Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 3/18/25: Trump Tells Judge GTFO In Deportation Standoff, Treasury Sec Celebrates Market Crash, Social Security Sabotage, Jon Stewart Shreds Schumer

Episode Date: March 18, 2025

Krystal and Saagar discuss Trump tells judge to gtfo on deportation standoff, Treasury Sec celebrates stock crash, Social Security sabotage, Jon Stewart shreds Schumer as he hides from angry liberals.   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. is irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind Boy Sober, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, Boy Sober is about understanding yourself

outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration in the United States. Recipients have done the improbable, the unexpected, showing immense bravery and sacrifice in the name of something much bigger than themselves. This medal is for the men who went down that day. On Medal of Honor, Stories of Courage, you'll hear about these heroes and what their stories tell us about the nature of bravery. Listen to Medal of Honor on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here.

Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to 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 Act over the weekend, and this set off a mad scramble and a lot of questions about whether or not they openly defied court orders.

So I'm going to give you some details about the timing that is coming out now with regard to when a judge issued a temporary restraining order saying you cannot move forward with deportations under these powers, when planes took off, where they were when he issued his ruling from the bench saying, even if planes are in the air, you need to turn them around, where they were when the final order came out, et cetera. We'll get to that in a moment. But yesterday, there was another court hearing with the same judge who was demanding answers from the government about what the hell happened here, under what justification did you not listen to my order?

And how did we get to where we are? So let's go ahead and put this up on the screen. This is from Kyle Cheney, who is Politico's court reporter and has done a good job tracking the many lawsuits against this administration at this point. So he says the hearing is over. Boesberg was incredulous that DOJ claimed he had no authority to order the plane to turn around just because it crossed out of U.S. airspace, something he said was well-established in many contexts. He wants details about whether DOJ openly defied his order on March 15th when it ordered planes to take off and leave U.S. airspace, even after he orally ordered the government not to do that. The remedy for an order they don't like, Boesberg said, is to appeal or seek to modify it, not simply to ignore it. He wants a sworn declaration by noon tomorrow with details about how this played out. I can put the next

tear sheet up on the screen. It has some additional details here. Ties together some of the different places where the Trump administration has at least tested the bounds of defiance of court orders. We'll say the headline is Trump already on a collision course with the courts, hits the gas. This is kind of the most combustible situation with regard to potential, like, just outright direct defiance. And part of what they write in this article, which is also by the same guy, Kyle Cheney, along with two other co-authors, is on Monday afternoon, the Justice Department urged Boesberg to call off his scrutiny of Trump's decision to label some Venezuelan migrants as terrorists in order to, quote, de-escalate the grave incursions on executive branch authority that have already arisen. When Boasberg refused to cancel that Monday

afternoon hearing, the DOJ asked a federal appellate court to remove this judge from the case altogether, an extraordinary step to circumvent judicial scrutiny. The White House, for its part, is dismissing arguments that the president's actions are pushing the country toward a constitutional crisis. Officials agree the nation is in one, but they blame it on the courts, framing recent rulings as the moves of radical leftist judges, though some of those judges were appointed by Republican presidents. Quote, the constitutional crisis is not in the executive branch, it's in the judiciary branch, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said, adding that the pushback to the administration's weekend deportations,

quotes, speaks more of Democrats' loyalty or lack thereof to this nation than anything else. So the government has made a few claims here to claim that they are not defying court orders. One is they say that, well, you issued the order to turn the planes around from the bench, and we don't really think that that has the same weight as a written order. The judge very much yesterday in that hearing rejected that particular claim. Another claim that was made was that, oh, well, the planes were over international waters when you issued your ruling. So that's, you know, that's, it was too late, basically. We couldn't or wouldn't, once it was over international waters, we weren't going to turn them around. Well, one thing that came out yesterday, I can put this up on the screen,

this chart of the flights, at least one of the flights was actually still on the ground at the time in Texas when the initial order at 648 was read from the bench. Okay, so another claim that the government has made is, well, actually that particular plane, the third one, and by the way, the other two had not yet reached their destination, either when that initial order was read from the bench or when the final written order came down. So the other claim was, well, the third plane, that one was subject, that wasn't Alien Enemies Act, that was different powers. Of course, we don't know who was on the plane, so we have no idea. And basically, however, yesterday, the government pretty much stonewalled,

it just wouldn't answer any questions. The government has cited Title 50 authority, which is intelligence. Like you said, on the third plane, the result of the hearing yesterday, basically, is Judge Boasberg is demanding that the government issue a sworn affidavit that the third plane was not invoked under the Alien Enemies Act and was used under a different authority. They said none of the plaintiffs of the five plaintiffs that were ordered under Judge Boasberg were on board that plane. It was the other two. So this is almost certainly rocketing to the Supreme Court within the next two weeks.

The authority over Alien Enemies Act, over the ability of a federal district judge to order something what I think is extraordinary. We debated it extensively yesterday to literally force a plane that is outside of the United States to turn around and come back to the United States. There's both legal scrutiny over that specifically. As I understand it from Boesberg, this is not a ruling on the Alien Enemies Act whatsoever. He is asking for a declaration of who is covered under the Alien Enemies Act, but the Alien Enemies Act provision is not itself

the one that is under a legal scrutiny. It's the removal authority for deep process under the government for these specific plaintiffs that were named by the ACLU. But what I was just saying in terms of what I read yesterday from the review of the Alien Enemies Act, the judge, it's complicated. Basically, it's not as cut and dry, I think, as saying this was up to the judge as to whether this was the Alien Enemies Act or not, as to whether it is employable. It is these specific individuals, the legitimacy of applying that to these specific individuals under the ACLU, of the plaintiffs with this action that the plaintiffs took off.

And I know this is incredibly complicated. I've genuinely tried to read for hours about something called like judiciability or something. Judicity, which is the ability to apply judicial review, which is what the government is also claiming and that came out in a Stephen Miller interview. Anyway, go ahead. So here is the timeline and this will help clarify some of what happened here.

So obviously Trump has been saying for a long time, including on the campaign trail, I'm going to use the Alien Enemies Act. So lawyers with the ACLU and other groups were like, ready to go. Like, okay, when he does that, we are going to challenge that. And they started to get, there were news reports that he was moving towards invoking the Alien Enemies Act. And some of the people that they were in touch with started to get moved around. Some Venezuelan migrants started to get moved around and all shipped, excuse me, to this Texas ICE detention facility. And so they suspected, okay, this is imminently coming. So knowing that the government was going to act

really fast, they filed an initial suit with these five particular migrants as their clients involved in the suit. Then once it became completely clear and perhaps even waited for the official declaration, then they expanded it to the entire class of migrants so that this was now not just about these five individuals. This was about the entire class of migrants and who were held undocumented migrants who were held in DHS facilities so that it would apply to everyone who might be put on these planes and shipped down. So that's how this ends up. The court system actually in this instance acted quite quickly. The judge from the bench at 648 says, I'm issuing a temporary restraining order. That is not a finding on the merits. But his view was it is likely that the use of the

Alien Enemies Act is going to be found to be illegal. And so in order to prevent harm in the meantime from occurring, I'm issuing this temporary restraining order so this can work its way through the courts on the merits and decide whether it's appropriate invocation. You know, it's never before, like he's claiming that Venezuela, by dint of their proxy, this gang Trender Aragua, has invaded the country. It's never been issued before outside of clear-cut wartime instances, 1812, World War I, World War II. So a lot of legal questions, to say the least, about whether this is appropriate. What it led to is the Trump administration being able, without any due process, to take people. They sent them to this foreign prison,

notorious in El Salvador for torture and human rights abuse. So anyway, all of this is very, is legally dubious, to say the least. So he issues a temporary restraining order. It's meant to apply to all migrants, not just the five that were specifically originally named in the lawsuit. And that's where these timings come in. So 648 is when he issues the ruling. Those planes are, two of the planes are in there, one of them still on the ground. Again, the government has refused to say who was on these planes. They've refused in the hearing yesterday. They refused even to reveal when the planes took off, when they landed, they're citing national security, et cetera. So the very latest from the judge out of this hearing was, you have to tell us by noon,

I believe today, the answers to these questions. And if you need to do it under seal, okay, that's fine. And we're going to have another hearing on Friday. But the judge is very perturbed, seemingly, at the government's stonewalling and defiance of what the judge ultimately asked them to do. Yeah, that's incredibly well said. That's exactly right. So I know it's really complicated for people to stick with. It will eventually come down to a ruling on Friday. It will almost certainly immediately be appealed, and then it is going to rocket its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it is almost certainly that the meta questions around this are going to be solved. And it is one that is now like, this is always the issue. Like, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak to everything. I've done my best

to look at the TikTok, like I said, to look into the Title 50 authority, the judiciary, the ability to apply judicial review, reading the statute of the Alien Enemies Act itself, which, by the way, is actually worth reading because it's from 1798. But the point being is we are in a situation where this is almost certainly going to get resolved at a high level. And that is, it appears, just from what I've been able to see, that's kind of something that they want because this is a fight that they are very comfortable picking with the public. As you said, Tom Homan, who is the White House border czar, appeared on television immediately afterwards and was defiant. Let's take a listen.

Proud to be a part of this administration. We're not stopping. I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming. So, I mean, pretty defiant there from Tom Homan. This is the thing. At the end of the day, there's a lot of messaging war that's also happening here because that's not even really true. Like, they do care what the judge thinks because they're not continuing the deportation flights. They keep saying they're

going to. It's not actually happening. And it's one of those where they're both trying to placate an incredible amount of frustration in the administration over the numerous amounts of temporary restraining orders and other things that have come out. This one is a fight that they feel very comfortable both picking and getting the precedent set at the Supreme Court to resolve it in the incoming years of the administration, or the upcoming years of the administration, to try and resolve these and to basically try and basically force a fight on the ability for TRO district judges to intervene on every individual deportation case. But I think what's happening is that we're watching a fight that they feel very, very

comfortable picking, in particular on this one. And it's actually kind of noteworthy to me that this is the one that's been the most high-profile one, and it's not Doge, where, look, they've talked a game in the past, and Elon has said, what, we need to impeach judges, etc. They have never really gone all that far. There's been some questions over like, I would say like moderate compliance or whatever on USAID, et cetera. But like, this is the one where, this is the big one. And for them, they, I think it too, just yesterday, a poll came out showing border and immigration is actually the number one issue that Trump has right now. Unfortunately for him, he's underwater on the economy. We're about to talk about that in a second. It actually may be, I've been thinking about this. I think one of the reasons

that all of this is happening right now is it doesn't take a genius to look at the news and say, oh my God, every day we're getting pummeled on Doge and on the stock market. Our tariff stuff, not working. Now we've got a full-blown war in Gaza. It's like, well, what do we have left? Well, this is the immigration promises, which we literally have not even kept for the first 50 days of the administration. Any serious immigration person could have told you that. The numbers were basically on par for actual deportation with the Biden administration. And they were using doge excuses saying, oh, these flights are too expensive to carry that out, which, you know, as we talked, it's like, oh, things are too expensive for social security, for immigration, but we have unlimited missiles that we can fire into Yemen. So

it was a priorities mismatch, and this is clearly political ground that they feel very strong fighting on. I think your political analysis there is correct, and I suspect the same, that that they wanted to provoke a reaction with this invocation at this moment. Because, look, the market shit the bed last week. Yes. There is, you know, incredible upset and concern, as we're about to talk about, with regard to the economy. There is probably even more upset and concern with regard to the attacks on Social Security. Elon is dramatically underwater. Trump's approval rating in almost every poll is on the downslide.

It's still very early in the administration. They're on very firm political ground to pick a fight over people that they describe as Venezuelan gang members. And, you know, so I think you're right that they welcome this fight and they feel politically that this benefits them. I you can watch our lengthy debate yesterday. I just will remind that what we're talking about here with regards to, you know, in this particular case, they're arguing not only that, you know, can they invoke the Alien Enemies Act and then just deport whoever they want with no due process where we don't even get to know who they are, whether they're actually gang members, whether they're even Venezuelan migrants. And by the way, you can go and look at some news reports already of U.S. citizens who have gotten mistakenly swept up by ICE, which now, because of upset over the relatively low deportation numbers, now has had a quota institute, which of course leads to them being more aggressive about like, let's just sweep up anyone who looks like they might be undocumented. So in any case, what they're trying to claim is that the president has sole discretion to deport anyone he wants at any time. And as I said yesterday, they have offered no proof that these individuals were actually

gang members. We actually don't even know 100% that they are migrants, that they are Venezuelan. I suspect that that is the case, but we don't know who they are. Some of the people who we've been able to learn who they are, their family members and their legal counsel insist they are not gang members. One is a teen who happened to have a rose tattoo that he thought looked cool that he got in Texas, according to his sister. Another is a tattoo artist. Again, one of the common themes is there just seems to be an assumption that if you have a tattoo, you are a gang member. Another thing the Washington Post uncovered with regard to some of the gang members, alleged gang members in Guantanamo Bay, is that they also were not gang members.

They were just from the state of Aragua, which is where this gang originates, and were actually fleeing gang violence. So all of this is to say that's why I think due process is important so that, look, the government can make their claims and people have a chance to rebut them. The fact that they've been put into this El Salvador prison that is quite notorious means that journalists, family members, lawyers, no one has access to them. No one can determine the veracity of the claims that are currently being made by the government whatsoever. And so if, and I'm also not a lawyer, so I can't say whether, which direction the courts are likely to go in with this extraordinary claim of power, but what they're trying to assert is that they can literally remove anyone that this government decides to remove with no scrutiny whatsoever. And so I agree with you, Sagar, that I think it is an intentional provocation. But the reason why I think it's important to fight is because that is an extreme breach of civil rights, constitutional rights, not just vis-a-vis, you know, migrants, undocumented immigrants, etc., but genuinely has consequences for all of us.

Because, again, if you have no due process, you don't even have to prove that they're undocumented immigrants, let alone gang members, let alone criminals, let alone anything else. And so, in any case, that's why I view this as quite an extraordinary moment and an important one to follow, even though I do think it is a political provocation to try to cover up from some of the things that they're doing that have become profoundly unpopular with the public. Yeah, I take what you're saying. I spent a lot of time thinking about it yesterday. I do think, however, that this, you know, and I think the due process claims, etc., are fair. However, you know, I think that missing the context of the broader illegal immigration situation, the extraordinary developments that have happened over the last four years,

not just to mention the last 25 years, even before that, not to mention as well, much of the legal precedents as to why I don't think it will lead to what you're saying. Between Hamdi, so I actually looked at some case law, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which previously talked to the U.S. government's detention, who was a U.S. citizen who was captured in Afghanistan, this cannot actually be applied to a United States citizen, which the Bush administration wanted to in the past for both indefinite detention and the removal of due process. U.S. citizens specifically have much stronger and more litigated due process rights than those who are present in the country, especially who are present in the country

illegally. And then secondly, there was a second case here, which was Alwaki v. Panetta, which followed the drone strike after Anwar Alwaki and his family were struck by the United States. Now, I still think that's an insane thing that happened there in the past, but the court basically ruled through dismissal that they do not have the ability to challenge national security authority. Now, the solution here is staring everybody in the face. If everybody thought that the law was so terrible, they should have repealed the law. I think they keep it on the books, you know, because they want the ability to be able to use it. Trump did telegraph this previously. I think that the case law there is actually quite strong and that there are enough backstops, you can

disagree with me, that's fine, for to protect U.S. citizens. We just have a big disagreement, I think, which comes to the treatment of and how we should think of people who are present in the country illegally and whether that's a problem and or not. I think it's extraordinary. And in particular, these laws, asylum, TPS, et cetera, have been dramatically abused to facilitate mass illegal immigration. It put a huge amount of strain. And I don't think it's a surprise to me as well on the political front, you know, looking just back at the approval numbers that I have in front of me here, the issue breakdown is Donald Trump has got border security and immigration literally higher than—and he's the only

issue area where he is more popular than not on foreign policy, on the economy, on inflation, and on Russia, Ukraine, underwater on all four of those things. I could be wrong. It could be that there is a genuine change in the way that the United States has happened and thinks that this is an extraordinary action. But part of me also feels that the administration wants to pick fights about this, not even to facilitate mass deportation. What I have heard from many is that, guys, you're an idiot if you ever believed mass deportation was going to happen. We have to do these stunts effectively to facilitate mass self-deportation, which is not a surprise considering the launch just a few days ago

of the CBP Home app by the administration and the $200 million ad buy. I was watching Fox News the other day and Kristi Noem popped up on my TV and I was like, who is watching Fox News that is going to self-deport? That was another thing just at a basic level. It's another thing that escaped that Doge scrutiny that we've been talking about. Didn't you tell me it cost $200 million? $200 million. Right. As I was watching that, I'm like, is this not just basically like feel-good propaganda for the government? That's what it is. Yeah. I'm not cheerleading all this Right. As I was watching that, I'm like, is this not just basically like feel-good propaganda for the government? Yeah. I'm not cheerleading all this stuff.

And I don't even disagree that the government should handle this differently. I think I said that yesterday. They absolutely should have released a dossier and or whatever. They're doing it to the max's claim because they think that this is a fight that they can win and they want to try and set that legal precedent, basically like all presidents before them who are beefing with the courts. I was reading a little bit about the Bush administration response to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, where Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzalez actually told Bush to keep holding Hamdi for unlimited detention. We're not talking about a district judge. We're talking about the Supreme Court of the United States. So anyway, some historical and reading other things that I put and thought into the case, which I know is very emotional and is a difficult topic. Let me go ahead and play Pam Bondi, the attorney general who was on the shows last night on Primetime on Fox, I think with Jeanine Biro maybe, who indicated that the flights similar to this one under the Alien Enemies Act were, quote, absolutely going to continue.

Let's take a listen to that. The amazing thing about this, Attorney General, is that you've got a local district court judge now who is saying that he can stop the president from enforcing his powers under Article two to protect the American people? Number one, will his order, this temporary restraining order on the on the Alien Enemies Act, will that be respected going forward? And where does he get this power to stop the president engaging in national security and foreign policy? Well, that's it. He's attempting to meddle in national security and foreign affairs, and he can't do it. What he's done is an intrusion on the president's authority. You know, this one federal judge, again,

thinks he can control foreign policy for the entire country, and he cannot. And right now, we're evaluating our options. Okay, so you may, the administration may continue doing these flights? Absolutely. These are foreign terrorists. The president has identified them and designated them as such, and we will continue to follow the Alien Enemies Act. So she says the flights will absolutely continue. We will see if that is the case. I'll just, last thing I'll say about this is I think it can both be the case that it is a stunt,

which I tend to agree with you, Sagar, and that it is extraordinarily important and dangerous development because there actually is no backstop from anyone getting swept up, especially if they're being sent to this prison where we have no access to them. That is known for torture, where Bokele is out there bragging about the way they'll be used for slave labor to make the prison, quote unquote, financially sustainable. process, there is not even an ability to check that these are not American citizens, that these are not legitimate green card holders or legitimate visa holders. There's certainly no check to verify that they are actually gang members and terrorists, as is being claimed. And in fact, the government has been caught in those lies with regard to people being alleged gang members in the past. As I mentioned yesterday, the estimate is there

are a few hundred Trenderagua members in the entire country. So they're purporting to have deported to this El Salvador prison several hundred just with these flights. So the numbers don't work out. There are almost certainly people who were part of this, and family members and lawyers are already asserting as such, that were part of this deportation that had nothing to do with Trend de Aragua and who have now been put indefinitely into this prison where no one can reach them, no lawyers, no family members, no journalists, et cetera. And there actually, without due process, is no backstop from this being able to happen to anyone. So if the courts rule on the merits in Trump's favor, that means he then has claimed these wartime powers to

disappear anyone he wants to disappear. And that's why this is, to me, yes, it's a stunt and also extraordinarily dangerous, troubling abridgment of not just the rights and the human rights of people who are migrants, of people who are here without papers, but also of American citizens who could easily, easily, and have already been mistakenly snatched up by ICE, who could easily be caught up in this as well if the courts don't take a stand here and enforce, say, look, we are not at war. This is not an invasion. You don't get to claim these wartime authorities. And the other thing is, I mean, they've also floated invoking the Insurrection Act. This would be another sort of

like wartime authority that they could claim. And the trend with this president, which, yes, other presidents have done similar things, certainly George W. Bush comes to mind, but the dramatic, rapid expansion of the powers that he has claimed is something that I think is quite extraordinary and deeply troubling. I think that's understandable. As I said, I think there's a lot of case law and a lot of differences, especially withholding any of this from happening to a U.S. citizen, but we'll continue to cover it here. 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. DNA test proves he is not the father.

Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily it's your not the father week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. Now I find out he's trying to give it to his irresponsible son instead, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back.

Hold up. So what are they going to do to get those millions back? That's so unfair. Well, the author writes that her husband found out the truth from a DNA test they were gifted two years ago. Scandalous. But the kids kept their mom's secret that whole time. Oh my God. And the real kicker, the author wants to reveal this terrible secret, even if that means destroying her husband's family in the process. So do they get the millions of dollars back or does she keep the family's terrible secret? Well, to hear the explosive finale, listen to the OK Storytime podcast

on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. To most people, I'm the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. VoiceOver is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships.

It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times, it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover, to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need to explore their relationship to relationships. I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a relationship is prioritizing other parts of that relationship that aren't being naked together. How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to Boy Sober on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Why don't we move on to the economy? Let's talk about consumer sentiment, which is not very good right now. Let's put this up there on the screen. Came out a couple of days ago. It was absolutely, you know, it was actually kind of missed. We weren't able to cover it in the last couple of days, but there's a University of Michigan survey, which is very closely watched, which looks at consumer sentiment. Now, what is consumer sentiment? That's actually a very important question. The way that consumer sentiment is basically defined is your want and think about how you're going to spend money and how you're feeling about the economy. So it is a subjective thing, but overall actually has a pretty good track record about people's subjective view of the economy that can then obviously have a lot of impacts going into retail. So the University of Michigan Consumer

Sentiment Survey showed an 11% decline in mid-March from 57.9% from 64.7% the last month, quote, a downward trend that has taken hold since office. That is the single lowest level since November of 2022 when inflation was rampant. And compared with just one year earlier, it is down some 27%. So a nearly third drop in overall consumer sentiment. Now, why does that matter? Because consumer economy spending is 70% of our economy. We'll put the next one up there on the screen. The long-term inflation view within that consumer sentiment also jumped the most since 1993, meaning that people's feeling that inflation will continue for the foreseeable future has

had such a precipitous incline. That, I thought, more than the consumer sentiment, was the biggest headline. It's not only that people have bad consumer sentiment in their want to spend money in the overall economy, they also believe that right now that inflation will be higher in the future. Now, when you do that, all kinds of downstream effects. People hoard cash. People, or even worse, for our economy, they just don't spend any money. Or they think that because their bills and all that are going to go up, they basically lock it in place. And if you don't spend money, if money's not being

spread around, then everybody's overall income is beginning to go down in the aggregate. And we're going to watch stocks go down, retail businesses collapse, vacation, etc. And probably the worst outcome is that the only group that's not going to pare back consumer spending is rich people. So we will only increase the pyramid function that we already have in the economy right now. So overall, it's not a good trend. And this is the piercing heart of – this will pierce the heart of any successful Trump administration. You can overcome a lot, but you cannot overcome a bad economy as Joe Biden did, especially not – we're going to talk about Social Security and all that stuff in the future. If people feel like their services are getting cut and stuff is going to get more expensive, you're done. I mean, put midterms and all of that aside. Just in terms of a political

movement and strategy, you will lead yourself down the George W. Bush path of destruction of legacy, administration, and put yourself in the wilderness for a decade, just like they did. Very possible. Very possible. I mean, that seems to be like what they want to do. I don't really understand any of it. I mean, there is a theory that they want a crisis because a crisis, again, what do presidents do in a crisis? They are able to claim more powers and, you know, assert more authority. So, you know, as you see these things that you're like, this is insane. I mean, especially around the economy, you're like, this is insane. It feels like you were trying to trigger a stock market crash and a recession, et cetera. There's the theory that, first of all, recession,

who comes out on top? As you said, the only people who don't really suffer are ultimately the richest. And when everything crashes and prices are at rock bottom, we saw this with COVID, we saw this with the financial crash, we saw this even out of the dot-com bubble, the richest are able to buy up more assets, and then they're the ones who are able to benefit on the other side. Even with the doge cuts on the National Weather Service, the FAA going after Social Security, all these things that could also precipitate either mass public resistance or some sort of an active crisis. Again, those are times when presidents are able to claim more power. So that is one thought that is out there,

is that to your point about like, it feels like they want this. One theory is that they do. Now, I don't know if that's true or not, but that is one theory that is out there. You know, just to go back to the economic numbers here and why, when you look at these old consumer sentiment, what do they expect about inflation? Like, why does that matter? Part of the reason that there was so much difficulty getting inflation under control in the 70s was because of consumer expectations of inflation. So it had a self-fulfilling aspect to it. Once people thought prices are going to go up, then for one thing, you get corporations like we saw coming out of COVID that are like, oh,

well, people think prices are going to go up so I can get away with hiking prices. That was actually a big part. The greedflation was a big part of the inflation, not 100%, but a significant chunk coming out of the COVID crisis. But it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not to mention retailers, many of whom Target reported soft sales, Big Lots, Forever 21 actually filed for bankruptcy. I think this is their second time filing for bankruptcy, Bed Bath & Beyond. A bunch of retailers have been warning that their sales are soft and are seeing a pullback from consumers already. And then when you layer on top of that, they're watching these indexes very closely to determine how much stock are we gonna buy,

how many people are we gonna hire, how many people are we gonna lay off. All those sorts of things are based on these types of metrics and expectations of what consumers feel now and what they're likely to do in the future. So that's why when you see these metrics, it's not just about like, oh, how's Billy feeling about shopping this week? How's his sentiment?

It has a real impact in terms of the way that business reacts in the immediate term and can then, like I said, have a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect to it, especially at a time when the White House's economic policy is, we'll just call it chaotic, okay? If there's a plan, no one can figure out what the hell it is. It's all over the place. You've got mass austerity in the government, but meanwhile, a tariff policy, which if a tariff policy is going to be effective, you actually need government spending, industrial policy, investment, et cetera. The tar terror policy is on, it's off, it's here, it's there, it's coming in April, it's back again, it's all over the map. So there's no clear direction there either. And then you also have, you know, coming down the pike, the

reconciliation bill and what all of that is going to mean. You've got these cuts happening at the government level, which really do reverberate in a way that I don't know that people have fully anticipated. You see already universities pulling back in terms of their spending and hiring. You see health care pullbacks in terms of their spending and hiring because of the cuts and the threats of those cuts to come. So all around, there are a lot of giant red flags and warning signs, even as the stock market did better this week. I don't know the markets. I think right now it's 927. It's not bad. Yeah, it's stock futures have edged down. We'll see what happens for the rest of this week. But there is still a lot to be very concerned about. Yeah, let's play Secretary of Treasury Scott Besson. He was asked about the market crash.

Let's take a listen. Let's talk about what happened in the stock market this week. Worst week for the market in two years. Does that worry you, Mr. Secretary? Not at all. I've been in the investment business for 35 years, and I can tell you that corrections are healthy. They're normal. What's not healthy is straight up that you get these euphoric markets. That's how you get a financial crisis. It would have been much healthier if someone had put the brakes on in 06, 07. We wouldn't have had the problems in 08. So I'm not worried. Well, you know, OK, it's one of those where, look, it's bad optics. I'm not even saying it's funny. The Besson, I like Besson. I like a lot of the stuff that he says.

And if it was just somebody like him and it was a total government approach, which was tariff and it was studied and he was also out there saying the American dream. He keeps saying this. The American dream is not flat screen TV. I totally agree on all of this. But when it's coupled with literal just madness and chaos that is back and forth, obviously no real plan at all, then you're getting into territory where people are like, no, well, if all I've got going for me is a flat screen TV, then yeah. And you're going to try and make that more expensive and not sell me on some big, broader plan. You're going to find yourself in real trouble having a, not billionaire, I don't know what he is, several hundred millionaire, Secretary of the Treasury,

basically trying to lecture consumers and downplaying a stock market return. That's how it's just simply going to come off. Even though I agree with the guy on a lot, a lot of things that he says, but just generally- He's a mere 500 million. Yeah, 500 millionaire. He's poor in the context of this administration. That's right. He's a poor man. Yeah, it's just bad optics over and over again. And I don't think that it's being received in the way that they want. I mean, stuff like that. Imagine, you know, if you – you probably agree, maybe.

I think a lot of people agree, the whole flat screen thing and all that. But you've got to feel as if your country is getting a whole lot better and you yourself in the immediate and in the long term are buying in to a real plan that's going to change overall in the future. The chaos, when you're also making stuff more expensive and nuking consumer sentiment and the stock market in the immediate term, you're just making it so that people are more stressed out in their day-to-day life and people hate that and they should. I think it was Arnaud who made this point on Twitter about like, yeah, I mean, he's not, to your point, he's not wrong. Yeah, he's right. That if you have, you know, our economy is way over-financialized. It is almost certainly, these tech stocks are almost certainly overvalued in anticipation of AI. I mean,

Tesla stock has been wildly overvalued. It's come back to earth a little bit, but it's still, you know, we likely are in a giant sort of everything bubble. And if you look at an analogous situation, you know, we actually covered here on the show how China intentionally let the air out of its real estate development bubble and did that because they wanted to focus financial resources in other parts of their economy. So they had a priority to maintain their manufacturing industrial base. Also, we're going to talk probably on Thursday about the way they have just technologically developed at an astronomical pace. Now they have, BYD has an EV that can charge almost 300 miles in five minutes.

Like that is astonishing. And so they wanted the tech investment. They wanted the, you know, to maintain the industrial base. So they intentionally let the air out of this giant real estate bubble. But it had, it was done in a like planned and concerted fashion. If you're just causing a stock market crash and a recession, but there's no like, here's how we're going to build back better on the other side, then you're just causing pain. That's it. You're taking from people what has been created as the American dream. We've had decades that have been directed towards making this a consumer-driven economy, where basically what you get instead of having a vibrant factory in your town and middle-class union jobs, et cetera, is this

flat-screen TV. If you're going to take that away from people and you're not going to offer anything else, and on the contrary, you're cutting their Social Security and you're cutting their Medicaid, et cetera, then yeah, that's not going to be a plan or a program that anyone signs up for, especially when it's being sold by a bunch of billionaires and a mere 500 millionaire in this particular case. Bingo. Yeah, that's the issue. Let's put D5 up there on the screen. This is U.S. shoppers cutting spending as their economic outlook concerns mount. This goes exactly to the same problem. And overall, you know, if we have inflation, tariff on, off, changes to people's retirement status quo, possible cuts to services, or at least the appearance of cuts to services.

One thing, I remember talking about this with Biden. Sometimes the facts don't actually matter. And yes, I know that that's disconcerting. A lot of consumer sentiment, stock market and all that stuff, it's bullshit. It's just feeling. You need to feel confident. People feel confident, they change. Everybody knows that. Think about your own life. Well, if people feel as if there's chaos, that will just have downstream effects that feed more into a bad market. So even if the reality and all that doesn't change, it won't even matter in some cases if people feel as if you're going in the wrong direction. This consistently happened under Biden, you know, liberal economists and all that were like, actually, everything is fine. It's like that's

literally never worked in all of history. Same thing here. Trying to sell a false vision of what people feel never works out politically. There's also just big structural, like the cost of living crisis is incredibly real. And it was real before inflation hit. I mean, the cost of healthcare, housing, and education has been skyrocketing for decades, vastly outpacing any wage gains that the American public, minimal wage gains that the American public has experienced over the past, let's say, 30 to 40 years. And so it really has reached a point where so many people, housing is just an unbelievable burden. Rent is so incredibly high. And so, yeah, the little bit of this or that that they did or the unemployment rate being low, whatever metrics that they're pointing to. It's like, you don't get it. I am still struggling. And the price increases, the inflation that came, you know, in the wake of COVID for a variety of reasons and was not dealt with effectively by

the Biden administration just pushed people past the brink. So, you know, all of those things are incredibly real and not well captured by some of the macroeconomic indices. But, you know, all of those things are incredibly real and not well captured by some of the macroeconomic indices. But, you know, there's again, like if the Trump administration was like, here's how we're going to deal with that. And, you know, yes, there's going to be rebalancing, but we're going to make sure like you're going to be able to afford a home. And here's the plan. Here's how we're bringing down the cost of education, et cetera. And here's how here's how we're going to get you health care. But on the contrary, you know, the minimal reforms that were made by the Biden administration to try to bring down like, you know, drug prices, for example, some of those have been rolled back by the Trump administration. So they're,

if anything, going in the opposite direction on those key pieces that I still think are like the major drivers of economic discontent. And then they're just laying, layering on top of that extra chaos. And playing with fire. 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 fat phobia 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.

DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily it's your not the father week on the OK Storytime podcast. So we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. Now I find out he's trying to give it to his irresponsible son instead. But I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up.

So what are they going to do to get those millions back? That's so unfair. Well, the author writes that her husband found out the truth from a DNA test they were gifted two years ago. Scandalous. But the kids kept their mom's secret that whole time. Oh my God. And the real kicker, the author wants to reveal this terrible secret,

even if that means destroying her husband's family in the process. So do they get the millions of dollars back or does she keep the family's terrible secret? Well, to hear the explosive finale, listen to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. To most people, I'm the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. Voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times, it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need to explore their relationship to relationships. I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a relationship is prioritizing

other parts of that relationship that aren't being naked together. How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I think we're getting more clarity on what the plan is here from Doge and from the Trump administration. And just to back up before I show you this memo that has been now revealed by a couple of different news outlets about the

plan with regard to Social Security, Elon has been targeting Social Security for a long time. He went on Joe Rogan's podcast, called it a Ponzi scheme. He's retweeted Mike Lee, who's a libertarian, who calls it a Ponzi scheme and a fraud, etc. Trump has long positioned himself as an anti-austerity Republican, basically didn't care about the debt and the deficit until this term, and has always said, I will not cut Social Security and Medicare. He really distinguished himself from the Republican PAC by making those particular pledges. However, in his State of the Union address, he echoed some of the same fraudulent claims made by Elon Musk and the Doge people, claiming that there were all these people who were dead who were receiving Social Security

benefits and painting a picture of widespread fraud within the Social Security system that is just not true. So that was very troubling because it seemed that he was joining in with Elon in laying the groundwork to cut social security whilst claiming they were just cutting the fraud from social security. So now we have, like I said, some more clarity from this memo that was leaked from inside the social security administration that reveals what they're planning to do. We can put this up on the screen. Axios obtained a draft of this memo. It was signed by the acting Deputy Social Security Commissioner for Operations, someone named Doris Diaz, on March 13th, and it was written on behalf of the agency's operations department. This was first reported by Popular

Info. I'll show you some more details from them in a moment. That's Judd Legum's outlet. But Axios here confirming the reporting. And they say that this memo was sent one day after the agency had denied a report that they were scrapping their toll-free phone line. Well, so they say that they are actually moving forward with getting rid of most phone service for Social Security beneficiaries. Now, why does this matter? As I was reading through this, apparently what happens frequently is people have to

go through a process either online or currently by the phone to verify their identity. OK, that seems like a good thing. A lot of old people and a lot of people remember social security is for people who have disability as well. A lot of people struggle with that online process. And according to some people who are at the social security administration, for some people, the online process

just literally doesn't work for whatever unique circumstances they have going on. And so then they either have to go to a social security field office to resolve those problems or, more commonly, to call the toll-free Social Security line and get help over the phone and verify their identity that way. So that is what they're planning to get rid of. This comes at a time also when they're cutting the funds for the Social Security field offices. So that avenue is also becoming less available.

So officials are really sounding the alarms. You had one person who said these proposed changes are a way they're trying to use red tape to literally block people from getting benefits. Another one said the money that it would cost to implement these changes would dwarf any savings that would come from cracking down on quote-unquote identity fraud. They also said that the proposed limitations would be really a problem in particular for people who live in rural areas who may have either no internet or poor internet access and for whom the field office is far away and difficult to access. We can put the E1 slideshow back up on the screen here so we can go through some of the details that were revealed by Judd Legum as well. So he says exclusive internal Social Security Administration memo lays out a plan to sabotage the agency, predicts service disruption, operational strain,

and budget shortfalls that will result. Let's go and put the next piece up on the screen here, revealing additional details. He says under the new system, this would force these populations to visit an office to have their clean process. The memo estimates it would require 75,000 to 85,000 in-person visitors per week to SSA's offices to implement the policy. They do not have the resources to handle an influx. These concerns are raised in this memo. I think we have one more piece of this that we can share with you as well. A source said there are no significant concerns about fraud at intake because multiple layers of ID verification takes place before a claim is approved. The source said they believe the new steps are an effort to create additional hurdles to filing claims and quote, overwhelm the system. So to back up and take this

all in, okay, this change is not going to save any money because implementing it is going to, you know, the program currently, like the way it's administered in the phone system, it's not that expensive. Making these changes is actually going to cost money. So you're not saving any money. You're just making it more difficult for people who are entitled to the benefits to be able to access the benefits. So does it matter that Social Security exists and it hasn't been officially quote unquote cut if more and more and more people are unable to get access to the benefits? And so that seems to be the plan here is basically to hobble the system and strangle it with red tape and with cuts so that it is more and more difficult for people to actually get the

benefits that they are entitled to. What's so dumb about it is they're not wrong that the ID.me verification is incredibly difficult to use and is not a very good system. So why wouldn't you, when you phase it out, implement a new system? That seems like rolling something out that makes something easier is exactly the way that you would want to show efficiency and access to service. And instead, basically from what I have seen, and I looked as much as I could into this, is that it basically is trying to reduce the amount of phone reliance while at the same time, as you said, increasing foot traffic

to these offices. Now, you know, our debate notwithstanding on whether we're coddling old people too much and all that, you're not wrong that there are, they are entitled to this money and they did pay into it. It's the right of every American citizen. So I guess, you know, we have to provide customer service in any way, shape or form. But the promise originally was to create a new system which would make it more accessible. They've recently come out and said that they're cleaning the data or whatever to reflect that 120-year-olds, et cetera, are not getting it. I mean that's one of those where I'm like, okay, thanks. Like I didn't know that was a huge problem in my life and in the government. Right. Because there wasn't a lot of evidence that there was a lot of money that was

going out. And so like, yeah, I'm not saying that the U.S. government is not archaic, doesn't use stupid systems, doesn't need database, et cetera. But I mean, I'm not a political genius. I would just say screwing with old people's money or making it more difficult to get with them just seems like a bad idea just in general. In fact, what you would want to do, this would be a very easy way for Doge to become much more popular, would be to roll out or implement something that makes it way easier to get access to your social security. I will say though, it's not that freaking hard. I actually went, I myself, I don't know if you've ever done this. I once logged into my Social Security account. I'm like, I wonder how much money I'm going to have, you know, whenever I'm old, just inflation adjusted.

It's not that difficult to set up. So I will say that. That's my only, my last swipe at the elderly folks. Just ask somebody and you can figure it out. That's all I'm going to say. I won't debate you on this, but I will say that the experts indicate that for some people, you literally, this online system just doesn't work. So you're right though. If you, if you know, in the idealized hypothetical version of Doge in which they're actually interested in efficiency and not just like an ideological project to consolidate power for Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies in the hypothetical version of Doge, they would look at that and say, well, we got to fix that, right? Everybody should be able to get access to social security online. It should be straightforward and

easy. And then that eases the burdens on the field offices. And then maybe we can cut the fat and trim some of these field offices because they're just not needed as much. Maybe we can trim the phone lines after we get a new system that allows people to enroll in this way that's like super easy. But of course, you want to maintain the phone lines, at least to some extent, so that some people who struggle or don't have internet access or whatever can get access. But that's not what we're talking about here. I mean, it just becomes very plain

that there's an ideological vendetta against social security. They realize it's a political problem to say we're cutting social security. And so instead they're making it impossible for some people to be able to access it. And then with regard to the cleaning the data, we may have some potential fallout from that cleaning of the data where some people are getting kicked off who are rightful beneficiaries. We can put this up on the screen. There have been two news reports thus far. You've got one person who

was marked dead, but is very much alive. You can see him pictured here. It was hell on earth for him to be able to, this one is extraordinary because they actually went into his account and clawed back some $5,000 that he had rightfully received through social security because they marked him dead, perhaps as part of this, quote unquote, data cleaning. They're actually, you know, revoking some people who are rightful beneficiaries. He tried calling the phone lines. There were hours upon hours waits because they are flooded and they have cut back on staff. So they're understaffed. They're flooded with calls right now, probably from other people who have been marked dead and whatever. Goes to the field office. The line is out the door. Hours of wait there before

he can finally talk to someone and figure it out and get it fixed. But even then, he still has these lingering effects because once the government marks you as dead, it creates all sorts of problems. Your bank assumes you're dead. Your credit card issuers assume you're dead. All sorts of problems that he's now going to have to deal with. The other one, just put it back up on the screen there for one more second. The other one, the benefits weren't clawed out of his account, but normally his Medicare payment comes directly out of his Social Security check. So he gets a notice, this is a man who lives in Oklahoma City, gets a notice from Medicare of like, oh, you know, we're not getting your payment. So

he's like, okay, well, what's going on here? So he goes and looks and finds that he has also been kicked off of Social Security, is not getting the benefits that he is entitled to receive. He thinks it's because he was actually born, his dad served in the military, he was born overseas on a military base in Germany. Now that, of course, he's still an American citizen, like being born on an American military base means you were born in America, etc. But he thinks that's what caused him to be marked as, you know, probably like a fraudulent beneficiary or whatever because some idiot saw that he was born in Germany and just assumed that meant that he wasn't entitled to these

benefits. That's his theory of what's going on here. But if you start to see more and more of these rightful beneficiaries just getting kicked off, these two individuals were lucky that they were financially secure enough that this was not their entire income. But given the time it took to resolve and the fact that those $5,000 were clawed on the account, like if this was someone who, this was their sole source of income and they were entirely dependent on, this would have caused a massive,

massive financial disaster for an elderly person for no reason. So those are some of the things that are starting to happen here. You know, to get to the political fallout, this looks to be one of the biggest pain points and fears and concerns that has been incited by the Trump administration overall and Doge in particular. Could put this up on the screen. This was the line at a town hall for Chuck Edwards, Republican congressperson in Asheville, North Carolina. This person says there were 1,770 people lined up for this town hall. The space holds around 400.

There were some extraordinary images and outraged constituents who were filmed at that town hall. I think that's the one where a veteran was yelling at him and got escorted out, et cetera. But the very first question, we put the next tear sheet up on the screen, the very first question at that town hall had to do with Social Security benefits. The first questioner said, would he ensure the protection of our Social Security benefits? And apparently the room erupted in applause. They also have to impose tracks another town hall with a Michigan Republican where some of the 13 questions that this representative took, nine were related to Social Security. In a nearby mid-Michigan district, they say that was among the most competitive U.S. House races last year. A poll taken at the beginning of first term, GOP rep Tom Barrett's telephone town hall showed Social Security and Medicare as the top issue for attendees. So this is a major political fault line. And they are trying to use backdoor methods to cut this program

without coming out and saying we are cutting the program. But people are wising up to what is going on here. Yeah. I mean, Asheville is a very liberal area, but still, I mean, it's one of those where- They've got a Republican congressman. They can't be that liberal. I think it's one of those very gerrymandered districts, if I recall. But anyway, look, you don't want it no matter where you are. If people are liberal, whether they're Republican, if they're old, you don't want to be hearing this. And aside from the Israel lobby, the only other lobby that you don't ever want to mess with in Washington is what? AARP. And I guarantee you that if you start coming and stories like that start to go viral on Boomer Facebook, you're going to have yourself a real

problem on your hands. 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. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily it's your Not the Father Week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon.

This author writes, Hold up. So what are they going to do to get those millions back? That's so unfair. Well, the author writes that her husband found out the truth from a DNA test they were gifted two years ago. Scandalous. But the kids kept their mom's secret that whole time. Oh my God. And the real kicker,

the author wants to reveal this terrible secret, even if that means destroying her husband's family in the process. So do they get the millions of dollars back or does she keep the family's terrible secret? Well, to hear the explosive finale, listen to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app,

Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. To most people,

I'm the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. VoiceOver is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times, it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover, to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need to explore their relationship to relationships. I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a relationship is prioritizing other parts of that relationship

that aren't being naked together. How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to Boy Sober on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Senator Chuck Schumer, he's canceling a bunch of established book events citing security concerns, even though there's no evidence of that. In reality, he just doesn't want to face any tough questions. Jon Stewart, as always, sounding off. Let's take a listen.

Did Schumer get anything from Republicans in exchange for those dumb votes? He did not. Senator Schumer, no disrespect, but you are a disgrace to Jewish stereotypes about financial negotiations. You're going to keep at it. Keep at it. Keep at it, keep at it. And what? This was it. This was the it that you would have been keeping at. The keeping of the it. It's not the keeping of the it. That's the issue. It's what the it. Don't you have to start it to keep at it?

If this wasn't it, then what is it if this not be it? But apparently the grand plan is Dems keep fecklessly complaining until the 48 approval comes down to 40, which is a plan, but it's forgetting one crucial piece of information in Schumer's popularity calculation. Devastating, cascading poll numbers for Democrats. Only 27% of voters have a positive view of the party. The lowest favorability rating in the history of NBC's polling. You're at 27%.

You've got to get Trump to lose 8 points of popularity just for you to get to the point where you're 13 points below him 13 points below he shredded him as only Stuart can he did a good job it's one of those with Schumer

his, I just don't get what is going on on a policy level I genuinely do understand it, as I said. They're like, look, if we shut the government down, then Elon and Trump will get to decide who's essential or not essential. That's actually a pretty good argument. in this sense of he's trying to pretend that he's standing up for Trump, but he's also not even dispositionally planning anything months ahead of time.

Like if we had come to this outcome, I think with the liberal planning for two months or so before this, and this still is how we ended up, but at least people would say, okay, we fought, we tried this, we extracted concession. It would be a very, very different scenario. But here, it's just they got caught flat-footed.

Now they look like idiots. And then even worse, Schumer is now doing what they're accusing Republicans of doing, which is hiding from angry constituents. You're a hypocrite. Oh, you're not buying his security concerns? Like, come on. I mean, that's the thing. He provoked a mass liberal, moderate, progressive, like whole of party backlash.

I think he's got Matt Iglesias on his side and that's about it at this point. Because across the board, they want to see people fight. This is the only moment when you have leverage. You have known that for months to come. Where was the plan? Where was the fight? I mean, to me, we played this on the Friday show, and Sagar, you probably saw it too. Chris Hayes laughing in his face.

Oh, yes. Yeah, I did. When he says basically like, we got to fight him at every step. And he's like, what are you talking about? You're literally here on my show. This is not how he phrased it, but this is how it went in my head. You're literally here on my show to announce your intention to not fight. So fight every step of the way. Like, where is the fight? Where is this theoretical fight? And so I think there are, in my estimation, three things going on with Chuck Schumer. Number one, he's old. He has an outdated mental model about politics. He thinks this is all just like politics as usual. Shutdowns are bad bad. He's still operating on a mental model from circa, let's say, 1984. I think that's number one. I think number two, that idiotic James Carville op-ed in the New York Times that instructed Democrats to lay down and play dead

and let Trump make his own mess and not make any sort of affirmative case against him or fight him in any way, I think that Carville and others actually buy into that, which is idiotic. The polar opposite of the way that Republicans have effectively fought Democrats whenever Democrats get any semblance of power. So I think that's part of it. And number three, yeah, I do think the fact that it was Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, the two senators from New York who led the charge to cave at a time when Wall Street was very on edge. Stock market went down a lot last week. We're worried what our stocks might do if the government shuts down for a period of time. Yeah, I don't think that

that is an accident when you look at the fact that both of those senators drive a lot of their power and their campaign contributions from Wall Street. I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to say they would have been responsive to those concerns and that it's not an accident that those two that ultimately lead the charge here. So, yeah, New York Times even skeptical of him on his strategy here. But they also asked him. So his book tour is supposed to be about this whole like, you know, anti-Semitism thing. And he was supposed to have his first event with Richie Torres, et cetera. And they asked him about, well, you know, isn't it legitimate to criticize Israel?

And isn't it legitimate even, you know, the U.N.? A U.N. body has suggested that these were genocidal acts. Take a listen to what he had to say in response. Hamas made it much, and no one blames Hamas. I mean, the news reports every day for a while showed Palestinians being hurt and killed. And you know, I see the pictures of a little Palestinian boy without a leg, or I saw one sticks in my head, there was a little girl, like 11, 12, crying because her parents were both killed. I ache for that. But on the news reports, they never mention that so much of the time, Hamas used the Palestinian people as human shields.

And so when these protesters come and accuse Israel of genocide, I say, what about Hamas? They don't even want to talk about Hamas. Again, genocide is a vicious, vicious word to use. I will say it's a word that a UN special committee has used. Please. The UN has been anti-Israel, anti-Semitically against Israel, double standard. Moynihan was my idol. He became famous when in 1976 they tried to pass a resolution, Zionism is racism. To say that the Jewish people should not have a state when every other people should have a state is anti-Semitism, the old double standard, ipso facto. And the international organizations,

I have no faith in them being fair. I mean, I could spend an hour. Like, there is nothing like there is nothing wrong with opposing ethnostates. Number one. Number two, his claim is that the news reports are too pro Hamas. Like, have you read these news reports? The way that they twist and turn themselves and tie themselves into knots to avoid laying any responsibility for the mass slaughter of women and children and non-combatants and innocent civilians and starving them. I mean, Israel's currently starving them, has instituted a complete siege. And the way these news reports seek to avoid laying any blame and responsibility isn't, okay, so to claim that they're too pro-Hammah,

that's insane. Not to mention his whole thing about like, oh, people never want to talk about Hamas and how they're using them for human. You know why the focus of the protest is our government is funding Israel. We are not funding Hamas. So, yes, we take a great interest in the way that we are sending bombs to a country that is dropping them on top of innocent civilians. I think that's reasonable. And then the claim, oh, you know, genocide is anti-Semitic and the UN is Hamas. Like, just, it's just, you can't make it up. Like, he hits every single note.

And I also have to say, Sagar, like to insist that one of the largest problems that the country faces right now is the scourge of anti-Semitism, like there is no evidence to back that up. And to the extent, and I think it's probably true that anti-Semitism has spiked, perhaps it has to do with people like you who are constantly tying all Jewish people to the actions of a state that is currently starving and bombing babies. Maybe that has something to do with the spike, alleged spike, in anti-Semitic sentiment. It's a moral panic completely. It's that you change the definition of anti-Semitism to include criticism of Israel.

Then sure, anti-Semitism is a huge problem. But if you're talking about actual hatred of Jews, it's ridiculous. This idea that there are literally like raving, roving gangs of antisemites across America is so preposterous. And beyond that, you're obviously watching how many of these Jewish students themselves are called anti-Semitic. So the whole thing, you know, by Schumer's own standard, a lot of these Jews are anti-Semitic, which I love watching people twist and turn in the wind on that one. But yeah, you're absolutely right. It's complete and total false moral panic. And it is one used to basically use the legacy of that from the past to bring this insane censorship and dialogue, restricting dialogue here in America to create a political

environment that is beneficial for a foreign government. And when you put it that way, that's when people start to get real quiet and real uncomfortable. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. All right. Okay. Great counterpoint show for everybody tomorrow. We'll see you all then. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father?

Well, Sam, luckily, it's your Not the Father Week on the OK Storytime podcast. So we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. He's trying to give it to his irresponsible son. But I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars. Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself

outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to voiceover on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,

or wherever you get your podcasts. The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration in the United States. Recipients have done the improbable, the unexpected, showing immense bravery and sacrifice in the name of something

much bigger than themselves. This medal is for the men who went down that day. On Medal of Honor, Stories of Courage, you'll hear about these heroes and what their stories tell us about the nature of bravery. Listen to Medal of Honor on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.