Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 1/23/25: Elon Musk Civil War With Altman And Trump, CNN Admits Mass Deportation Popular In US

Episode Date: January 23, 2025

Krystal and Saagar discuss Elon Civil war with Sam Altman, CNN says mass deportation popular in the US.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com   Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus.

So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? and subscribe today. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Glott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir.

Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of starts that a little bit, man. We met them at their homes. We met them at the recording studios. Stories matter and it brings a face to it. It makes it real. It really does.

It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here. On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast you, please go to BreakingPoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at BreakingPoints.com. Good morning, everybody. Happy Thursday. Have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? We do. Many interesting things continuing to unfold. So we have a continuation in the war between Sam Altman and Elon Musk. But Trump is kind of undercut by this one as well because Elon has taken shots at his big Stargate project that he announced with great fanfare.

So anyway, there's a lot of drama going on there and also some real concerns about the direction of AI. So we'll show you a lot to do with that. Also going to update you on the latest with regard to immigration, what we know about Trump's plans, what they're moving forward with. Also the polling about how Americans feel about this new, more hardline direction on immigration. So break all of that down for you. Also going to break down for you this controversy over the bishop who spoke at the National Cathedral and the right was very upset about what she had to say. So we'll show you that and show you that controversy, etc. Sager's had a little bit of inside reporting about some pushback, some war between various factions within the Trump

administration, the more sort of like hawkish, neocon, pro-Israel faction versus some of the new people who are being brought on board who maybe have a different view and different direction they want to go. And so that's very interesting. We also got Steve Witkoff sounding off and planning a trip to Gaza. So we'll see what comes of that and where that's all going. You know, there's some troubling indications, but there's also, you know, that's one at least positive indication. So break all of that down for you. We've also got Trump weighing in on his approach to the Russia-Ukraine war. We're trying to read the tea leaves there as best we can.

And we're going to investigate whether there is some social media new censorship going on in the new Trump era. And also a weatherman, weather lady, weather person, I guess. Sure, whatever. Meteorologist. Anyway, a woman, local news station, weather caster, we'll go with that, who was fired because she criticized Elon Musk's salute. We'll leave it at that to avoid Sagar and I having to. Don't drag me back.

Having to wait this long. Don't drag me back. Before we get into any of that, though, thank you guys so much for your support of the show. We're really excited about what we have to bring for you. This year, obviously, there are going to be a million things for us to cover. So it is going to be eventful, if nothing else. Yeah, look, and there's a lot that's in play. I'm going to be talking a lot about that today.

It's really interesting getting some of the inside knowledge and all of that. And I really want to try and share it with some of you. And thank you to everybody who's supporting the show and others. Our ability to be completely independent and also have a little bit of a line, not claiming to have a total line or whatever, on what's going on on the inside, I think is kind of unique. And so that's one of the things that you can help us do here at BreakingPoints.com. We continue to build that out as the Trump administration really starts to take shape and also with the Democratic response and the podcast election and all that. So the narrative is really on our side if we want

to do something interesting over here. So BreakingPoints.com and you can go ahead and support us. But let's get to Stargate because this is AI, one of the stories, Crystal, that we've been wanting to focus on now for quite some time. Fundamentally, probably the thing that will be when the historian looks back at this time period, a lot of the crap that we talk about here, day-to-day, whatever, controversy, none of that is even going to be a footnote. It will be about the big macroeconomic trends and artificial intelligence and the eventual, how it comes to be shaped, the corporate influence and all of that,

as we see here with the development of Stargate, could be a big jump off in that period. Incredibly consequential. And so Trump made this big announcement, counterpoints cover, I'm sure you guys saw this too, that these private companies and investment funds were going to put $500 billion into building out AI-focused data centers in the U.S. One of the companies that was involved in that is OpenAI, headed by Sam Holtman, who was formerly, up until like five minutes ago, major Democratic donor. Actually, full disclosure, he had previously contributed to a project that I ran to try to recruit working-class candidates to run in Democratic primaries. So he was, you know, buddies with Reid Hoffman,

all in on the Democratic side. Once Trump won, suddenly, oh, let me give you a million dollars for the inauguration fund. Here I am at the inauguration singing a very different tune, et cetera. The other piece of the backstory you need to know is that he and Elon are at war. Elon has sued him. They founded OpenAI originally together. They had a falling out. They both have different versions of what that falling out was over. But in any case, they're at war with one another. So let me show you a little bit of Sam Altman at this announcement, really buttering up Trump and doing the whole dance as part of this Stargate reveal. Let's take a listen. To create hundreds of thousands of jobs, to create a new industry centered here, we wouldn't be able to do this without you, Mr. President. And I'm thrilled

that we get to. I think it'll be an exciting project. I think we'll be able to do all of the wonderful things these guys talked about. But the fact that we get to do this in the United States is, I think, wonderful. So thank you very much. First, let me talk to you, Sam, about what this means for AI and the future for the U.S. investment here. This means we can create AI and AGI in the United States of America. It wouldn't have been obvious that this was possible. I think if a different president, it might not have been possible. But we are thrilled to get to do this. And I think it'll be great for America and it's great for the whole world.

Yeah, it's great for the whole world. I'm sure. I'm sure it's great for the world. It's going to be great for you, for sure. And the tech oligarchs who are at the forefront of this. But I don't know if you watched the whole press conference. I did watch the whole press conference. I did actually watch it. Everybody would say, oh my God, President Trump, this is so amazing.

This never would have happened without you, blah, blah, blah. And it is a little odd because there's no indication, at least, that public money is going into this. This is just like businesses who were doing a thing, Trump gets to take credit for and look like he's making this, you know, giant investment, etc., etc. Also an opportunity for them to like kiss the ring and bend the knee and tell him how wonderful and great and brilliant he is, etc., etc. Open AI put out an announcement on Twitter. Let's put this up on the screen. I'll read a little bit of the way that they framed this. They said the Stargate project's a new company intends to invest $500 billion over the next four years. Building new AI infrastructure for open AI in the U.S. will begin deploying $100 billion

immediately. This infrastructure will secure American leadership in AI, create hundreds of thousands of American jobs. I'll believe that when I see it. And generate massive economic benefit for the entire world. This project will not only support the re-industrialization of the United States, quite the opposite actually, but also provide a strategic capability to protect the national security of America and its allies. We don't have this part up here, but they go on to name all the partners. SoftBank, OpenAI, Oracle, and MGX. By the way, MGX is a UAE-based investment fund with huge investments from the Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth Fund. Strange group of bedfellows. Anyway, the whole thing is a little bit odd. But the key part of this is underneath

this big announcement, you know, it's a big Trump initiative, something he's taking credit for. Elon Musk, Trump's first buddy, says they don't actually have the money. So Elon coming in hot, taking a shot, obviously, at Sam. Yes. But also, inadvertently, perhaps, taking a shot at Trump and this, you know, big, glossy announcement that he made there. Yeah, I mean, there's several dimensions to it, obviously, where you have a, basically, Elon is now a White House official. So can we say that? A senior White House official is pouring cold water on Stargate. But Stargate itself is really worth looking at and saying, what the hell is going on here? Because effectively, the way I've come to understand it

is that this is supposed to be a Manhattan project for AI to compete with China. There's only a big difference here, which is it's not being run by the United States government or to the public interest or with a coherent goal involved, and instead is basically being outsourced to the private sector. Now, the real reason why everyone should pay attention is first, let's just look at the colossal amount of money that we're talking about here, $500 billion. Look, I understand here that we can talk every once in a while like $100 billion, $200 billion. $500 billion is half a trillion dollars. For a private corporation or even corporations to be able to come up with that sum is extraordinary. I mean,

just think about that in terms of actual cash and dollars, even over a 10-year period. We've very rarely seen ever such private investments. Now, if that's going to happen, where does that money come from? And that's kind of what Elon is getting at here when he says they don't actually have the money. Now, Satya Nadell, the CEO of Microsoft, has said, I'm good for my $80 billion. But I mean, keep in mind, this is a $2 trillion market cap corporation. Where is OpenAI's money coming from? Even Masa, you know, over at SoftBank, a lot of people probably don't know a lot about SoftBank, but I encourage you to go and read some of the histories of Uber and WeWork where Masa was very, very important in the development of those companies. Masa is literally the guy who told Adam Neumann to do all of this crazy shit over at WeWork. And he was like, the only thing I don't like about you, Adam, this is a direct quote.

He said, the only thing I don't like about you, Adam, is that you're not crazy enough. And he's the one who encouraged him to go from an office space company to we live and we care and, you know, drive a $40 billion company into the ground that eventually gets sold for scraps over to like a private equity giant or something. Yeah, and we'll be taught for years as a corporate cautionary tale. That's who we're talking about here. You know, I guess because I read the news, I'm aware of who these people are. It's really important to first think about where this money is coming from. As you said, the UAE, MASA in the past has taken tons of money from the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund. Do we really want all of this money to be involved in our Manhattan Project? But secondary to that, part of the reason why I'm really concerned about the lack of oversight and where at least, look, somehow in this war, I'm on Ivan's side where I'm like, yeah, I'm not in 48 hours. How amazing. I'm sure they'll work

and all of that. If we put this stuff together, you're looking at it literally like an Elysium led society. And they're not even shy about saying it all out loud. That's the crazy part. That's all so well said. And that's not to say that there aren't potential benefits to society from AI. But as we'll get to in a minute, you also should look like this technology already exists. So we should also look at the way it's already being deployed. And many of the ways it's already being deployed are to eliminate jobs, make your health care worse, kill people in kill Palestinians in Gaza. So it's, you know, listen, anytime you put the corporate profit motive at the center of innovation, then definitionally the benefit of humanity is not going to be the primary goal here. So the fact that it is being celebrated and so on, it is all really wild. Just to take you quickly through the Elon Musk, Sam Altman drama, because of course, human drama is

always interesting. And it's also another indication of the way all of these tech oligarch types are, even if they were previously totally on board with the Democratic brand, now completely bending the knee and sucking up to Trump because that's where power is, that's where the money is, et cetera. Let's put this up on the screen, a little bit of this back and forth. So Elon says, hey, they don't actually have the money. By the way, Elon also self-interested here, has his own AI developments, et cetera. Sam Altman chimes in, Elon, I genuinely respect your accomplishments and I think you're the most inspiring entrepreneur of our time. Because again again, he sees who has power. And Elon Musk has a lot of position and power.

Let's put the next piece up on the screen. So Elon says, SoftBank has well under $10 billion secured. I have that on good authority. Sam says, wrong as you surely know. Want to come visit the first site already underway? This is great for the country. I realize what is great for the country. I realize what is great for the country isn't always what's optimal for your companies, but in your new role, I hope you'll

mostly put America first. Let's put the next piece up on the screen. As this continues, you had someone who pointed out online, basically, like in one tweet, Sam being like, oh my God, Elon's so amazing. And then in another tweet, you know, criticizing him. And Sam says, well, both sentiments are true. I don't think he's a nice person or treating us fairly, but you have to respect the guy. And he pushes all of us to be more ambitious. Elon again chimes in, so the next one up on the screen, pointing out, as I recently did, that Sam was, until five seconds ago, totally tied in with the Democratic. Yeah, he's hugely big.

Like what? With the Democratic machine. Yeah. I mean, I'm telling you, he put significant financial resources into the Democratic Party and various Democratic Party projects. Right. So you got Cernovich here pointing out that Sam was involved with Reid Hoffman, who was involved with what he describes as

lawfare against Trump. Sam said, very few people, this was back 12, 15, 21, very few people realized just how much Reid Hoffman did and spent to stop Trump from getting reelected. It seems reasonably likely to me that Trump would still be in office without its efforts. Thank you, Reid. And Elon quote tweets all of that and says, true. So, I mean, the thing that's funny to me, too, is like, it's not like MAGA is even buying this new act from Sam Altman. It's just so shameless to completely change your tune and change your colors on a dime now that there's a new regime in power and a new vibe out there, and you want to secure these partnerships and, you know, whatever deregulatory stuff you want and be hand to the can, not be subject to any sort of retaliation now that you've got Elon and you're at war with Elon, et cetera. So it's just so, this is one of the most brazen and shameless possible examples. I mean, Zuckerberg is really

up there too, given how much he changes on the dime. None of these people really ultimately believe anything. They're just in it for themselves and trying to position themselves in the best possible, most self-interested way. I would put Zuck at the top of the list and Sam Altman. That would be your ranking? I mean, it's just so ridiculous. It's just too much.

It really is. It's too much. I just can't handle it all sometimes. But Sam Altman is definitely up there as well. Like you said, this is a lifelong Democrat guy who put tens of millions at the least, possibly hundreds, who even knows into the Democratic machine over the last several years. Completely switches about how incredible Trump is. But really, the game for Zuck and Altman are all the same. Remember, Sam Altman, you know, even though he might appear to be like some meek, mild-mannered guy, this is a person who took a nonprofit and has turned it into a hundred and somethings of

billions of dollar company who himself is now worth untold sums, transferred this NGO nonprofit into a partnership with Microsoft. I mean, he took the entire idea of OpenAI is really one I could get behind, right? It's like, okay, this is going to be a fundamentally transformative technology. We're going to make sure this technology is open source, is not profit-driven, and is for the benefit of humanity. Great.

Well, the problem is they strike gold with ChatGPT, and they're like, oh, there's a lot of money to be made here. License it off to Microsoft. Now you're turning it into a major service, and DropSight has new breaking news just that I just saw this morning. Guess who one of the top customers for Microsoft's AI services is right now at this point in time? Oh, that would be the Israeli military. So, you know, all of your, oh, I'm going to do good for humanity and just be the best thing ever for mankind. What they're actually using the tech for right now is to kill Palestinian civilians en masse. And we, of course, talked here about the 972 magazine reporting about the way that AI program was used

to have algorithmically generate this mass number of targets, many of them including civilian infrastructure, et cetera. So those are the sorts of things AI is being deployed for right now today. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left.

In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and reexamining the culture of fatphobia

that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. The summer of 1993 was one of the best of my life.

I'm journalist Jeff Perlman, and this is Rick Jervis. We were interns at the Nashville Tennessean, but the most unforgettable part? Our roommate, Reggie Payne, from Oakland, sports editor and aspiring rapper. And his stage name? Sexy Sweat. In 2020, I editor and aspiring rapper. And his stage name? Sexy Sweat. In 2020, I had a simple idea.

Let's find Reggie. We searched everywhere, but Reggie was gone. In February 2020, Reggie was having a diabetic episode. His mom called 911. Police cuffed him face down. He slipped into a coma and died. I'm like thanking you. But then I see my son's not moving. No headlines, no outrage, just silence.

So we started digging and uncovered city officials bent on protecting their own. Listen to Finding Sexy Sweat coming June 19th on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast Hell and Gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder.

I'm Katherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her. And it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still

out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. We mentioned a couple of days ago,

but on January 18th, members of OpenAI apparently had some closed-door briefings with U.S. officials. Let's put this up there on the screen from Axios, which alludes to some of it. They say, OpenAI product chief says that the world is on the verge of AI agents. Now, according to Axios, which alludes to some of it. They say, OpenAI product chief says that the world is on the verge of AI agents. Now, according to Axios, members of OpenAI and others are poised to announce a next-level breakthrough that will unleash PhD-level super agents to do complex human tasks. Such a breakthrough would push generative AI from a fun, cool, aspirational tool to a true replacement for human workers. This is apparently something that has already been developed inside the company and that was briefed to senior members of the Trump

administration in terms of a warning about what is coming. Now, when we pair that with now the illusions of all of these people, Larry Ellison for replacement, for him again saying we're going to have mRNA vaccines, like basically talking in a full scope of replacement of technology with any human check, and also more importantly for Stargate here, is no government or policy check. That's going to be the most important. And honestly, there's some huge battle lines here to be drawn. Because part of the thing that Stargate reveals to all of us is the scale and the cost of compute with open AI, or with AI in general. So we could say it's nice. It's like, oh yeah, we want open AI's theory and

or open source. But the truth is, is that the development of these models costs tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars to build these data centers, NVIDIA, the amount of power that they consume, it could go on forever. So the scale of the cost means that it naturally lends itself to existing technological monopolies, people like Facebook, Google, Amazon, and others who have hundreds of billions of dollars in profits that they can burn just to develop the new future technology. So they're the ones who are getting to decide all of our future. And as we all saw, like with Google Gemini, with the crazy censorship going on, as we see also if you have political questions to ask to chat GPT, this has real scale implications for if you're going to

replace humans, you know, humans are complex systems, complex theories in terms of our ability to intuit what is maybe good and bad and to debate democratically about whether this is something that we all even want. And they're the ones who are very openly are pursuing like transhumanism and complete replacement of the human being in the U.S. economy. Like openly. Yeah. Like they openly. I mean, we're about to show it to you.

Talk about that being their goal. And I think that is the most important point is I really want, it sounds insane, but I really want people to reckon with the fact that a really quite small number of people, a handful of mostly billionaires, self-interested billionaires, are deciding things that will be just immeasurably consequential to the future of humanity. And especially for workers, like that is a really important piece right now, is, I mean, they talk openly about wanting to replace all of the human labor force. And this is happening behind closed doors. Zero Democratic input. I mean, at this point, I'm not particularly hopeful that there's even a chance to turn it back.

Because a lot of this has already, a lot of the direction has kind of already been set. That this is all happening with a handful of elites with no democratic input whatsoever. And it is deeply, deeply troubling. So here is the anthropic CEO talking about how the thing he's happy about with AI is that it will render all humans useless ultimately if he accomplishes his goal. Let's take a listen to that. I don't know exactly when it'll come. I don't know if it'll be 2027. I think it's plausible it could be longer than that. I don't think it will be a whole bunch longer than that when AI systems are better than humans at almost everything, better than almost all humans at almost everything, and then eventually better all humans at everything. Even robotics. We make good enough AI systems, they'll enable us to make better robots.

And so when that happens, we will need to have a conversation at places like this, right? At places like this event about, you know, how do we organize our economy, right? How do humans find meaning, right? There are a lot of assumptions we've made when humans were the most intelligent species on the planet that are going to be invalidated by what's happening with AI. And I think the only good thing about it is that we'll all be in the same boat. I'm actually afraid of the world where 30% of human labor becomes fully automated by AI and the other 70%, that's going to cause this just incredible class war between the groups that have been and the groups that haven't been. If we're all in the same boat. So, I mean, listen, maybe they're high on their own supply,

and this is preposterous, and it's never going to be this transformational thing that they think. But he's like, oh, when it happens, we'll have that conversation. Maybe we should have that conversation now. Whether, to your point, we even are interested in moving in a direction where all human labor is irrelevant and that being a concerted goal now being led, pushed by our government, but led by a bunch of self-interested corporate oligarchs with driven by a profit motive.

Maybe that's something we should be talking about right now instead of, you know, years down the road when it is far too late to change anything. Yeah, absolutely. And not only that, you had these images here of like what AI is currently better at humans for. So let's put those on the screen, please. Just to give everybody an example, you say Amazon used AI to automatically fire low productivity workers, Lavender, the AI machine directing Israel's bombing spree in Gaza, and UnitedHealth uses faulty AI to deny elderly patients medically necessary coverage, lawsuit claim. The point is, is that any large-scale organization, either bureaucratic or corporate, which relies on data to make, quote unquote, better decisions, and by better, they mean increasing the bottom line, is something that AI is really good at. If you've ever used,

I use it all the time, you know, whenever I'm trying to calculate a budget or something like that, or doing financial projections, looking at like retirement savings, it's really good at crunching big amounts of data where it would have taken me hours in Excel to do something like that. It can build me a model in seconds. It's like, well, now imagine that at scale, but for what end and what purpose? And that's exactly the issue, is when you really see what's happening.

China is a very good example. They use AI, facial recognition, all of that, to increase censorship and citizen control. It's really good at that by being able to, remember, in China, they're able to predict almost with 99% accuracy based off of their cameras to surveil the entire population and keep people on their best behavior. You can actually watch videos online of people crossing the crosswalks and they're being identified with their name and their social credit score and all of that that pops up. It's out there. It's open.

We saw a lot of that during COVID. That is the dream of the security state and of the corporate, you know, the big corporations, because it's very good at increasing profit. The question is, is about what about all of us? And it's our country. We should be able to get to decide. That's exactly right. And that technology is also deployed in the U.S. and not just at airports. But there was an example I think we talked about on the show of someone who was wrongfully arrested, accused of, I think, stealing like a purse or something like that based on this facial recognition technology. No other evidence than that. It wasn't they got the wrong guy. It wasn't even though it wasn't the right person. He hadn't even been in the state and they arrested him and he was held for quite a while under, you know, false, like under just something that was totally wrong andison talking about how AI will make sure that, quote, citizens will be on their best behavior. Let's take a listen.

The police will be on their best behavior because we're constantly recording, watching and recording everything that's going on. Citizens will be on their best behavior because we're constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on. Citizens will be on their best behavior because we're constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on. And it's unimpeachable. The cars have cameras on them. I think we have a squad car here someplace. But those kind of applications using AI, if we can use AI, and we're using AI to monitor the video. So if that altercation had occurred in Memphis, the chief of police would be immediately notified. You guys want that? Do you want it? Do you want to at least be able to have some input into whether or not that's the direction you want the society to go in? And so, you know, what I really want

people to understand is that a lot of the actions and the posturing that you see from these tech barons, what it really is about is AI development. The amount of money that's at stake, the amount of prestige that is at stake. Some of these people, it they will be immortal because they'll be able to use AGI to upload their consciousness to the cloud and live forever. I mean, it really has this like cult-like religious dimension, not to mention massive billions, trillions of dollars at stake. And so to bring it back to the beginning here, when you see Sam Altman do a political 180 like that and give Trump a million dollars at the inauguration, oh my God, Mr. Trump, thank you so much, you're so amazing, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That's what it is really all about. The H-1B fight, too.

Oh, huge. This is the real ballgame here. So keep your eye on these developments because they could end up being truly the most consequential generational type developments that shape all of our future for better or for worse. I am also hoping that this is an area where Elon can be helpful and just be like, just so you know, Mr. President, Sam Altman is, you know, look at his track record. Big Democrat, has gone from nonprofit and talking greatly about humanity to enriching himself and Microsoft and turning it into the greatest big data tool. How do you think Trump, though, likes him undercutting him on this and being like, they don't have the money? I don't know.

Yeah, I'm actually curious to see how that is all. Because that was pretty bold. It's incredibly. And, you know, in some sense it's nice because this is an OG Elon issue. And, you know, maybe we wouldn't be even able to talk about it or whatever if he wasn't able to get behind it. This is, again, where some of the battle lines are not so clear. For example, like you have Andreessen and his

people being much more in favor of free and open, like open source AI. And Elon is kind of like that, even though he's got Grok going on. But Altman and Satya Nadella and all those, and Larry Ellison, et cetera, they don't care about, they don't want open source. They want all the money for themselves. They want the data. Obviously, NVIDIA and these other companies. I mean, we didn't have time to get into this, but there was this huge thing behind the scenes where the Biden administration in the very, very last days made it more difficult to export chips to China. And NVIDIA was openly campaigning against it because they care about money.

Like, even though this is the company on our soil manufactured in Taiwan, all right? So they don't care about the geopolitics. And even though their stock is up, what, by like 10,000% or whatever, they want even more. They need to keep this thing going, the money train. And so this is where the Democratic input and all of that is really,

really important. And I am curious to see how the White House is going to handle some of this, because already you see major MAGA skepticism, not just over Sam Altman, but that clip of Larry Ellison talking about, we're going to be able to have mRNA vaccines. Like, yeah, good luck. Good luck, you know, telling people that. Or look, Trump was elected, you know, with the most working class Republican coalition literally ever. Do you think those guys in the Rio Grande Valley who are working, you know, working class or the guys in the Permian Basin who are sitting there like, you know, like pumping oil. They really want to be replaced, you know, by machine. Like, no, this is a very common concern. Anybody who doesn't have a college degree, which is 62% of the U.S. population is in danger. And actually the crazy thing about AI is it also means that people with college degrees who are entry level.

Even sooner probably than the blue collar workers. Are also really vulnerable to all of this. So unless you're super rich, you should be afraid. And even if you are, they might be able to take that from you too. And again, maybe they are full of it and high on their own supply. And they will never achieve their dreams and goals and ambitions. It will never come to be what they think. But I want you to understand their goal is to replace you. That is what this money is about. That is the goal. As explicitly stated by them at times,

that's what they're trying to do here is to replace your labor and make you completely irrelevant. And this is all being decided by a few oligarchs behind closed doors with hundreds of billions of dollars to throw at it. So good luck, humanity. Yeah. I really do think this will be one of the central stories of the Trump administration. And it will, there's going to be some big democratic questions that actually have to happen here. And when the scale and the fights of this come, you know, really, I think in a couple of years this will really crescendo too, just because that's when the alleged breakthroughs and all of that will actually know a little bit whether they were bluffing or not.

The geopolitics are going to get real messy because it's January 23rd. Tariffs and all that can come as soon as February 1st and maybe all the way up until March. But all of that is going to have significant impact on this. And then bigger questions, too, about who's coming up with all this money? Is this Saudi money? A UAE money? I mean, I don't remember the Saudis or, I don't know, a similar power, super rich nation in World War II investing in the Manhattan Project. You know, I think that's bad, actually. Right? So let's think about that, too. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy

bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and re-examining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today.

The summer of 1993 was one of the best of my life. I'm journalist Jeff Perlman, and this is Rick Jervis. We were interns at the Nashville Tennessean, but the most unforgettable part? Our roommate, Reggie Payne, from Oakland, sports editor and aspiring rapper. And his stage name? Sexy Sweat. In 2020, I had a simple idea. Let's find Reggie. We searched everywhere, but Reggie was gone. In February 2020, Reggie was having a diabetic episode. His mom called 911. Police cuffed him face down.

He slipped into a coma and died. I'm like thanking you. But then I see my son's not moving. No headlines, no outrage, just silence. So we started digging and uncovered city officials bent on protecting their own. Listen to Finding Sexy Sweat coming June 19th on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend.

I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her. And it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned

as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for.

If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's get to immigration. There's been a number of moves in the last 72 hours, which have really show how much of a different political landscape that we're in. First and foremost was this. Let's put it up there on the screen. The Lakin-Riley Act has now passed the House of Representatives. The vote was 263 to 156. 46 Democrats joined with every Republican

to support that bill. And it will now be the very first bill that President Trump will sign into law, just in terms of how you guys can see the vibe shift. The Lincoln-Riley Act, as a reminder, is one that allows the federal government to deport individuals, illegal immigrants who are here who have been charged with a crime, even a misdemeanor offense. It requires, it's a little different than that. It requires them to detain undocumented immigrants even before they're tried, even before they're convicted.

So if they're accused of a crime, even something low-level like shoplifting or something like that, then they are required to detain them and to expedite their deportation. So that's what the bill does. Right. That's legal standard and not previously existed. You know what's crazy? Because there's no due process. Oh, right. Due process applies to who? U.S. citizens. Right. Forgot about that. But if we think about how different that this change is, it's the first bipartisan piece of immigration legislation that has passed the U.S. Congress in almost 20 years just to give people the scale of how much of a change that has now happened. So that's crazy, first and foremost. Past the Senate, the House of Representatives, the 46 Democrats joining on is a little bit, you know, it makes sense, but it's not like it's a big part of the coalition. The crazy part is it was enough to get

a filibuster-proof majority through the Senate. That's actually the big hurdle that happened. So Trump will sign that piece of legislation into law. Let's continue here. Let's go to the next part just to show people who voted for the bill. So you can actually see all of the states. I mean, it really does go the gamut in terms of both the House Democrats, people like Josh Gottheimer from New Jersey. By the way, Crystal, I don't know if you know this. He's been passing around packets of salt around the House because he's so enthusiastic. Well, he's going to get his way. The Republicans support him, too.

Well, he gives them the immigration thing, and then maybe they'll give him an increase in the salt cap for his rich constituents. I mean, yeah, you've got him. You've got Richie Torres on there. Cuellar. What's that? Who are some other high-profile folks here? Cuellar's there. That makes sense, though, right?

Because he's from South Dakota. Well, and Amino's also right-wing, consistently sort of right-wing. So my new congressman, Congressman Vindman. Oh, no. I didn't know he was your rep. Signed on to this one, Sagar. So he's an ally with you in this one. Terry Sewell, she's an African-American woman, congressman from

Alabama. Jared Golden, who also is one who's kind of like, I don't know, his politics are a little hard to describe. Lucy McBath. Lakin Riley was from Georgia. So you had a number of Georgia members here, plus both Georgia senators, Warnock and Ossoff, both voted for it as well. Right. Let's continue along that. There has been a glut of polling now after the election around immigration and some of the individual actions. And mass deportation in particular has been one that's been polled, but also all of kind of the sub ideas of immigration running from ending birthright citizenship up to just deporting illegal immigrants who came here under the Biden administration. CNN's Harry Enten broke some of that down. Some of it is popular. Some of it is very unpopular. Let's take a listen. Deporting all immigrants who are here illegally, 55 percent

of the New York Times, Marquette, 64%, CBS News, 57%, ABC News with a slightly different question, 56%. So what you're seeing essentially here is a very clear indication that a majority of Americans, in fact, when they're asked this blunt question, which I believe gets at the underlying feelings, do in fact want to deport all immigrants who are here illegally. There's no arguing with these different numbers because they're all essentially the same across four different pollsters. You go back to 2015, I'm going to come to your side of the screen. It was 42%. Hello. Go to 2016. It was 36%. Look at where we are now. This was taken at the end of last year, 56%. This is 20 points higher than it was just before Trump got into office the first time. There you go. That's as clear as day

in terms of mass deportation. But like I said, I've got to present all sides of the picture. Birthright citizenship, though, is significantly underwater, ending birthright citizenship. What I mean, one of those executive orders that Donald Trump signed on the first day of office.

Let's take a listen to Harry on that. I mean, look, I think Donald Trump is, by pushing policies like this, is just trying to eliminate his honeymoon period completely because this is just not a popular policy. Embirthright citizenship for children born to immigrants illegally here. Look at this. Just 35% support.

The clear majority, 53% oppose. And I've looked at multiple polls, looked at the question, asked multiple different ways. If anything, this undersells the opposition by a little bit. If you don't, in fact, mention for children born to immigrants here legally and just ask about ending birthright citizenship, the opposition shoots all the way up to about 70%. But this 53% is clearly indicative of a country that does not want to end birthright citizenship. Simply put, this is not a popular policy. And if Donald Trump pushes policies like this, his honeymoon period will squeeze

and be even shorter than it was back in 2017. Okay, have opinion. So you can see there that definitely opinion runs the gamut. And it also shows you it's not necessarily as rosy as I might like it to be. Let's put this up there from the New York Times because they also did a good job of breaking down

each one of these individual questions. So for example, which of the following comes closest to your opinion about our nation's political system? It has been broken for decades. It has been broken only for the last few years. It is not broken. I can report that only 9% of US adults say it is not broken.

I need to meet these people. I know, I want to interview those folks. But on immigration actually is where things get really interesting. So from the New York Times, do you support or oppose each of the following? Deporting immigrants who are here illegally and have criminal records, 87%, 10% oppose. Deporting immigrants who are here illegally and arrived over the last four years, 63%, 33% oppose. Deporting all immigrants who are here illegally, aka mass deportation, 55%, 42% oppose. Then ending birthright citizenship for born to immigrants who are here illegally is 41%. And then finally, the least popular one is ending protection from

deportation for immigrants who were children when they entered the US illegally, otherwise known as DACA recipients and or dreamers. So you can see here that what Trump, I believe, has happened, and from my speaking, people who are around the administration, is they're trying to flood the zone strategy. So what do you do when you're doing something unpopular? You also need to do something that's really popular. So they are trying to keep it so that the conversation is not around any one issue, but it's just a flood of executive orders and a major change to the status quo. That's where mass deportation and some of the actions we're about to talk about really come into play, in addition to things like the Lakin-Riley

Act. But really what I see is a basic collapse of the democratic argument around immigration. I mean, I'm happy to see it, but it is really interesting because I think it just demonstrates how fake democratic opposition has been on this issue now for so long. It's like we've talked about, I mean, maybe this is where we can find some common ground. It's like, people don't believe anything. You went from 2018 weeping outside of these, you know, deportation camps or whatever and the screeching and just, oh, the fascism argument to voting for the Lake and Riley Act, a position that you all candidate on that stage opposed what is now being passed in the Lake and Riley Act, which is passed to a super majority through the Senate and through the House of Representatives to send to Donald Trump's desk here. So what's happening exactly with that? Are we just, we're all supposed to have amnesia? Like, come on.

They're cowards by and large. Like, obviously there are, you know, there are some Democrats who, there are most of the Democrats are opposed to this, blah, blah, blah. But certainly the level of consistent opposition to Trump immigration hawkishness is gone. It's gone. I mean, and this happened even before Trump was elected. You remember, they decided like, oh, we're going to show the Republicans, we're going to get behind this like hawkish border security only bill with no pathway to citizenship. We're going to show the Republicans, we're going to get behind this hawkish border security only bill with no pathway to citizenship. We're going to show them that we're the ones who are really tough on the border. I mean, think about how much Kamala Harris positioned herself as like, I'm the only person here who's prosecuted transnational gangs. I'm the real border hawk,

blah, blah, blah. So, I mean, the bottom line is that they are mostly cowards who don't really, many of them, have their own ideology or have things that they're willing to fight for even when it's a little uncomfortable or even when at that particular political moment infects, you know, corners of both parties, but notably not Trump. Trump is willing to like bulldozer through whatever he wants to, even if, you know, ending birthright citizenship is dramatically unpopular, he's going to go ahead and do it. Even hardening J6ers who beat cops, obviously wildly unpopular, but he'll just bulldoze through and do it. And, you know, on the neoliberal brain says basically, like, I don't have any values of my own. I outsource all of my thinking to markets and polls. And the extension, the political ideology extension of that is quote unquote popularism, where it's just, let me, rather than having my own like vision and view of the world, I'm going to take a poll and I'm going to treat

that poll as gospel as to what people think and where they are. And I'm just going to cater to that in the focus groups, whatever. It is a completely failed way of doing politics. And this is what I've been trying to shout from the rooftops. And, you know, two people who are very different ideologically, who seem to understand this are number one, Donald Trump, who will just relentlessly push his view and his vision of the world, however it polls and however people may, you know, complain about it. And Bernie Sanders, who has his own very specific and clear-cut vision of the world and isn't buffeted around by, oh, a poll says this today or a poll says that last week or,

oh, it's a little uncomfortable, et cetera, et cetera. And guess what? People respect that. And that's how, if you care about actually implementing your principles and ideology, you have to be a leader and make the case to people and push them to your position. And that's what Republicans on mass deportation have successfully done. And specifically, Donald Trump has successfully done. Part of that is, yes, the reality of more people coming to the border, although at this particular moment in this drop happened even before the election, we're at like a five-year low in terms of number of illegal crossings. But, you know, there was the reality of migrants getting bused to cities, et cetera, et cetera.

And it was also Democrats abandoning the principles that five seconds ago they claimed they stood by. So, of course, the public's going to look and go, oh, well, both parties basically agree that this whole immigration thing is like a real problem. These migrants are a big issue. So where do you think the polling is going to go? So this is the piece, the part of politics that liberal Democrats are fundamentally incapable of really wrapping their heads around. You have to be a leader. People's opinions are not set in stone. I mean, even the immigration, like polling that we're showing you right now, which put the AP poll up on the screen as well. It's not, you know, it depends on how people are asked the question and it depends on how you frame it

and what particular part of the policy you're asking about. Most people are not like hardcore ideologues the way that, frankly, you and I are, Sagar. I agree. Most people are like, you know, it depends on kind of the vibes and the mood and what they heard and how the questions asked, et cetera. You can move people and change public opinion. So in this poll, about four in ten American adults support deporting all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.

And a similar share are opposed. So it's pretty much like 50-50 here or 40-40 and I guess the other 20% like, eh, I don't know. But another, they tested another policy that it was just announced that they're lifting the restrictions on deportations from, quote, unquote, sensitive places. That's places like churches and school. Wildly unpopular to do that. Only 20 percent support arresting immigrants at church. 18 percent support, you know, pulling kids out of school to deport them. Relatively few Americans, only three in 10 in this particular poll, somewhat or strongly favor changing the Constitution. So kids born in the U.S. are not automatically granted citizenship. That's the birthright citizenship thing that we were talking about. So there is, even within the

Trump policy right now, if Democrats decided to have a principle, there are plenty of things to go after. But to your point, Sagar, the flood the zone strategy is not just to try to counterbalance the things that are unpopular with the things that are popular. It's also to try to keep the opposition from settling on one consistent attack and to keep them sort of like scattered. And, you know, the crazy thing to me is like, you know, looking at a political party is they, a lot of these executive orders that he signed. It's not like they were a surprise. Many of them were in Project 2025. Many of them are things that he's been advertised and have been leaked to the press for weeks and weeks now.

And where is there is really no consistent, like sort of unified Democratic plan to attack any of these things right now, let alone immigration. So anyway, that was a long story about like sort of my political, you know, meta political views and how these things work. But the Republicans wanted to make the country more nativist and more hawkish on immigration. They did that and the Democratic opposition completely collapsed. And not only did they lose the battle on the issue, but they also showed themselves to be fundamentally unprincipled. Yes, I agree with half of that in terms of they are unprincipled. As I always say, I think reality played a role. I think reality played a role.

Fair enough. But I'm saying Biden was a huge part of it. He changed the immigration status quo more than any president in modern American history in terms of the number of illegals who entered under his watch. So, okay, yeah, of course that's going to radically change the way it is. I mean, you know, it's funny if you look at support for mass deportation, it was underwater in 2016 as Harry played, even with Republicans. People were not bought in. Yeah. But when you have the border, basically have 10 million people who come here illegally in this four-year period, well, yeah, that that's gonna completely change. Trump also played a big

role in that. The status quo change on top of the argument, it basically aligned perfectly then with also the popular vote and then the collapse of democratic argumentation means that they are, I mean, people who are immigration restrictionists like myself have never been in a more powerful position. This went from a fringe position of Stephen Miller and Jeff Sessions in 2015, 10 years ago, one member of the United States Senate and a guy named Stephen Miller

to the policy of the United States government. And here's what I want people to understand. That position was wildly unpopular at the time. Did that make them go, oh, we can't. We just got to, we got to do, you know, we got to do a Gang of Eight immigration. We got to move to the left on this. We got to accept him. Killing Gang of Eight was a part of that.

No, it did not. Did not cause the Stephen Millers and the Steve Bannons and the Donald Trumps and the Jeff Sessions of the world to suddenly change their position and bend to the current political moment. Instead, they made it a project of over years pushing a consistent vision and message. And guess what? You're right, Sagar. They won. And you can see Democratic's pathetic, like just complete capitulation to this worldview. Now, what I would say is the caution is that after Trump was elected and began implementing, you know, child separation policy, and we had those, you know, horrific, like I would say, cruel images coming out from the detention center, kids being intentionally

taken away from their parents, et cetera, and orphaned in certain instances. And the public had a revulsion to that. The support for those immigration policies dropped even further so that there was the lowest level we've had in the past number of decades for hawkish immigration policy that we've seen. And that's what Democrats responded to in that 2020 primary and why they were all in a very different place was because the polling was in a very different place at that point. So there is a risk here because they are planning on, you know, they got rid of the restrictions on the pulling people out of church or pulling kids out of school. Obviously, child separation is going to be back.

They actively—well, I don't think you would disagree with this. They actively want some of those images that are aggressive and unsettling and cruel and all of those things because part of the goal is they don't have the resources to deport everyone who's in the country. So what part of their ideology is, is you want to scare people into number one, not coming, and number two, quote unquote, self-deporting. Well, that's already working, actually. Already we see images from the border where people are like, without CBP1, it's never going to happen. I should just go back. I actually just read a BBC article about it. Those are people who are trying to come, who are trying to follow a legal process. So yeah, if there's no legal process, they're like, okay. Yeah, I mean, I think it's great. It's like, well, if you can go back,

you weren't really fearing for your life, were you? It's not so untenable. Let's put this up there on the screen. Yeah, fine. Go make your own country great again. We wish you the best. Let's put the AP up on the screen. The Pentagon is sending up 1,500 active duty troops to help secure the U.S.-Mexico border. That will be in addition to the 2,300 troops that President Biden sent actually to the border. It's actually less than Biden, ironically. These troops apparently will be helping with some ISR and a few other things. There are a lot of legal restrictions that apply to active duty U.S. military troops operating in the United States. They can't actually participate in law enforcement. All they can really do is support it.

That's a little unclear. Well, in terms of, so the number is roughly equivalent to what Biden sent in terms of active duty troops. Biden used them purely in those support roles that, you know, are more sort of clear cut in terms of, you don't want to run afoul of posse comitatus, which is a restriction on you can't have the military doing domestic law enforcement effectively. But Trump is declaring a national border emergency. And the Wall Street Journal is reporting that part of the reason for doing that is to try to get around those laws that prohibit troops from engaging in law enforcement functions. So even though it's the same roughly number of people, the goal and the plan in terms of how they're used is quite different. Now, that will certainly face legal

obstacles, and it's yet to be seen whether Trump actually, you know, deploys them in that way where they would be the ones detaining migrants and, you know, holding them and rounding them up and all those sorts of things, which normally has been completely out of bounds. But the declaration of a national emergency, which says, oh, this is a national security issue, ergo, I can use my military. Part of the goal is to directly enlist the military in those sorts of typically law enforcement functions. A lot of this is also just because the Border Patrol, there's a lot of funding problems. That's all controlled by Congress.

The exact number of the people that they're allowed to hire. So if you do even want to change the status quo, they don't even have the employees at ICE, at Border Patrol, at DHS. So it would require, you know, not just, it would require basically a bipartisan act of Congress to change that status quo. Let's go to the next one. Here is a change in policy. We had previewed some of this where they say U.S. border agents have instructed to summarily deport migrants without asylum hearings. What they have done is they have resurrected that Title 42 law of public health concern and 212F that allows the presidents to suspend the entry of foreigners whose entry is

deemed to be detrimental because of public health concerns. This was one that the Biden administration used for the first, what was it, two years, I think? The first two years of the Biden administration with COVID as a justification. Trump had put it in place and they maintained it. They maintained the policy going forward. It's a public, yeah, the document cite the public health related 212F. It applies to, quote, aliens that have traveled through a country with a communicable disease. And given that there are communicable diseases in Guatemala, Mexico, and Central America, it's pretty easy to justify. It's basically just a legal workaround

to enforce the remain in Mexico policy as the only viable path for asylum status in the United States. And what it means is that not only will there be deportations to Mexico, but remain in Mexico requires these people to remain in Mexico, as it means, as they adjudicate their asylum claim only after being legally approved are they allowed to enter the United States. That's part of the reason why, you know, you were saying that there has been a drop-off, but the drop-off from the drop-off is even crazier. So the day before Donald Trump took the office, 4,000 people entered the United States under this CBP1 asylum app. It's dropped to 500. So we're talking about like, what is that? An eight-fold decrease in the span of two days for what the policy looks like

in practice. This, I want to be clear, will all face insane legal scrutiny. So for anyone who thinks that this is policy, law of the land, yeah, that's not how it works. Title 42 and all that will make its way to SCOTUS, I'm sure, very soon. That's what the immigration groups are doing to Biden. The pasta comatata stuff is absolutely going to be under legal review. Birthright citizenship, I believe, what was it, 25 states have already filed suit against that, which means it will be blocked by court tomorrow, almost certainly. And by that time, it'll take a year and a half to go to the Supreme Court. So none of this is to be taken as this is 100% what's happening. It is a preview

of what they want to do and are trying to do, but what will inevitably face a lot of legal scrutiny from the courts and what they are allowed to do and whatnot. So I do want people to keep that in mind as well. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight-loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus.

So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated.

I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war.

This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of starts that a little bit, man. We met them at their homes. We met them at their recording studios. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real.

Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.