March 28, 2025 • 27 mins
(March 28, 2025)
Chris Merrill fills in for Bill this week. Signal chat records must be preserved, federal judge tells Trump administration. California high-speed rail project needs $7 billion by next summer. Trump's "pro-Hamas" purge could block foreign students from colleges. Canada and Mexico are both planning on retaliation for the latest round of tariffs planned. The last two threats went away quickly, will it happen again or will we do another 30 day dance?
Chris Merrill fills in for Bill this week. Signal chat records must be preserved, federal judge tells Trump administration. California high-speed rail project needs $7 billion by next summer. Trump's "pro-Hamas" purge could block foreign students from colleges. Canada and Mexico are both planning on retaliation for the latest round of tariffs planned. The last two threats went away quickly, will it happen again or will we do another 30 day dance?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty signal pleasure being with you. Thank you so
much for inviting us into your lives every morning. Neil
Sebaibra is in for Bill next week, and your long
national nightmare is nearly over. Three out of four Americans,
(00:23):
including sixty percent of Republicans, now saying the Trump administration's
use of the Signal group chat discussing the military strikes.
They say that's a serious problem, especially since the Pentagon
said don't use that. This was from ABC.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
The information was sent on the encrypted messaging app Signal,
which the Pentagon found in twenty twenty one to be
an unauthorized means of communicating sensitive information. Secretary of State
Mark or Rubio says the chat was set up so
Trump's national security team could coordinate communication with members of
Congress and foreign leaders.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
This was a sort of description of what we could
inform our counterparts around the world when the time came
to do so.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Growing calls on Capitol Hill from Democrats for Hegseth to
resign or be fires is that going to happen?
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Lebby Dean is the News Nation correspondent and Lebby joins us. Lebby.
Is there any sign that Hexith is going to resign
or be fired?
Speaker 4 (01:21):
Today is the day if that is the case, because
Hegseth right now is headed to Japan. He was in
the Philippines. He's been doing this by that overseas trip
for a couple of days now ever since the story
broke with the day he left. And then you've got
Waltz who was headed with the Vice President in his
landing shortly in Greenland. So for President Trump to fire
(01:43):
either of these two, to do it while they would
be overseas unlikely. So we head into this weekend with
their heads not on the shopping block here, but certainly
it's been talked about after everything that's happened.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Yeah, unlikely, but it wouldn't be unprecedented because if we recall,
James Comy got fired via tweet while he was not
in DC, although Collmy wasn't handpicked by President Trump either,
whereas these guys are kind of his name is all
over these guys, right, So does that pose a political
issue for him?
Speaker 4 (02:16):
I mean, if the past informs the president here when
it comes to President Trump firing people, it wouldn't be shocking.
I would say from my past experience of covering President Trump,
this would seem to be more of a lenient approach
from him. We've seen him more or less stand completely
behind his national security team, specifically Walt who was in
that cabinet meeting earlier this week and sitting in the
(02:38):
cabinet room rather and Trump was looking him up, despite
him taking full fault for this and then saying the
same of heg Seth as well standing behind them at
this point. But Yeah, as you mentioned, it wouldn't be
a shock if President Trump were to ultimately fire someone.
It's a satellite Lebby.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
Dean is a News Nation correspondent. Lebby. I don't know
about you. You're probably a very professional person. I have
pushed boundaries in my career in the past, and there
have been times that I've been told by the boss.
You know, this is your get out of jail free card.
Is this if the President does stand by these guys
(03:17):
this time, are they basically in double secret probation in
the same way that my boss has said, one more
screw up and you're done.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
Look, I don't think that signal is going to be
a means of communication in the future for either of
these two, at least when it comes to things of
this national security concern and whether this is a one
off and they're getting off this time only to get
in trouble next time. I mean, what is that saying.
It's like first is the worst, second is the best,
(03:44):
or I don't know. There is the possibility, of course,
that they could find themselves in this kind of situation
again and potentially be fired by the president. It is
interesting though Democrats, this is something they ailed against Teg.
Sass from the beginning, the Defense secretary for Trump who
(04:04):
sent the very detailed messages about these bombs being dropped
in Yemen in this signal group chat, and they weious
concerns about his viability in the position given he of
course it was in the military and does have that background,
but less intelligence community experience than some of his counterparts,
(04:25):
and was facing criticism on that front. But I mean,
it's fully they're all fully back to work today. One
headed to green Lend, the other has been overseas, So
I don't see any developments happening today or at least
through the weekend. But you never know when a true
social post is going to come out and everything I've
said has proven move does.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
Is there an effort right now to expedite the news
cycle on this. I saw in the past some administrators
that have said, you know, this has lasted forty two hours,
it was a mistake, let's move on. Let's not give
them the next seventy two hours. I mean, there has
to be This is a headache that continues on for
this White House. I mean, I can't think of too
many other examples where something out of the Trump administration
(05:09):
happens and we discuss it for an entire week. That
is the case with this Signal Group chat app. It
seems like they have not been able to turn the
new cycle as fast as they want to.
Speaker 4 (05:20):
Yeah, it's certainly the case that they would want this
to fade into the background. I don't see that happening
anytime soon. Now that you've got internal investigations happening at
the White House, Congress pressing on this, the Atlantic releasing
more messages. You've got the court battle as well playing
out with DC Judge Boseberg, who is making sure that
these intelligence officials keep these messages. I don't see this
(05:40):
dying down anytime soon, because every day this week that
I've covered this. I mean we're on day five here.
Every day this week i've covered this, something new has developed,
whether that was overnight with last night Boseberg's decision here,
or it was just the release of these messages. I
mean every day there is a new development or a
new comment from an official, which keeps this, of course
in the headlines and a lot of questions moving forward.
(06:02):
I would say about what this looks like for the
administration when it comes to using signal and just their
means of communication as a whole, because this is the
big so called scandal. I mean, it's fair to say
this is pretty scandalous. This is their big that the
first one for the Trump administration this second go around,
(06:23):
and they certainly would like to see it die down.
I'm sure.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Lebby Dean is our News Nation correspondent to talking with
us about the signal chat stuff. You mentioned Judge Bosberg,
who we recognize from He's also the judge that's overseeing
the deportation of the Venezuelan alleged gang members to the
l Salvadorian prison. His rulings have not been favorable for
the Trump administration. Trump has called for him to be
(06:49):
impeached and now he gets assigned this case as well.
Does this give political fodder to claim which hunt.
Speaker 4 (06:56):
Well, that's certainly what President Trump is doing and has
continued to do. But I mean, Boseburg has four cases
now related to the Trumpe administration, so that he's got
this signal group chat one the Alien Enemies Act to
one about the deportation flights as well as the subtle
grant funding freeze, a lot of details of that, and
then also DOGE records is what the other case relates to.
(07:19):
I will point out that, and this is actually how
Boseburg started the hearing yesterday which I listened in to.
I've listened into a few of these hearings with Boseburg.
That one about the immigration flights was incredibly tense, with
Department of Justice officials going back and tools with Boseburg
and Boseburg calling their response is disrespectful. That wasn't the
case during this hearing yesterday with Bosburg. It was certainly
(07:41):
more tame, and you weren't hearing from Department of Justicials
because he was just giving his order. But basically Boseburg
actually started out this hearing by specifying that the court
decides who gets assign these cases, and Boseburg isn't making
those decisions because that is where a lot of the blowback.
And I'm sure he's seen this pushback from the Trump
administration who's claiming that he's assigning himself these cases in
(08:05):
some form or fashion. But yeah, what ended up happening
there was basically this hearing and he told these intelligence
officials who were included in the chat, they need to
maintain these records. It was I believe March eleventh through
fourteenth that he had said, those are the dates that
you have to maintain these records. But what's interesting enough,
(08:25):
and I'm curious to fight out and I will be
asking intelligence officials about is there was on the Signal
chat because I'm very familiar with Signal, I've used it.
On the Signal chat, there was a one week dismissal
of when these would disappear. I mean we're at March
twenty eighth. I'm just curious what's still there. I mean,
of course Goldberg had the screenshots, but I just don't
(08:48):
know how that all works with the Signal platform. And
that's going to be something to look into as well.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Yeah, that's a great question. It's kind of like trying
to retrieve a snapchat once it's gone and are understanding
is way right?
Speaker 4 (09:00):
Save the messages? But how do we save them if
they're already gone? So that's a question. As this, I
mean developed last night, so something that's going to be
developing today I would watch for all right.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Let me Dan NewsNation White House Correspondent. Let me thank
you so much for your insight into that, say for
having me. Yeah, you bet. Of course I've told the
story before, but I don't think i've told on the
morning show, so I'm gonna do it again. First came
to California in twenty twelve and I rolled in. I
(09:34):
worked in San Diego and I rolled in. They were
putting me up at a resort, which was nice until
I got the tax bill on that that was fun.
So I roll up into this resort. It was February
the twentieth, I believe, And as I pull into this resort,
I had left. I was working in Kansas City, and
I left Kansas City. I pulled into this resort, you know,
(09:54):
drove a cross country pull in and as I'm driving
in in February, there's girls standing in the parking lot
in bikinis, and I thought, I'm never leaving California. This
is the most amazing thing ever. So I start working
at this radio station and great stations, still love it,
fantastic people there. And I hear about this high speed
(10:19):
rail project again. This is twenty twelve, so still in
the planning stages, and they said, well, you know, I
was given a little bit of the backstory and I
hadn't heard about it until then, and I'm giving the
backstory and they said, well, the voters approved this eight
billion dollars to go towards starting this high speed rail
and eventually it's going to run from the Bay Area
(10:39):
and eventually it'll go from the Bay Area all the
way to San Diego. But initially they want to get
it from Bay Area and Sacramento to Los Angeles. And
I thought, well, that sounds ambitious, and they said yeah,
and the the projections are already at I don't know
what it was at the time, twenty five billion dollar
(11:00):
something like that. So shortly after I get there, they go, uh, oh,
we're going to need more money. Projections are now up
to thirty billion or forty billion dollars whatever it was,
and I said, I've seen this play out before. I've
been fired from enough stations and enough cities to see
how government waste is ubiquitous. It is not a California problem.
(11:22):
It happens everywhere you have people. It's sort of like
when you go to a buffet and your eyes are
bigger than your stomach. That's what happens. When the politicians
get just an iota of power, they go, we want
to do this grand project, and they want to attach
their names to it. Right, So Governor Brown really wanted
to have this high speed rail. He says, this is
going to be great, and they all push for it.
(11:44):
And you had a bunch of the politicians and Sacramento
padding themselves in the back. This is going to be spectacular.
And I went, wait a minute. The voters approved eight
billion dollars. You're already up to forty or fifty billion dollars.
I said, you mark my words, this is gonna go
up to one hundred billion dollars. And what I didn't
realize is how wrong I was, because we blew past
(12:05):
one hundred billion dollars a long long time ago, long
time ago, and what do we have to show for it?
Raise your hand. If you have ridden the high speed
rail in California? Anybody, anybody? Anybody? Oh? Yeah, we are
well over the initial projections, and not a single person
has ever taken a single ride because there's no train
(12:25):
on any track. And yet the most Bruce Wayne looking
politician in history, our governor, Governor Batman, is now saying, oh,
it's on its way. Off we go.
Speaker 5 (12:40):
As I say we did the railhead, we're starting to
lay track. This thing's starting to get very very real.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
Is it though? You're starting to lay track? Well, good,
because you know you've gotten enough money and the projections
are already at one hundred and twenty five billion dollars,
and lord knows, we'd like to see something out of it.
But where we lay in track? Is it coming out
of the Bay Area? Is it somewhere in Riverside? No? No,
(13:10):
we've spent all this money on the easiest part thus far,
between Bakersfield and Mercet. But wait, there's more. CACRA had
the story.
Speaker 6 (13:21):
Governor Kavin Newsom defending California's high speed rail project on
his latest podcast episode, released Wednesday morning. The project originally
pitched to voters in two thousand and eight, as a
bullet train between La to San Francisco is significantly short
on funds and nowhere near finished.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Yeah, it's barely started.
Speaker 6 (13:40):
The state has so far spent about fourteen billion dollars
and needs more than double that just to finish the
first line between Merced and Bakersfield.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
The first line across the easiest part where they had
to do the least amount of modifications to infrastructure, housing, zoning,
everything else across the central Valley has already bloomed up
to twenty eight billion dollars. Oh, this is this is
going to be tremendous.
Speaker 6 (14:09):
The Trump administration is now reviewing the use of four
billion in federal funds so far.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Four billion. Oh, the fens got off easy on this one.
Speaker 6 (14:18):
Finishing the full route between the Bay Area and southern
California needs at least one hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Yeah, Finishing the full route needs one hundred billion. But
we're spending twenty eight billion on the easiest part. No, no, no, no, no, no, no,
no no. Most of that money has yet to materialize. Yeah,
I mean the end of.
Speaker 5 (14:36):
The day, we've got these constraints that are well established already,
these pre existing constraints and there's not a high speed
railing system that's not enjoyed some popularity and success. Most
at least are wildly popular. It's an experienced no one's
had in the United States of America. At least we're
out there daring.
Speaker 6 (14:53):
But some Democratic lawmakers during a hearing on the project
wednesday had different thoughts.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Yeah, what are they say?
Speaker 7 (14:58):
The definition of insn is doing the same thing over
and over again and expecting a different outcome.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
I always love it when somebody tells me the definition
of insanity. Actually, if you look up the definition of insanity,
that's not it.
Speaker 6 (15:11):
The high speed Rail had not yet submitted its annual report,
which irked Assembly members Wednesday. The state's Legislative Analysts Office
told lawmakers the project needs seven billion dollars by next
June in order to move forward.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Oh is that all just another seven billion? Or else
seven billion or else or else? What or else? Will
have wasted the other? No, this is a fallacy, This
is a sunk cost fallacy. Well, you've already spent eight billion,
or we've already spent fourteen billion. You better give us
(15:47):
another seven or I mean, that's just a waste of
the other fourteen or it's a waste of twenty one
billion total, because you're going to come back and say, well,
we got to have another ten billion, Well, we gotta
have another fifty billion, while we gotta have another hundred billion.
We gotta have another two hundred and fifty billion dollars
and for what so that we can realize the dream
of Governor Choochu No stop. You got to know when
(16:13):
to hold them, you got to know when to fold them,
you got to know when to walk away, and in
this case, you got to run. We saw the protests
going on at southern California schools last year, as well
as a number of other universities across the country, and
now we're getting the crackdown. If you were protesting, you
are on alert. One student at Tufts University was surrounded
(16:37):
by plain clothed officers, cuffed and stuffed in a van.
Now I don't know about you, but if I had
a bunch of randos wearing hoodies and masks that threw
handcuffs on me, I would be pretty sure that I
was being kidnapped. Even if they flashed flashed a badge,
I'd go, you know what, I probably need to call
somebody and make sure that you are who you say
(16:58):
you are, just the same. That's what happened. AB Seniors
had the report, mister secretary.
Speaker 8 (17:02):
A Turkish student in Boston was detained and handcuffed on
the street by playing clothes agents. A year ago, she
wrote an opinion piece about the gas of war. Could
you help us understand what the specific action she took
led to her visa being revoked?
Speaker 1 (17:19):
This is Marco Rubio she's talking to.
Speaker 8 (17:21):
And what was your state department's role in that process?
Speaker 3 (17:24):
Or we revoked her visa? It's an F one visa.
I believe we revoked.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
More like an FU visa. Am I right? Am? I?
Speaker 3 (17:34):
We were voked it and here's why. And I'll say
it again. I said it everywhere. Me be abundantly clear. Okay,
if you go apply for a visa right now anywhere
in the world, let me just send this message out.
If you apply for a visa to enter the United
States and be a student, and you tell us that
the reason why you're coming to the United States is
not just because you want to write op eds, but
because you want to participate in movements that are involved
(17:54):
in doing things like vandalizing universities harassing students, taking over buildings,
creating a rock. We're not going to give you a visa.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
Yeah, But did she and I don't know that she didn't.
But did she vandalize buildings and create a ruckus? Or
is this a guilt by association? Sitch?
Speaker 3 (18:12):
If you lie to us and get a visa and
then enter the United States and with that visa participate
in that sort of activity, We're going to take away
your visa. And once you've lost your visa, Yeah, you're
no longer legally in the United States, And we have
a right, like every country in the world has a
right to remove you from our country. So it's just
that simple.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
Did she commit a crime?
Speaker 3 (18:31):
I think it's crazy. I think it's stupid for any
country in the world to welcome people into their country.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
They're going to go to your universities as visitors. They're
visitors and say.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
I'm going to your universities to start a riot.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Again, some people did riot. That would be ignorant for
me to argue otherwise, did this person were these students
who were committing the violence, the vandalism, that sort of thing.
Were they here on visus or are we just saying, well,
We can't really get them because they're US citizens. We
(19:06):
can get them for vandalism, but we can stick these
other people who were in the crowd, they were nearby,
guilt by association? Is there any evidence that this person
was pro terrorist? In fact, President Trump has said that
they're going to get the pro Hamas students out. Well,
can you be pro Palestinian without being pro Hamas? See,
(19:31):
that's the nuance that were very bad as a society
of understanding, and politicians know that. So what they want
to do is they want to paint this as a
binary choice. You're with us or you're against us and
we're with Israel. And if you're not with us with Israel,
then you are against us and you're with the terrorists.
And yet, is it possible? It's mind blowing here, Is
(19:54):
it possible you could be pro not war, pro Palacetian
and not be pro terrorists? Can you be pro United
States and still think that Israel went too far with
bombing rates. I'm not saying they did or they didn't.
I'm saying can you have that opinion and not be
(20:15):
un American? Or do we need to have some sort
of a committee on Unamerican activities? Maybe that's what we
ought to do. No one's ever tried that before in
this country. Oh, that's right, we did with the communist thing,
but that was in the Listen. That was a long
time ago. That was a mistake we made back in
(20:36):
the fifties when we did the whole Red Scare and
we were hunting for communists. We've evolved since then. We
are no longer the same country that just says are
you a communist? And if you are, there's going to
be hell to pay. We don't do that any longer.
Speaker 9 (20:51):
Have you ever been associated or affiliated with the Chinese
Communist Party?
Speaker 1 (20:54):
Oh crap, that was Josh Hawley. He was talking with
the TikTok guy. I guess we are still doing the
same thing, are you now or have you ever been
associated with Hamas? And even if the answer is no,
we're still going to deport you. But that's what we
can do, and we're very proud of it. It's not
just a toughs also happen at Alabama. ABC's Eric Katursky
(21:16):
was talking.
Speaker 10 (21:16):
About that welcome back. Officials say federal immigration agents have
detained a University of Alabama doctoral student who is a
citizen of Iran. The student is currently being held in
a detention facility, but ICE records don't list where he's
being held or the reason for his detention.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
Well, probably for pro hamasiness.
Speaker 10 (21:39):
This follows the arrests of a Peah student at Tuffs University.
Security video shows the moment the Turkish national who is
in the US on a visa not anymore.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
See, we can just we can just revoke that visa.
We don't even have to tell you we revoked it.
We just revoked visa and now you're here illegally.
Speaker 10 (21:56):
When she was handcuffed by officials Tuesday night while on
her way to Neet friends to break her Ramadan fast
features see right there, She's listed in the ICE database
as incostody and appears to be held at a processing
center in Louisiana. Want to bring an ABC's chief investigative correspondent,
Aaron Koturski to talk more about this, Aaron thinks, for
coming in through here in studio, So what more King
(22:19):
tell us about the student in Alabama.
Speaker 11 (22:21):
We know that he's Iranian, we know that he's a
doctoral student studying some kind of a metallurgy and otherwise
we have got requests out to the Department of Homeland
Security say why did you detain him? And they haven't
responded to us. But the University of Alabama says he
was detained and they are trying to figure out, just
like we are, why where he's being held, what the
(22:42):
circumstances are.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
We just don't know.
Speaker 11 (22:44):
But he's one of a half dozen at least international
students that the administration has detained as they try to
crack down on people at least that we know of
who have been pro Palestinian or part of that activist community.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
Are you now or have you ever been a Crimson
Tide fan? That's good enough for me. Get them out
of here in what has been a wild week. This
has been this last week has been the longest year
in a long time. So we've got the Signal chat app.
We've got a Greenland visit, which we'll talk about coming
(23:22):
up here after eight o'clock. We've got abducting students by
ice who may or may not have been part of
protests and college campuses. And we're also dropping a twenty
five percent taxes tariffs excuse me, on vehicles and parts
that are produced overseas, and other tariffs are set to
(23:45):
go into effect next week as well, because remember we
were gonna have those tariffs that were set up to
go into effect right away February, and then we went up, JK,
it'll be in March. I put them into effect. The
two days later, they're out of effect, but they got
a thirty day reprieve. So here we are. The next
week will be another thirty days. Are we gonna do
(24:06):
this every month or are we gonna say, well, we're
gonna hold off for I mean, we're gonna give ourselves
like three months at some point, or is it gonna
drop down to just two weeks to get it done?
Or are we actually going to see tariffs going to effect.
I was watching NBCLA as they were talking about the
tariffs and how these are gonna hit us in a
number of different places, not just the vehicles either.
Speaker 7 (24:27):
A regular trip to the grocery store for many is
becoming less of a routine.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
Just ask Ameliacal tearists pretty expensive right now.
Speaker 8 (24:35):
I mean, it's just I don't know how a lot
of people can you know.
Speaker 7 (24:39):
Okay, well make it right now, to be honest with you,
with increase on everything. Her trip to this grocery store
off Gary Avenue on Thursday.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
She says, was enough to get by. What do you want?
Speaker 4 (24:50):
I know, palitas and tomatoes.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
That's about it.
Speaker 7 (24:53):
Customers say the hike in everyday goods is impacting their spending.
Soon they will feel another punch to their wallet when
President Donald Trump is expected to add additional tariffs.
Speaker 9 (25:03):
Expectations are our prices are going to go up?
Speaker 1 (25:06):
You see.
Speaker 7 (25:06):
Irvine finance professor Christopher Schwartz says while he believes that
while the economy is strong, the president's tariffs on imports
could cause consumers to step back on their spending habits.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Yeah. And is that as vehicles? If we start throwing
tariffs on the lumber from Canada, if you're trying to
rebuild Palisades Alta Dina, that's going to be more expensive
than it was before. Yeah. And I don't know if
you've noticed already the most expensive place in the country
(25:40):
to live.
Speaker 7 (25:42):
This comes as the White House announced this week a
twenty five percent tariff would be placed on auto imports
to foster domestic manufacturing.
Speaker 9 (25:51):
Most car parks are not manufactured here in the US,
so it doesn't note of a new or an old car.
If you go to your dealership to get a car
fix that Dezza part. There's a high probability that part
is not produced here and the US, and so the
in theory, the price of that would go up.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
Oh crap. Even my old beater has to have new
parts every now and again, and that means it's going
to cost me a little bit more still cheaper to
fix it than it is to buy a new car.
If you're talking about card prices going up four to
twelve thousand dollars. But wait, what about Tesla that's made
in the United States. Surely they're insulated from these tariffs. No,
they're not because a lot of their parts are electronics.
(26:29):
And where do we get our electronics? Yeah, yeah, overseas?
And what else happens? Well, Canada's Prime minister has already
said the United States is no longer a reliable partner.
They're working on retaliatory tariffs. Mexico is trying to figure
out how to stall or evade the auto tariffs. But
you better believe they're going to hit US with retaliatory tariffs. Japan, China,
(26:54):
European nations, all of them likely to hit US with
retaliatory tariff, which means that the teslas will not be
sold at a very high volume over seas, and can
I just point out Greenland doesn't manufacture vehicles, so taking
them over doesn't really help this situation. The Bill handleshow
(27:17):
Chris Maryland for Bill k I AM six forty and
Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. You've been listening to
the Bill handle Show.
Speaker 7 (27:25):
Catch my show Monday through Friday six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty signal pleasure being with you. Thank you so
much for inviting us into your lives every morning. Neil
Sebaibra is in for Bill next week, and your long
national nightmare is nearly over. Three out of four Americans,
(00:23):
including sixty percent of Republicans, now saying the Trump administration's
use of the Signal group chat discussing the military strikes.
They say that's a serious problem, especially since the Pentagon
said don't use that. This was from ABC.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
The information was sent on the encrypted messaging app Signal,
which the Pentagon found in twenty twenty one to be
an unauthorized means of communicating sensitive information. Secretary of State
Mark or Rubio says the chat was set up so
Trump's national security team could coordinate communication with members of
Congress and foreign leaders.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
This was a sort of description of what we could
inform our counterparts around the world when the time came
to do so.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Growing calls on Capitol Hill from Democrats for Hegseth to
resign or be fires is that going to happen?
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Lebby Dean is the News Nation correspondent and Lebby joins us. Lebby.
Is there any sign that Hexith is going to resign
or be fired?
Speaker 4 (01:21):
Today is the day if that is the case, because
Hegseth right now is headed to Japan. He was in
the Philippines. He's been doing this by that overseas trip
for a couple of days now ever since the story
broke with the day he left. And then you've got
Waltz who was headed with the Vice President in his
landing shortly in Greenland. So for President Trump to fire
(01:43):
either of these two, to do it while they would
be overseas unlikely. So we head into this weekend with
their heads not on the shopping block here, but certainly
it's been talked about after everything that's happened.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Yeah, unlikely, but it wouldn't be unprecedented because if we recall,
James Comy got fired via tweet while he was not
in DC, although Collmy wasn't handpicked by President Trump either,
whereas these guys are kind of his name is all
over these guys, right, So does that pose a political
issue for him?
Speaker 4 (02:16):
I mean, if the past informs the president here when
it comes to President Trump firing people, it wouldn't be shocking.
I would say from my past experience of covering President Trump,
this would seem to be more of a lenient approach
from him. We've seen him more or less stand completely
behind his national security team, specifically Walt who was in
that cabinet meeting earlier this week and sitting in the
(02:38):
cabinet room rather and Trump was looking him up, despite
him taking full fault for this and then saying the
same of heg Seth as well standing behind them at
this point. But Yeah, as you mentioned, it wouldn't be
a shock if President Trump were to ultimately fire someone.
It's a satellite Lebby.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
Dean is a News Nation correspondent. Lebby. I don't know
about you. You're probably a very professional person. I have
pushed boundaries in my career in the past, and there
have been times that I've been told by the boss.
You know, this is your get out of jail free card.
Is this if the President does stand by these guys
(03:17):
this time, are they basically in double secret probation in
the same way that my boss has said, one more
screw up and you're done.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
Look, I don't think that signal is going to be
a means of communication in the future for either of
these two, at least when it comes to things of
this national security concern and whether this is a one
off and they're getting off this time only to get
in trouble next time. I mean, what is that saying.
It's like first is the worst, second is the best,
(03:44):
or I don't know. There is the possibility, of course,
that they could find themselves in this kind of situation
again and potentially be fired by the president. It is
interesting though Democrats, this is something they ailed against Teg.
Sass from the beginning, the Defense secretary for Trump who
(04:04):
sent the very detailed messages about these bombs being dropped
in Yemen in this signal group chat, and they weious
concerns about his viability in the position given he of
course it was in the military and does have that background,
but less intelligence community experience than some of his counterparts,
(04:25):
and was facing criticism on that front. But I mean,
it's fully they're all fully back to work today. One
headed to green Lend, the other has been overseas, So
I don't see any developments happening today or at least
through the weekend. But you never know when a true
social post is going to come out and everything I've
said has proven move does.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
Is there an effort right now to expedite the news
cycle on this. I saw in the past some administrators
that have said, you know, this has lasted forty two hours,
it was a mistake, let's move on. Let's not give
them the next seventy two hours. I mean, there has
to be This is a headache that continues on for
this White House. I mean, I can't think of too
many other examples where something out of the Trump administration
(05:09):
happens and we discuss it for an entire week. That
is the case with this Signal Group chat app. It
seems like they have not been able to turn the
new cycle as fast as they want to.
Speaker 4 (05:20):
Yeah, it's certainly the case that they would want this
to fade into the background. I don't see that happening
anytime soon. Now that you've got internal investigations happening at
the White House, Congress pressing on this, the Atlantic releasing
more messages. You've got the court battle as well playing
out with DC Judge Boseberg, who is making sure that
these intelligence officials keep these messages. I don't see this
(05:40):
dying down anytime soon, because every day this week that
I've covered this. I mean we're on day five here.
Every day this week i've covered this, something new has developed,
whether that was overnight with last night Boseberg's decision here,
or it was just the release of these messages. I
mean every day there is a new development or a
new comment from an official, which keeps this, of course
in the headlines and a lot of questions moving forward.
(06:02):
I would say about what this looks like for the
administration when it comes to using signal and just their
means of communication as a whole, because this is the
big so called scandal. I mean, it's fair to say
this is pretty scandalous. This is their big that the
first one for the Trump administration this second go around,
(06:23):
and they certainly would like to see it die down.
I'm sure.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Lebby Dean is our News Nation correspondent to talking with
us about the signal chat stuff. You mentioned Judge Bosberg,
who we recognize from He's also the judge that's overseeing
the deportation of the Venezuelan alleged gang members to the
l Salvadorian prison. His rulings have not been favorable for
the Trump administration. Trump has called for him to be
(06:49):
impeached and now he gets assigned this case as well.
Does this give political fodder to claim which hunt.
Speaker 4 (06:56):
Well, that's certainly what President Trump is doing and has
continued to do. But I mean, Boseburg has four cases
now related to the Trumpe administration, so that he's got
this signal group chat one the Alien Enemies Act to
one about the deportation flights as well as the subtle
grant funding freeze, a lot of details of that, and
then also DOGE records is what the other case relates to.
(07:19):
I will point out that, and this is actually how
Boseburg started the hearing yesterday which I listened in to.
I've listened into a few of these hearings with Boseburg.
That one about the immigration flights was incredibly tense, with
Department of Justice officials going back and tools with Boseburg
and Boseburg calling their response is disrespectful. That wasn't the
case during this hearing yesterday with Bosburg. It was certainly
(07:41):
more tame, and you weren't hearing from Department of Justicials
because he was just giving his order. But basically Boseburg
actually started out this hearing by specifying that the court
decides who gets assign these cases, and Boseburg isn't making
those decisions because that is where a lot of the blowback.
And I'm sure he's seen this pushback from the Trump
administration who's claiming that he's assigning himself these cases in
(08:05):
some form or fashion. But yeah, what ended up happening
there was basically this hearing and he told these intelligence
officials who were included in the chat, they need to
maintain these records. It was I believe March eleventh through
fourteenth that he had said, those are the dates that
you have to maintain these records. But what's interesting enough,
(08:25):
and I'm curious to fight out and I will be
asking intelligence officials about is there was on the Signal
chat because I'm very familiar with Signal, I've used it.
On the Signal chat, there was a one week dismissal
of when these would disappear. I mean we're at March
twenty eighth. I'm just curious what's still there. I mean,
of course Goldberg had the screenshots, but I just don't
(08:48):
know how that all works with the Signal platform. And
that's going to be something to look into as well.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Yeah, that's a great question. It's kind of like trying
to retrieve a snapchat once it's gone and are understanding
is way right?
Speaker 4 (09:00):
Save the messages? But how do we save them if
they're already gone? So that's a question. As this, I
mean developed last night, so something that's going to be
developing today I would watch for all right.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Let me Dan NewsNation White House Correspondent. Let me thank
you so much for your insight into that, say for
having me. Yeah, you bet. Of course I've told the
story before, but I don't think i've told on the
morning show, so I'm gonna do it again. First came
to California in twenty twelve and I rolled in. I
(09:34):
worked in San Diego and I rolled in. They were
putting me up at a resort, which was nice until
I got the tax bill on that that was fun.
So I roll up into this resort. It was February
the twentieth, I believe, And as I pull into this resort,
I had left. I was working in Kansas City, and
I left Kansas City. I pulled into this resort, you know,
(09:54):
drove a cross country pull in and as I'm driving
in in February, there's girls standing in the parking lot
in bikinis, and I thought, I'm never leaving California. This
is the most amazing thing ever. So I start working
at this radio station and great stations, still love it,
fantastic people there. And I hear about this high speed
(10:19):
rail project again. This is twenty twelve, so still in
the planning stages, and they said, well, you know, I
was given a little bit of the backstory and I
hadn't heard about it until then, and I'm giving the
backstory and they said, well, the voters approved this eight
billion dollars to go towards starting this high speed rail
and eventually it's going to run from the Bay Area
(10:39):
and eventually it'll go from the Bay Area all the
way to San Diego. But initially they want to get
it from Bay Area and Sacramento to Los Angeles. And
I thought, well, that sounds ambitious, and they said yeah,
and the the projections are already at I don't know
what it was at the time, twenty five billion dollar
(11:00):
something like that. So shortly after I get there, they go, uh, oh,
we're going to need more money. Projections are now up
to thirty billion or forty billion dollars whatever it was,
and I said, I've seen this play out before. I've
been fired from enough stations and enough cities to see
how government waste is ubiquitous. It is not a California problem.
(11:22):
It happens everywhere you have people. It's sort of like
when you go to a buffet and your eyes are
bigger than your stomach. That's what happens. When the politicians
get just an iota of power, they go, we want
to do this grand project, and they want to attach
their names to it. Right, So Governor Brown really wanted
to have this high speed rail. He says, this is
going to be great, and they all push for it.
(11:44):
And you had a bunch of the politicians and Sacramento
padding themselves in the back. This is going to be spectacular.
And I went, wait a minute. The voters approved eight
billion dollars. You're already up to forty or fifty billion dollars.
I said, you mark my words, this is gonna go
up to one hundred billion dollars. And what I didn't
realize is how wrong I was, because we blew past
(12:05):
one hundred billion dollars a long long time ago, long
time ago, and what do we have to show for it?
Raise your hand. If you have ridden the high speed
rail in California? Anybody, anybody? Anybody? Oh? Yeah, we are
well over the initial projections, and not a single person
has ever taken a single ride because there's no train
(12:25):
on any track. And yet the most Bruce Wayne looking
politician in history, our governor, Governor Batman, is now saying, oh,
it's on its way. Off we go.
Speaker 5 (12:40):
As I say we did the railhead, we're starting to
lay track. This thing's starting to get very very real.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
Is it though? You're starting to lay track? Well, good,
because you know you've gotten enough money and the projections
are already at one hundred and twenty five billion dollars,
and lord knows, we'd like to see something out of it.
But where we lay in track? Is it coming out
of the Bay Area? Is it somewhere in Riverside? No? No,
(13:10):
we've spent all this money on the easiest part thus far,
between Bakersfield and Mercet. But wait, there's more. CACRA had
the story.
Speaker 6 (13:21):
Governor Kavin Newsom defending California's high speed rail project on
his latest podcast episode, released Wednesday morning. The project originally
pitched to voters in two thousand and eight, as a
bullet train between La to San Francisco is significantly short
on funds and nowhere near finished.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Yeah, it's barely started.
Speaker 6 (13:40):
The state has so far spent about fourteen billion dollars
and needs more than double that just to finish the
first line between Merced and Bakersfield.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
The first line across the easiest part where they had
to do the least amount of modifications to infrastructure, housing, zoning,
everything else across the central Valley has already bloomed up
to twenty eight billion dollars. Oh, this is this is
going to be tremendous.
Speaker 6 (14:09):
The Trump administration is now reviewing the use of four
billion in federal funds so far.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Four billion. Oh, the fens got off easy on this one.
Speaker 6 (14:18):
Finishing the full route between the Bay Area and southern
California needs at least one hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Yeah, Finishing the full route needs one hundred billion. But
we're spending twenty eight billion on the easiest part. No, no, no, no, no, no, no,
no no. Most of that money has yet to materialize. Yeah,
I mean the end of.
Speaker 5 (14:36):
The day, we've got these constraints that are well established already,
these pre existing constraints and there's not a high speed
railing system that's not enjoyed some popularity and success. Most
at least are wildly popular. It's an experienced no one's
had in the United States of America. At least we're
out there daring.
Speaker 6 (14:53):
But some Democratic lawmakers during a hearing on the project
wednesday had different thoughts.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Yeah, what are they say?
Speaker 7 (14:58):
The definition of insn is doing the same thing over
and over again and expecting a different outcome.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
I always love it when somebody tells me the definition
of insanity. Actually, if you look up the definition of insanity,
that's not it.
Speaker 6 (15:11):
The high speed Rail had not yet submitted its annual report,
which irked Assembly members Wednesday. The state's Legislative Analysts Office
told lawmakers the project needs seven billion dollars by next
June in order to move forward.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Oh is that all just another seven billion? Or else
seven billion or else or else? What or else? Will
have wasted the other? No, this is a fallacy, This
is a sunk cost fallacy. Well, you've already spent eight billion,
or we've already spent fourteen billion. You better give us
(15:47):
another seven or I mean, that's just a waste of
the other fourteen or it's a waste of twenty one
billion total, because you're going to come back and say, well,
we got to have another ten billion, Well, we gotta
have another fifty billion, while we gotta have another hundred billion.
We gotta have another two hundred and fifty billion dollars
and for what so that we can realize the dream
of Governor Choochu No stop. You got to know when
(16:13):
to hold them, you got to know when to fold them,
you got to know when to walk away, and in
this case, you got to run. We saw the protests
going on at southern California schools last year, as well
as a number of other universities across the country, and
now we're getting the crackdown. If you were protesting, you
are on alert. One student at Tufts University was surrounded
(16:37):
by plain clothed officers, cuffed and stuffed in a van.
Now I don't know about you, but if I had
a bunch of randos wearing hoodies and masks that threw
handcuffs on me, I would be pretty sure that I
was being kidnapped. Even if they flashed flashed a badge,
I'd go, you know what, I probably need to call
somebody and make sure that you are who you say
(16:58):
you are, just the same. That's what happened. AB Seniors
had the report, mister secretary.
Speaker 8 (17:02):
A Turkish student in Boston was detained and handcuffed on
the street by playing clothes agents. A year ago, she
wrote an opinion piece about the gas of war. Could
you help us understand what the specific action she took
led to her visa being revoked?
Speaker 1 (17:19):
This is Marco Rubio she's talking to.
Speaker 8 (17:21):
And what was your state department's role in that process?
Speaker 3 (17:24):
Or we revoked her visa? It's an F one visa.
I believe we revoked.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
More like an FU visa. Am I right? Am? I?
Speaker 3 (17:34):
We were voked it and here's why. And I'll say
it again. I said it everywhere. Me be abundantly clear. Okay,
if you go apply for a visa right now anywhere
in the world, let me just send this message out.
If you apply for a visa to enter the United
States and be a student, and you tell us that
the reason why you're coming to the United States is
not just because you want to write op eds, but
because you want to participate in movements that are involved
(17:54):
in doing things like vandalizing universities harassing students, taking over buildings,
creating a rock. We're not going to give you a visa.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
Yeah, But did she and I don't know that she didn't.
But did she vandalize buildings and create a ruckus? Or
is this a guilt by association? Sitch?
Speaker 3 (18:12):
If you lie to us and get a visa and
then enter the United States and with that visa participate
in that sort of activity, We're going to take away
your visa. And once you've lost your visa, Yeah, you're
no longer legally in the United States, And we have
a right, like every country in the world has a
right to remove you from our country. So it's just
that simple.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
Did she commit a crime?
Speaker 3 (18:31):
I think it's crazy. I think it's stupid for any
country in the world to welcome people into their country.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
They're going to go to your universities as visitors. They're
visitors and say.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
I'm going to your universities to start a riot.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Again, some people did riot. That would be ignorant for
me to argue otherwise, did this person were these students
who were committing the violence, the vandalism, that sort of thing.
Were they here on visus or are we just saying, well,
We can't really get them because they're US citizens. We
(19:06):
can get them for vandalism, but we can stick these
other people who were in the crowd, they were nearby,
guilt by association? Is there any evidence that this person
was pro terrorist? In fact, President Trump has said that
they're going to get the pro Hamas students out. Well,
can you be pro Palestinian without being pro Hamas? See,
(19:31):
that's the nuance that were very bad as a society
of understanding, and politicians know that. So what they want
to do is they want to paint this as a
binary choice. You're with us or you're against us and
we're with Israel. And if you're not with us with Israel,
then you are against us and you're with the terrorists.
And yet, is it possible? It's mind blowing here, Is
(19:54):
it possible you could be pro not war, pro Palacetian
and not be pro terrorists? Can you be pro United
States and still think that Israel went too far with
bombing rates. I'm not saying they did or they didn't.
I'm saying can you have that opinion and not be
(20:15):
un American? Or do we need to have some sort
of a committee on Unamerican activities? Maybe that's what we
ought to do. No one's ever tried that before in
this country. Oh, that's right, we did with the communist thing,
but that was in the Listen. That was a long
time ago. That was a mistake we made back in
(20:36):
the fifties when we did the whole Red Scare and
we were hunting for communists. We've evolved since then. We
are no longer the same country that just says are
you a communist? And if you are, there's going to
be hell to pay. We don't do that any longer.
Speaker 9 (20:51):
Have you ever been associated or affiliated with the Chinese
Communist Party?
Speaker 1 (20:54):
Oh crap, that was Josh Hawley. He was talking with
the TikTok guy. I guess we are still doing the
same thing, are you now or have you ever been
associated with Hamas? And even if the answer is no,
we're still going to deport you. But that's what we
can do, and we're very proud of it. It's not
just a toughs also happen at Alabama. ABC's Eric Katursky
(21:16):
was talking.
Speaker 10 (21:16):
About that welcome back. Officials say federal immigration agents have
detained a University of Alabama doctoral student who is a
citizen of Iran. The student is currently being held in
a detention facility, but ICE records don't list where he's
being held or the reason for his detention.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
Well, probably for pro hamasiness.
Speaker 10 (21:39):
This follows the arrests of a Peah student at Tuffs University.
Security video shows the moment the Turkish national who is
in the US on a visa not anymore.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
See, we can just we can just revoke that visa.
We don't even have to tell you we revoked it.
We just revoked visa and now you're here illegally.
Speaker 10 (21:56):
When she was handcuffed by officials Tuesday night while on
her way to Neet friends to break her Ramadan fast
features see right there, She's listed in the ICE database
as incostody and appears to be held at a processing
center in Louisiana. Want to bring an ABC's chief investigative correspondent,
Aaron Koturski to talk more about this, Aaron thinks, for
coming in through here in studio, So what more King
(22:19):
tell us about the student in Alabama.
Speaker 11 (22:21):
We know that he's Iranian, we know that he's a
doctoral student studying some kind of a metallurgy and otherwise
we have got requests out to the Department of Homeland
Security say why did you detain him? And they haven't
responded to us. But the University of Alabama says he
was detained and they are trying to figure out, just
like we are, why where he's being held, what the
(22:42):
circumstances are.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
We just don't know.
Speaker 11 (22:44):
But he's one of a half dozen at least international
students that the administration has detained as they try to
crack down on people at least that we know of
who have been pro Palestinian or part of that activist community.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
Are you now or have you ever been a Crimson
Tide fan? That's good enough for me. Get them out
of here in what has been a wild week. This
has been this last week has been the longest year
in a long time. So we've got the Signal chat app.
We've got a Greenland visit, which we'll talk about coming
(23:22):
up here after eight o'clock. We've got abducting students by
ice who may or may not have been part of
protests and college campuses. And we're also dropping a twenty
five percent taxes tariffs excuse me, on vehicles and parts
that are produced overseas, and other tariffs are set to
(23:45):
go into effect next week as well, because remember we
were gonna have those tariffs that were set up to
go into effect right away February, and then we went up, JK,
it'll be in March. I put them into effect. The
two days later, they're out of effect, but they got
a thirty day reprieve. So here we are. The next
week will be another thirty days. Are we gonna do
(24:06):
this every month or are we gonna say, well, we're
gonna hold off for I mean, we're gonna give ourselves
like three months at some point, or is it gonna
drop down to just two weeks to get it done?
Or are we actually going to see tariffs going to effect.
I was watching NBCLA as they were talking about the
tariffs and how these are gonna hit us in a
number of different places, not just the vehicles either.
Speaker 7 (24:27):
A regular trip to the grocery store for many is
becoming less of a routine.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
Just ask Ameliacal tearists pretty expensive right now.
Speaker 8 (24:35):
I mean, it's just I don't know how a lot
of people can you know.
Speaker 7 (24:39):
Okay, well make it right now, to be honest with you,
with increase on everything. Her trip to this grocery store
off Gary Avenue on Thursday.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
She says, was enough to get by. What do you want?
Speaker 4 (24:50):
I know, palitas and tomatoes.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
That's about it.
Speaker 7 (24:53):
Customers say the hike in everyday goods is impacting their spending.
Soon they will feel another punch to their wallet when
President Donald Trump is expected to add additional tariffs.
Speaker 9 (25:03):
Expectations are our prices are going to go up?
Speaker 1 (25:06):
You see.
Speaker 7 (25:06):
Irvine finance professor Christopher Schwartz says while he believes that
while the economy is strong, the president's tariffs on imports
could cause consumers to step back on their spending habits.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Yeah. And is that as vehicles? If we start throwing
tariffs on the lumber from Canada, if you're trying to
rebuild Palisades Alta Dina, that's going to be more expensive
than it was before. Yeah. And I don't know if
you've noticed already the most expensive place in the country
(25:40):
to live.
Speaker 7 (25:42):
This comes as the White House announced this week a
twenty five percent tariff would be placed on auto imports
to foster domestic manufacturing.
Speaker 9 (25:51):
Most car parks are not manufactured here in the US,
so it doesn't note of a new or an old car.
If you go to your dealership to get a car
fix that Dezza part. There's a high probability that part
is not produced here and the US, and so the
in theory, the price of that would go up.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
Oh crap. Even my old beater has to have new
parts every now and again, and that means it's going
to cost me a little bit more still cheaper to
fix it than it is to buy a new car.
If you're talking about card prices going up four to
twelve thousand dollars. But wait, what about Tesla that's made
in the United States. Surely they're insulated from these tariffs. No,
they're not because a lot of their parts are electronics.
(26:29):
And where do we get our electronics? Yeah, yeah, overseas?
And what else happens? Well, Canada's Prime minister has already
said the United States is no longer a reliable partner.
They're working on retaliatory tariffs. Mexico is trying to figure
out how to stall or evade the auto tariffs. But
you better believe they're going to hit US with retaliatory tariffs. Japan, China,
(26:54):
European nations, all of them likely to hit US with
retaliatory tariff, which means that the teslas will not be
sold at a very high volume over seas, and can
I just point out Greenland doesn't manufacture vehicles, so taking
them over doesn't really help this situation. The Bill handleshow
(27:17):
Chris Maryland for Bill k I AM six forty and
Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. You've been listening to
the Bill handle Show.
Speaker 7 (27:25):
Catch my show Monday through Friday six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
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. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
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!