
And, you know, but then she doesn't have the dexterity in her hands to write well, or, youknow, she loves to read and things like that.
you know, she just will never be a full functioning adult on her own.
(06:41):
Right.
So advocates, families, and even celebrities like Holly, Holly Robinson Pete pushed backhard.
She clapped on X saying her autistic son has a job, pays taxes and absolutely hasn'tdestroyed their family.
You know, so of course.
everybody, the offense that the people who get easily offended took this all the wrongway.
(07:05):
knowing what we know with Caitlin, I don't think that's what he meant at all.
know, our opinion later did say that he was specifically referring to nonverbalindividuals with severe autism, not everyone on the spectrum.
He accused the media of taking his words out of context, which, you know, happens all thetime.
Goodbye then, the damage was done.
(07:28):
It's.
Right.
so, you know, this one is, you know, I like.
beating up on the media just as much as the next guy.
But this one doesn't sound like it's completely media driven.
He said what he said without, you know, assuming that people knew what he was talkingabout.
And so I would throw this in.
(07:50):
You know, it's partly his responsibility not to use lazy language and to and to be moreclear in his language.
Right.
So what is actually in the executive plan is he's ordering studies into possibleenvironmental causes, things like toxins,
pesticides, food, and additives, which I think is amazing.
He wants preliminary findings by September, which has many scientists rolling their eyesbecause complex neurological disorders don't exactly hand over answers on a tight
(08:18):
deadline.
So there's always tensions between raising awareness and respecting lived experience, buthow should public officials handle talking about autism without alienating the very people
that it helps?
you know, one thing I'd like to just step back on, know, yes, we're not going to start astudy today and have answers by September, but there's no reason why we can't go back
(08:43):
utilizing AI to pass studies and input these environmental factors.
You know, we know that, you know, whatever in 1985, maybe there was more, more dye or adifferent dye that has since been outlawed, you know, that, that people, the food
companies were using.
(09:03):
And so we can go back and adjust some of those things, probably looking using AI to maybeget a better grasp and, you know, not come to a full conclusion by September, but maybe
have a better idea.
Yeah, I don't know that.
I mean, I'm not an AI expert.
It certainly seems like that would be viable.
Yeah, I mean, you you have to look at it in and also, you know, the
vaccines, everything like that.
(09:25):
mean, you know, there's, there's one of the nonprofits here in Sarasota for childhoodcancer was talking about how there's a place in Northport, where there is an alarming
amount of kids who are suffering from the same type of leukemia.
So you can't tell me that there's not something environmental that's happening there.
(09:46):
environmental factors that affect, you know, impact cancer, you know, and they impactpeople at different ages sometimes.
So we know that the environment can be part of it.
you know, which would say, you know, I know that the number of vaccines children receivetoday is much greater than the number of vaccines we received.
And so, you know, that's probably a good thing, you know, but do we need to study more?
(10:13):
Maybe some of these can be stretched out over, you know, eight or 10, first eight or 10years, instead of trying to pack them all in prior to...
you know, children going to school at five or they're going to pre-k, you know, at threeor four or whatever age, you know, so maybe there's some other, you know, practical
(10:35):
applications, things we can do as a society to say, Hey, you know, I know plenty of peoplewho are vaccine afraid.
they're, not anti-vaxxers, but they're a vaccine, you know, afraid.
so instead of having, you know, all these vaccines by the time their children were,
one or 18 months, they're just like, let's put them on a program so they have them by thetime they're five.
(10:59):
And so they spread them out.
so, the doctor will do that.
You know, yeah, they're scheduled for this, but if you ask, you know, if you work withyour doctor, that's something you're concerned about.
I don't see any problem with spreading them out.
Right.
OK, so next we're going to jump into President Trump just signed an executive order thatbasically changes the way federal agencies pick their office spaces.
(11:21):
So I thought this was interesting.
OK, so how federal agencies pick their office spaces.
Yeah.
OK, so I was under the impression that, say, the IRS building is the IRS building.
That hasn't changed.
It's like.
you're talking about the office spaces within the IRS building or?
Okay.
All right.
(11:42):
This is what happens.
Before this thanks to old rules from Carter and Clinton years government offices had to beplaced in expensive downtown areas or historic buildings Which sounds great, but it's
expensive for maintenance and upkeep and all that, right?
So Trump's new plan says no, we're gonna cut costs and put these offices wherever it makessense.
(12:03):
Think cheaper rent, more flexibility, and maybe closer to where people actually live.
So on paper, it's a money saver and a government efficiency booster, but could this meanless access in big cities or even worse, a bunch of bland office parks in the middle of
nowhere?
So what this means is agencies will now get to pick their own locations, no more forcedleases in high cost areas, obviously,
(12:27):
part of the bigger push to cut down cost in underused government buildings.
It could free up billions in real estate and leasing costs over time.
And supporters say it's about efficiency, but critics worry it might reduce access tourban residents.
So you've worked in and around government for decades.
Do moves like this actually lead to cost savings or just press release headlines?
(12:52):
Both is the short answer if it's implemented and done in a fair way.
So I was under the misunderstanding.
You were talking about offices in Washington, DC.
You're talking about like the Social Security Administration in downtown St.
Petersburg.
You know, is there a place that's cheaper that they can serve as many people?
You know, and this also has to do with who you get to work there.
(13:15):
You know who travels to work there.
So, you know.
people back to the office to.
So it's not only that, you know, what is the commute to downtown St.
Petersburg where if you put it in Brandon, would you have you would have cheaper rent,know, but now people who live in St.
Petersburg would have to drive across the bridge.
Yeah.
(13:36):
And so.
So yeah, so there's pros and cons.
But we are in spot as a federal government.
and citizens who support a balanced budget.
we have to make cost cutting measures.
We have to.
There's no question about it.
So I love the idea of our government supporting historic buildings.
(13:58):
But I have an idea of a company supporting those historic buildings.
We don't have to get rid of those historic buildings.
so why is the government having to rent
these higher
dollar places that like you said, not to mention that the historic building now has to gothrough asbestos compliance, lead paint compliance, down the list of all the things that
(14:28):
happen that you have to comply with so your workers are safe.
so, that has to be, so the federal government's encouraging those costs.
And so it sounds to me like some of the, especially the historic building part could bekind of a boondoggle for whoever owns the historic building.
And so this administration's not about boondoggles.
(14:48):
It's about cutting costs and trying to balance the budget and reducing our debt.
And so in that regard, sounds like a great idea.
The devil will be in the details, but I think that it's something that can and will bedone.
it probably takes this administration and the next one, if the next president reverses it,because...
(15:11):
leases aren't these leases aren't short-term leases in all likelihood they're you knowthey're probably cheaper to stay in in the short term then get out because if you get
getting out of it you who knows what the what the cause is to get out of out of a lot ofthese leases
agree and I mean, even some company like I remember when I worked, you know, in town, theydidn't pay for my parking.
(15:34):
So, you know, I mean, I had a parking pass, but it was two miles away from where I worked,you know, so if I if it was raining, if it was snowing, whatever it
was if I wanted to park closer, I had to pay to park closer or try to find a spotsomewhere, you know, on the street or whatever.
kind of surprised the government doesn't own more of those buildings.
So that's perplexing why the government that's going to be here a hundred years from now,hopefully the maintenance.
(16:02):
Yeah, sure.
But if you own the building, that's a whole different
Yeah.
But we are, but I also know just from, you know, dealing in government for a long time,the government doesn't own any of the post office buildings.
Those are all privately owned and rented back to the post office, which also makes nosense.
You know, you have the post office there for a hundred years and you know, why isn't thepost office buying that building, paying it off in 30 years like everyone else and then
(16:30):
having it for 70 years only with maintenance.
So, you know,
It sounds to me like it can be a great cost cutting measures.
Devils in the details.
Seems like probably one of the easier things to get done to save money.
And somehow, look at how hard it is.
Yeah.
Are you going to get it done in four years?
Absolutely not.
(16:51):
And moving an office is not cheap.
Moving 100 employees or- Well, I mean, you have to think if the majority of people wereworking from home.
We've let some people go from the federal offices.
It's the right time to do it.
Let's just do it, cut costs and.
Well, it's the right time to do it because we have a president who's willing to cut costsinstead of just line people's pockets with money just for the sake of doing it.
(17:19):
Okay, so, and this kind of leads us into the next one, which is sparking outrage andapplause, depending on where you're sitting politically.
But President Trump just signed a memo aimed at preventing illegal immigrants from gettingsocial security benefits.
So it's already illegal for them to have it, but it doubles down on the new enforcementtactics, like ramping up fraud prosecution, reviewing how social security checks get
(17:46):
issued, and going after errors in government data.
of bases.
So it isn't just about stopping fraud, it's a bold political move with where no freebiesfor those, you know, here illegally.
So what it actually does is it expands fraud investigations in at least 50 US attorneyoffices, reinstates civil monetary penalty programs for people or entities involved in
(18:11):
benefit fraud.
targets mismatch social security records including the serious weird problem of peopleover 100 years old still earning wages in worn states and localities to verify eligibility
or face consequences.
So it's a big deal because it's not just policy, it's campaign messaging in an executiveorder form and it opens the door to state versus federal battles, especially in sanctuary
(18:37):
cities or blue states with more lenient documentation rules.
that legit citizens and legal immigrants might get swept up in the chaos.
So especially if the databases aren't accurate, which we know they aren't.
So is this about stopping real fraud or is this more about signaling Trump's base thathe's taking a hard line on immigration?
(19:00):
Yeah, again, probably both.
is, you know, the fraud that exists in Social Security is real.
I think it's probably just as real for people who have...
a dead parent to slip through the cracks and still get in checks as much as illegalimmigrants.
right?
Because there's probably a whole lot more of those than, so I think you have to look atthe basis of it.
(19:28):
But the thing here is to ensure
and to codify that we're going to stop fraud wherever we can.
And if you are committing fraud, you're now being looked at.
So it's sort of like Walmart having the greeter.
You know, if you have a greeter at Walmart, there's less shoplifting.
Cause it's like, you feel like somebody's there and they've got an extra person just sayhello to you as you walk in the door.
(19:53):
So they must have people watching all the cameras.
And so, so I think it's, I think it's as much a
a signal to people who are committing fraud to stop it, or you're going to get caught andyou're going to be prosecuted for it.
And I think that goes for citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.
(20:15):
know, the issue about blue sanctuary cities or blue states, it appears that per capita
people get more government funds in these blue states than in red states.
And so is that because blue states are committing more resources to trying to get peoplethe proper funds they deserve or is it fraud?
(20:43):
And so I don't have the answer to that, but I think it'll that I think that will play outover the next three years with this administration because there's clearly seems to be
some lines between the
effectiveness of people getting government funds in blue areas versus red.
Yeah, and I remember when I when I moved on here the first job that I had that moved me toFlorida They came in were taking one of my employees out and she was a Hispanic girl and
(21:16):
they didn't tell me why.
They just said that they had to, there was a problem with her I9 and they had to let hergo.
And I caught up to her before that she actually walked out the building and I'm like whathappened?
And she said my social security number was fake.
And she had been working for the company for almost 10 years.
(21:40):
Yeah.
Well, there's plenty of that.
It's not hard.
I understand it's not hard.
I've not tried it to get a fake social security number.
So.
you know, lot of things are still, I mean, you have your credit that goes with socialsecurity number, but even now, like, you don't even have to, you know, you used to have to
report your social security number on medical and everything like that, and you don't haveto do that anymore.
(22:03):
You know, I...
I don't know.
I don't know if this is security numbers gonna be Well, there has to be something I meanlike especially with your name, right?
I graduated in a class of 92 people with another James Miller
(22:24):
Yeah, so like how is the social security number the only thing that keeps you from, helpsyou identify yourself?
Like it's crazy to think that, that it's just, know.
Yeah.
Yeah.
our...
Yeah.
coming back from our honeymoon.
so...
(22:45):
All right.
I don't know why this cat is chewing on this chair, but he's making me crazy.
Stop it.
Okay.
We do it.
I don't know what it is with this room and us being in here.
right, so.
We're gonna have to start charging tickets ticket prices.
(23:10):
boy.
of prescription drugs.
So President Trump just dropped a new executive order aimed at slashing those prices andit's packed with everything from Medicare reforms to insulin for pennies.
So we've heard these promises before, he did it in his first run also, right?
But the difference is this time is that it's going after hospital pricing.
(23:34):
the Medicare will now have to pay based on what a hospital would pay for drugs.
So we're talking about the payments could be cut down by 35%.
Standardized cancer drug pricing, so treatments like chemotherapy would cost the samewhether you're getting them in a hospital or a clinic, potentially slashing prices up to
(23:55):
60%.
and insulin and EpiPen access for uninsured and low income patients.
Insulin can cost as little as three cents plus a service fee.
Epinephrine injectors like EpiPens could drop to $15.
This is huge.
And this is right in your wheelhouse.
This is more in your wheelhouse than it is mine.
I mean, that's that's all of what you just shared are things that I haven't heard beforeand it's exciting.
(24:21):
and I don't I don't read every press release believe it or not so thank you for doing thatand pointing out that I don't but but this is certainly in your wheelhouse
I mean, it's the drug importation from countries like Canada.
States can set up their own programs to buy drugs from abroad cheaper, same quality andFDA approved, which is fantastic.
(24:48):
So my question for you is, you know, obviously we've heard these promises before.
Do you think this one has teeth to actually bring the prices down or is it more headlinethan change?
And I know you said you haven't read about it.
No but like I am familiar with the re-importation of pharmaceuticals from say Canada youknow and maybe they've closed this loophole you know so I'm going back a few years but you
(25:11):
know in the past they would come
straight from China, come into Canada, never get tested, never get confirmed as themilligram dosage, the actual drug that they were, and then be sold in the United States as
drugs from Canada.
And so they were just kind of.
looping them through Canada and not really doing the due diligence of, know, the part thatyou say is FDA approved.
(25:36):
You know, if these drugs are FDA approved, even if they're coming from foreign countries.
And we know that most of our pharmaceuticals are coming from China now anyway.
So hopefully those checks and balances are already in place that I haven't, you know,since the last time I caught up with this issue, which has probably been more than five
years ago.
I think it's awesome.
mean, if they if they can get this done, I this is going to be a huge, huge thing for
(26:00):
there such a, you know, for instance, you know, it was when I first went on Crestor, I wasusing a different generic and, you know, it's like, oh, quit working.
You know, so let's move to Crestor.
Crestor was the new cholesterol drug at the time.
$800 a month.
This is 2008 or 10.
(26:22):
Like it was.
you know, $800 a month.
like, oh, okay, well, let me, at that point, there just started to be kind of apps orprograms you could go on and look, it seemed like.
So, you know, I'd go, I'd shop it.
Oh, Publix 600.
There's a difference price between this CVS and that CVS, you know?
(26:46):
And so you really had to go, when you were dealing with them, and I got it down to like350.
What I ended up doing though, was going to Mexico and I'd,
just go buy it over the counter and I'd buy a year's dose and you know, I would basicallypay for my trip to Mexico to covering my drugs.
And so, and they seem to work for, for as long as, know, I did that.
(27:11):
did that probably, I probably did that for five or 10 years.
Yeah.
I mean, it's crazy.
Well, you know, the public's we've talked about this before is kind of
Okay, so our final story is This this one kind of caught me off-guard and I know that thisgoes back to signal gate and all of that but
(27:41):
Which reared its ugly head again today.
Yeah.
But go ahead.
and it bleeds into that so.
So the Pentagon is actually is in chaos, right?
So three top aides to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were abruptly fired.
And it all seems to circle back to Elon, which this is what really threw me.
(28:02):
So the briefing that blew on back evil in your book?
No, no, no, no, because
In honesty, it's going to sound funny the way that I'm going to explain how I see this,how I see what's happening.
So the briefing that blew up was in March, Elon Musk was scheduled to attend a Pentagonmeeting about US military plans if tensions with China escalate.
(28:25):
So why Musk, right?
I mean, he has companies, Starlink are increasingly integrated into US militaryinfrastructure, but there's a catch.
He also has major business interest in China, which made some officials uneasy.
Trump didn't know about this.
So when he found out that Musk was going to be part of this meeting, he actually said whatthe F is Elon doing there and make sure he doesn't go, which
(28:52):
to me is great.
Good for him, right.
Don't stay in your lane, buddy.
There's no reason for you to be in that meeting.
And just like that meeting was shut down in the late time period.
So I asked AI who invited Elon to this meeting.
so here's a little back behind the curtain view of Washington, DC.
This is an old Washington, DC trick.
(29:14):
They always say when you're, when you're hired, that you walk into every meeting until youget to a meeting that's high enough that somebody kicks you out.
And so I don't think that that was this was the case, but I get it.
Well, you know, is not true.
So Pete Hegseth actually invited him to this meeting, okay, which here's all I'msuggesting is that it's not abnormal.
(29:42):
No, I get it.
All levels of Washington DC government to try to speak in the meetings that they're
there is either no reason for them to be there or it's above their pay grade.
try to gain or make it look like they have more power than they have to.
Right, and I get that, I absolutely get that.
That's I was kidding with that.
Yeah.
You're telling me he was invited, I hear what you're saying.
(30:05):
Yeah, and in my thought process, I don't have a lot of, I don't have a lot of, what's theword I'm thinking of?
confidence in Pete Hegseth.
I really don't.
Like I think that he's a new kid that, know, you know, he didn't come out and tell Trumpabout Signalgate.
(30:25):
He didn't tell him what was happening, which he should have.
And now he's inviting Musk to meetings that Musk has no right to be involved in.
And so to me, it's like Hegseth is at
cold
(30:46):
and he just got raked over the coals, which you would think would make him a little bitmore cognizant and be like, okay, well, maybe I need to watch because now we found out
that the information from Signalgate was actually given to his sister given to hisbrother, giving to other people, which is going to be a problem.
(31:07):
Yeah, don't, you know, what broke today is exactly that.
You know, I'm gonna stand by the information if it's exact same information.
If it's exact same information, it's not like he's shared classified.
or anything.
But if he's Department of Defense information with non-government family members.
(31:33):
That seems to be a problem.
mean, that's, know, um, just reminds me of that person who has, who has power and iswanting that power.
Is he, is he flaunting it or is he just, is it, is it kind of the opposite?
And not that we are going to do a psychological profile, but why not?
(31:54):
You know, is he flaunting that power or is he looking for acceptance?
Is he looking for acceptance from his family?
Look, I made it.
Look what I know.
Look what I'm.
You're in a position of your what is he the Secretary of Defense?
I mean, are you freaking kidding me?
Excuse me.
There's no fighting on the podcast.
(32:15):
Except between me and Jamie, not the brothers.
Yeah, mean, grow up.
Like seriously grow up.
I mean, you need to know this job enough that you should know who needs to be in the room.
You should know who you can and can't talk about things to.
Like, he just seems like that kid that yeah.
(32:41):
and you know, and that was the concern ever.
You know, a lot of people had with him going in, you know, we a lot of us kind of said,hey, it's Trump's person.
Let's continue to, you know, support Trump by supporting his people.
And, know,
You're the one who said that people get hired day one for the purpose of getting firedsome day.
(33:04):
There are some people.
You have to show that.
You have to be able to show that you to get reputized.
For me, he'd be gone.
Like already he'd be gone.
So these three guys.
Well, I'm sure the president made an internal thought, not a commitment to any of thesepeople, but you know, there is a thought of you try to get as much done as you can within
(33:25):
the first 100 days and getting people hired is hard enough without then going through thechaos of firing them.
And that consumes a newsweek, you know, so you're, you know, four or five days of your100.
You know, start getting into percentages of, you know, your first 100 days where you'retrying to lay the foundation for the rest of your presidency.
(33:47):
And so, you know, I know that you wouldn't want to fire somebody within the first 100 daysif we're approaching.
so we'll see.
but I do you know I have said to you that there are time I don't know that you bring insomeone at a cabinet level position for the sole purpose of firing them
(34:08):
You know, but I have said to you that there are people who you bring into the, into thefold or they force themselves into the fold and then you cut them so that, you know,
you're, you show not only your opponents, but your supporters, you know, that there's,expect a certain level of contact while you're here.
(34:30):
Right.
So the fallout was multiple senior Pentagon officials, including Dan Caldwell and DarrenSelnick, were placed on leave or fired.
So the accusation was they were leaking details of the planned Musk briefing andpotentially other classified info.
Now, again, this is where I come back and say, well, why wasn't Hegseth?
You know, why isn't he put on administrative leave if he's the one who's inviting Musk tothese these meetings?
(34:54):
So Musk responded that he denied ever planning to receive classified intel and called
Well, to split a hair, to split a hair, to split a hair here, it sounds like.
Hegseth maybe wasn't outside of the scope of his role of inviting
But if these folks were outside of their role of leaking the information about Musk being,Musk being invited, that's unacceptable behavior.
(35:22):
Leaking to the press or to whomever that, you know, I don't like what's going on with mysuperiors and leaking it is an activity that very few people in DC will, will tolerate.
So I think that's where, not to interrupt you, but that's kind of the hair I think that'sbeing split here.
(35:45):
And it's a fine hair, but it is one.
OK.
So why it matters is obviously if a civilian billionaire is as close to sensitive militaryconversations, what happens when his business interests don't align with US national
interests?
The firings show a real breakdown of trust inside the Pentagon and raise questions aboutwhether Hegseth can control
(36:05):
zone in our circle.
And it isn't just drama, it's about who has influence over war planning and how secure ournational security really is.
So how dangerous is it to have someone like Musk close to top level strategy talks,especially when he is doing business with China?
Yeah, you're putting a lot of trust in them.
(36:26):
And I know that people have talked about this with Doge too, you know, him having access.
Democrats have with Elon Musk is that he hasn't gone through the confirmation hearings,right?
Hegseth did.
You know, so if you want to put these two in the hierarchy of federal government, Hegsethat least went through confirmation hearings and Elon Musk has not.
(36:47):
know, granted Hegseth is probably the only one in that meeting with
That maybe not, isn't true.
But he's one of maybe a handful of people in that meeting with confirmation approval,right?
Because some undersecretaries, generals, things like that get some level of, you know,national security.
(37:09):
wasn't like a unanimous vote either.
That took a couple days, didn't it?
Yeah.
it's nobody's I mean Rubio I think was unanimous and that is a that's part of being partof the US Senate.
So US senators as a general rule if you don't get a unanimous vote out of the US Senateit's normally because you're you have a personally personality conflict with fellow US
(37:34):
senators because that's just the way that that's the way that body works and so
I think Rubio was unanimous or 99 to zero or whatever it was.
But as far as people getting fired,
for leaking, I don't see a problem with that.
You know, I do think that that is part of, you know, Hegseth, if people are being criticalof him not controlling his inner circle and those folks are in the inner circle and
(38:01):
they're leaking.
Yeah.
talk about that.
mean, had that had they not leaked this information, had that meeting gone on and Trumpdidn't know about it.
And then Elon is sitting in on this month on this meeting that could have containedinformation.
(38:21):
is that not so so here's the way that would be I don't want to put Musk I don't want tomake Musk more important or less important than he is he is as important as he is to the
president you know so but it seems like he's
probably at the level of like a chief of staff where he can go directly to the presidentif he wants.
(38:45):
Everybody who works for the president can't, right?
So, can go directly to the president if he wants.
So yes, I agree with that.
So, so he's at that level of whether it's includes confirmation or not, where he, if hedoesn't have the trust of the president, he's certainly, certainly appears to have the
trust of the president.
(39:06):
And so,
You know, now it's worrisome that I think, I don't know that worrisome is too strong aword.
It's, I think it does raise some concern if Hegseth invited him and for whatever's beingtalked about.
But for whatever reason, Hegseth wanted his experience and expertise in the room.
(39:28):
For whatever reason.
We don't know that.
And I'm, I certainly don't want to speculate on it.
I can certainly see where people are critical.
But my guess is the people who are being critical are the people who
about everything.
You know, so, so just like people will take a great, you know, my opinion of being for thepresident with a grain of salt who are against the president.
(39:50):
We also have to kind of be extra critical of people who are critical on every singlething.
Right?
So if you're, you're one of those 49 senators or 48 senators who are critical against the,about the president for everything.
And this is just the next thing for this week.
It's getting work.
It's getting Bob.
That that's just as bothersome to me as Elon being in the in the in the mixture.
(40:14):
But if but if you're talking about people who are who are you know from both sides of theaisle who say hey listen what's going on and I think that's the I do think that's probably
the case here, but I don't know that to be the case.
But if that's the case here.
You know what power does Elon Musk have from the president and you know and if thepresident.
(40:37):
wasn't aware of his activities on this so you're worried you're concerned about PeteHegseth inviting Elon I'm not gonna disagree with you on that but but we're talking about
(41:03):
two different issues
Well, and I understand that, the Elon thing was walking into this, but then thinking aboutthe whole thing, like, I'm not mad at Elon.
He was invited to a meeting.
He's like, I'm going to go.
Right.
The Secretary of Defense invites, hey, if the Secretary of Defense invites me to ameeting, guess what?
I'm flying to DC and going.
(41:24):
Right.
So yeah.
I understand where, you know, and yes, that's the question, you know, could there beissues with him being in the meeting?
The way that Trump
responded to it?
Yeah, there's probably some issue.
comes.
So now you're you're concerned and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you'reconcerned just so I can understand it is more what was Pete Hegs's motivation.
(41:47):
is he just not confident enough in his own ability that he like this is just like I toldyou this is the way that I'm seeing it.
Like he needs to have that little buddy, you know, that work friend that he gets alongwith that, you know, he wants him to be part of all this stuff.
so he's inviting them like I don't know this is just not sitting right
(42:09):
some of the stuff that I wrote in one of my, uh, sub stacks was that when you're, whenyou, very few people are, have the experience to manage a federal department, the size of
the department of defense.
mean, you think about the people who quote have experience, you know, there's 50 who mayhave run companies the size of the department of defense and with the importance.
(42:32):
of everyday decisions being so very critical, in critical worldwide.
And, you know, the question I had, you know,
Hegseth was, you know, yeah, you're, you're in this silo, but have you ever been in a, ina position where, you know, you think there's three silos and two of them are with you and
(42:55):
one's against you, but then you get in a position, you realize there's actually eight or10 silos.
you know, the intra-department of defense politics, not even Republican, Democrat, justthe internal politics of, you know, even take Army versus Navy versus Air Force, you know,
(43:16):
all of those things, you know, you have those politics.
Well, then you have the politics of, you know, just every layer of, you know,
this one needs a billion dollars for this weapon system or that one needs a billiondollars for this weapon system, which one wins this year?
So there's a lot of moving parts in the Department of Defense.
(43:37):
And so the question was, you know, does Hagseth have what it takes to lead that?
And, you know, it's a, it's something, seems like a good guy, you know, and yeah, that's apoint.
I'm not trying to say that that make, you know,
in spite of him being a good guy, seems like he's certainly treading water fast.
(43:59):
and, you know, some people tread water and then swim.
And so as, is it the question, you know, that you have other people have, and I think morepeople are going to be concerned with if there are more missteps is, you know, is he, is
he drowning?
I don't know.
Like that's not up to me.
That's up to the president of the United States.
(44:20):
So it's, you know,
is he drowning?
And the question is, does the President the United States think he's drowning?
Number two, who's on deck?
you know, so you have another, cause again, go back to there's 50 or a hundred people whoqualify to be secretary of defense.
You know, so are you, you know, who's on deck to do that?
(44:44):
You know, governor, Ron DeSantis, I still think that DeSantis should have taken.
you know, I don't know that it was offered to them, I speculate.
His 10 million was going somewhere else.
Well, and maybe they knew about it and they're like, hey, this guy has a problem that wedon't want to take on.
Yeah.
And, you know, so, you know, but I speculated that he was offered the secretary of thenation and that I speculated as well that the Santas probably felt like that was an easy
(45:15):
thing.
And then when Hagseth stumbled during his confirmation hearings, DeSantis pushed to be.
the DOD secretary.
that may still be something that gets worked out.
mean, like I said, despite kind of looking at the political landscape and saying, behindthe scenes, DeSantis is trying to for Trump or take the credit for all the things that
(45:38):
Trump is doing, he in case you're still going to meet with President Trump once a month.
Yeah.
And so what's happening in the
meetings is undetermined from what I can tell.
mean, I've.
you know, can speculate, but I certainly have not spoken to anybody who has shared whatreally has happened in those meetings.
All right.
Well, that's all I have to talk about.
(45:59):
So do you have anything that you want to?
No, I think this is a great show.
All right.
Hopefully, I, those of you who backed Dex during the show, I didn't make too many thingsup.
I think you together a great show.
Thank you.
guests.
I mean, look at this guy.
Look at him.
(46:20):
He's so sweet.
can't even see him on camera.
All right.
See you next time.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com