Pivot - Meta Tell-All, Elon's Daughter Speaks Out, Cybertruck Recall

Episode Date: March 25, 2025

Kara and Scott discuss the Meta tell-all that's become a bestseller, the latest attempt to sunset Section 230, and RFK Jr.'s justification for banning phones in schools. Then, Elon Musk's visit to the Pentagon is raising questions about his conflicts of interest, especially as SpaceX prepares to get a windfall from government contracts. Plus, the massive Cybertruck recall, and Elon's daughter Vivian gives a candid and delightful interview to Teen Vogue. Follow us on Instagram and Threads at @pivotpodcastofficial. Follow us on Bluesky at @pivotpod.bsky.social. Follow us on TikTok at @pivotpodcast. Send us your questions by calling us at 855-51-PIVOT, or at nymag.com/pivot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

McDonald's new cheesy jalapeno and bacon quarter pounder with 100% Canadian beef is here. So if you crave beefy burgers with a pretty peppery punch and pickled jalapeno peppers pile in a perfect bunch and if you plead please if a cheesy taste came in threes with cheesy jalapeno pepper sauce poured with ease and if smoky strips of bacon make burgers better, you'll love our cheesy jalapeno and bacon quarter pounder. Get this beefy, bold, bacony, melty mouthful only at McDonald's for a limited time. If you want to talk about electoral justice, come over and we'll smoke cigarettes and have ice cream and talk about all our bad boyfriends.

Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Cara Swisher and I'm in Puerto Rico. So, Cara, one night I took home some girl who turned out to be a ladyboy, which I'd done before. But this time, Kara, instead of fucking the ladyboy, the ladyboy fucked me. And it was kind of magical. And I got in my head, what I really wanted was to be one of

these Asian girls getting fucked by me. Oh no. And to feel that. Oh, that's my dramatic reading of The White Lotus. Oh my God. Did you see that scene? Oh my God. I didn't. I've heard of it though.

Oh my God. That guy is good. Sam Rockwell. Yeah. Okay. I was heard of it though. I've read of it. Oh my God, that guy is good. Yeah. Sam Rockwell. Yeah, okay. I was a little worried there, but I'm allowing it. I'm allowing it. He was the deputy in Three Billboards and Something. He's a very good actor.

He's actually an outstanding actor. Anyways, I don't wanna spoil it. Yeah, you just did. But it is out. It literally. It's gotten a lot of attention. I mean, let's be honest. Season three is okay. That's all right. It literally. It's gotten a lot of attention. I mean, let's be honest. Season three is okay.

I carry the season. I've heard that. It's true. I've heard that. I have to acknowledge that. But this monologue from Sam Rockwell is a close second. Anyway, Puerto Rico. I'm in Puerto Rico.

You're still there. It's lovely here. Are you enjoying it? Yeah, I'm going back today. I'd rather not go back at all, but it's lovely. It's a lovely place. Food amazing. Got a great Airbnb.'s lovely. It's a lovely place, food amazing. Got a great Airbnb.

It was great. Just a really nice, so I had three of the four kids and it's been lovely. Anyway, we've got a lot to get to today, including Elon's visit to the Pentagon, Tesla facing more trouble with a massive Cybertruck recall. I saw one Cybertruck here by the way, Scott, in Puerto Rico. Just that's it, that's all I've seen is one.

But there's not that many that were sold apparently as we turned, as the massive Cybertruck recall has shown. Where are you right now? I'm in the UK. I'm in London. Oh, good, how's that going? Had a really nice weekend. It was great, I had a nice weekend.

Our friends, Alenka and Nacho, our Argentinian friends are visiting. It's nice because our boys all are close friends, and they just love to drink. As long as there's wine, they won't leave. And their accents get thicker and thicker, and I don't know what they're saying, but he laughs so wonderfully, it makes me laugh. So that's nice.

Ah, that's nice. And I took him for a roast at Laura the Land, which is this pub. This is like a Sunday roast. Yeah, Sunday roast, yeah. Owned by Guy Ritchie, it's which is this pub. This is like a Sunday roast. Yeah, Sunday roast, yeah. Owned by Guy Ritchie. It's a total British pub.

So yeah, I had a nice weekend. And then on Friday night, I took my youngest to see Team England play Albania. And literally half of Albania came to see this game. I mean, these fans are so out of control. It's a nation of two million people and I'm not exaggerating. It felt like half of them were at this game. Oh, that's great.

It's a ton of fun. Nice weekend. Good. We went to the rainforest. We went to the beach, the rainforest. Puerto Rico is a beautiful place. It really is. I've never been.

It's lovely. It's sort of like most tropical areas, but it's really lovely and the people are wonderful. The food is strikingly good. There's a lot of beans and rice and stuff like that, but it's been delicious. I don't think of Puerto Rico as having great food, but that's just a brand perception.

I know, neither did I, and I actually have been very pleasantly surprised. I don't go to the Caribbean unless it's St. Barts. Okay, I understand that. By the way, if you fly through Puerto Rico because it's a US territory, you don't have to the Caribbean unless it's St. Barts. Okay, I understand that. By the way, if you fly through Puerto Rico, because it's a US territory, you don't have to clear customs. Also, the only story I have about Puerto Rico is,

I know two hedge fund managers that move there, because you can qualify for 2% taxation. It's a total tax avoidance move. Yes, the Bitcoin people did it. Except you have to stay there. You have to be there 183 days a year. And in both instances, they both moved back because they decided they liked Puerto Rico,

but they don't like it that much. Oh yeah, I think it's hard to do those tax moves. Like Monaco was another one, right? There's a couple that people call Florida, obviously. It is the talk of the town here in London because of this thing called non-dom, where basically Kirchstammer and his government have decided

no more tax advantage or avoidance for people who've been here for longer than five years. I have two friends, one has moved to Milan and he's left his family here and he can only be here 90 nights. And then I have another who's moving, he thinks he's going to move to Madrid. Yet this, Kara, in the last year, over 10,000 millionaires have left the UK. Wow. Isn't that crazy? So they're doing it just to avoid taxes, to avoid...

You know, on some level, it's sort of like they should probably lower taxes. At the same time, the tax avoidance schemes are so insane. I remember we had some stories in Puerto Rico when a lot of the Bitcoin guys came here. They were sort of wrecking the place. And at the same time, we're buying up these expensive houses and they were conducting themselves badly. And the whole thing was so icky, like the ways, the gyrations people make

to do this kind of stuff. It seems ridiculous on some level. I get the Monaco thing and I know people like, different tennis stars have lived in Monaco to avoid taxes and this and that but and that's sort of a it's designed for rich people I guess that town but or that country it's so small but it seems so icky. I think it defines the term the difference between being right and being effective and

that is in the 90s or 2000s I I should say, Tony Blair passed a series of private property laws and said, I don't care how you made your money, if you bring it to London and you invest in businesses or buy a home here, no one can come forward and take it from you. And so London kind of became the most popular place in Europe and the Gulf to bring money. And quite frankly, it was really good for the UK economy

because these are people who invest, they spend a lot of money, they spend, they create a lot of like usage and VAT tax revenue, they endorse or they patronize the local businesses. And it's theoretically just makes sense in principle to say, okay, you should pay the same tax rates as people here because you're using our infrastructure. But the problem is it's not affected

because rich people are very mobile. So it's a tough one because while I understand that I understand the logic behind it, the reality is they're gonna have less tax revenue for the NHS and for social programs. Yeah, I get it. I get it, I get it. Bitcoin ones were so unseemly here in Puerto Rico. I remember the stories. I

always felt dirty, right? They're just terrible people that were avoiding taxes and then a lot of it was bullshit. Anyway, it's a lovely place. I recommend people going there. It is not a garbage island. It's beautiful and the people are lovely. And they're Americans, by the way. But people always go, oh, you're going to Fort Greene? I'm like, no, Puerto Rico is American. And they should have, they should be the 51st state and they should get, get representation as should

the District of Columbia before we move into China and Greenland. Yeah, that's our, that's, that's easily our biggest issue right now. Yeah. What? No, I'm just saying it's an issue. I'd like to have, I'd like to have my vote count. You get to have your vote count, but I don't. Your vote does count. But you're not Puerto Rican. What? No, I'm just saying it's an issue. I'd like to have my vote count. Scott, you get to have your vote count, but I don't. Your vote does count. You're not Puerto Rican. What are you talking about? No, I'm a DC resident. We don't have taxation without representation. We have a person in

Congress, so does Puerto Rico, but the votes don't count. Oh, yeah. I don't understand that. That's right. Yeah, I don't either. I don't know. I would like, we're one of the biggest, we have many, many, many, many much more of a population. Well, okay, if we're going to go down the street, should California that has the population of 30 million have two senators? In Wyoming, how's that two? I mean, there's a-

Wyoming and Montana do well here. If you want to talk about electoral injustice, come over and we'll smoke cigarettes and have ice cream and talk about all our bad boyfriends. Anyway. I understand, but still, I would like to have my vote count. Anyway, first, speaking of politics, bipartisan senators, Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin, plan to re-endress the bill to sunset Section 230, I guess. Okay. The bill would give Section 230 an expiration date of January 1, 2027, with the goal of

pressuring big tech to engage in negotiations for new regulations. President Trump has long been an advocate for repealing Section 230, although he hadn't been before. He's changed like a lot of these politicians. He's not alone in that. Graham has introduced repeal bills multiple times. This one, you know, we'll see if it happens. It's really a way to, it's just not the way to go here,

but there seem to be no other ways to go. We'll see if there will be new regulation. There's also a danger that Trump administration takes control of our online speech. Ted Dirt's take, which I think is the smartest, Democratic senators team up with Magna to hand Trump a censorship machine. It's really a problematic, it's like taking out your liver, I guess, or whatever you need. What organ would you need your heart to fix a real problem of these companies not being subject to any kind of litigation or regulation. So it's a really difficult situation. It would really affect their businesses in ways that are really quite profound. I don't know, what do you feel? I would read Mike Masnick on the entire thing.

That's how I would recommend. I think Senator Greatham is a really ineffective senator in addition to having absolutely no moral compass or ability for his constituents to discern who. He has less consistency or ability to figure out where he is or what he stands for than Secretary Rubio. And this is just stupid because the reality is Section 230, if you removed it totally, would gut some of our best companies. These are great companies, all right?

I don't like them. You have issues with them, but without some form of protection around their content, they go out of business the next day. but without some form of protection around their content, they go out of business the next day. So, and in addition, this isn't serious because they're saying until January, 2027, so they're basically thinking this would prod them into negotiations.

And what I really don't like about this is that we seem to value and understand the importance and there is some value to kind of shock and awe and shoving stuff through. So they shock and awe around canceling all USAID. They shock and awe around rounding up innocence and deporting them to these hellscape prisons in El Salvador, but around going after those nice white people

and shareholders, let's be thoughtful and measured and give them till January 20, 27 to deploy their lobbyists and weaponize and buy off government. They gave $62 million in lobbying next year. First off, somebody should have done shock and awe. Somebody like Senator Murphy or Senators Klobuchar should have gotten the support and they probably could have because this is a bipartisan issue and said algorithmically elevated content is no longer protected by 230 because that's a decision they make to elevate content and they still would have had protection around stuff.

They still would have had the whole free speech argument and the biggest argument here is around against it is around, well, you should have free speech. Fine. If you want to say mRNA vaccines alter your DNA, fine, you should have free speech. Fine, if you wanna say mRNA vaccines alter DNA, fine. But you shouldn't elevate it beyond its organic reach because it enrages people. So when you do that, and also bots don't have, in my opinion, don't have rights to free speech.

So they could have come up with a thoughtful bill and gone shock and awe and just passed it. Instead, they come up with something stupid and give a warning, the same warning, the same due process that poor people aren't getting in our nation right now, the poor people abroad are absolutely not getting right now, but they've said, oh, okay,

let's put out something stupid that will never happen and give them the due process that they're not affording to people who aren't white, who aren't shareholders, who aren't corporations. This is total fucking bullshit and a waste of time and attention. Yep, I would agree. And again, I would recommend, there's a really good podcast that Mike Masnick has done. He's written a lot about this.

Years ago when they were doing this before, when they tried to do this again, I had him on and Jeff Kossoff and others who know a lot about it to explain why this is the, it's like there's an expression throwing a hammer at a piano to make music. It just doesn't make any sense. And this is what he writes, how did the once obscure internet law become the target of bipartisan crusade? The answer reveals much about our current moral panic over social media and dangerous appeal of quick fix solutions.

It makes them default to fix this. What people don't realize is that Section 230 isn't really the root of their concerns or removing or reforming. It won't fix the people on the internet. In fact, it will certainly make things worse. So I think it's really important to get yourself educated on this. This is not the solution. Again, you're right.

They could have passed all of the different bills Senator Klobuchar and others had around privacy, around all kinds of things, around some liability that they refused to do. They refused to do decent law, and they have to use this as a cudgel. It's ridiculous. They should be able, if they can be bipartisan, they should be bipartisan enough to pass a series of laws that have teeth in them that have against these companies, privacy, algorithm, transparency, anti-trust rules. Why not an executive order here?

Yeah, exactly. Come on. Shock and awe across, rounding up people, shock and awe, cutting off aid for malaria victims. But when it comes to corporations in Silicon Valley, we're proposing something stupid that'll take effect in two years. Why not have a regulation around privacy, around a bipartisan? Right now.

Right now. They could do it right now. And this is what they're going for. They're so stupid. Age gate, executive order. No one under the age of 16 is allowed on social media. Boom, done, tomorrow. Yeah, yeah, I agree. This is really not the smart way to do it. Anyway, I urge you to learn about it because, as it perhaps might have not been correct in the first place,

it almost was impossible to create these companies without it at the same time. So anyway, difficult times. Speaking of someone that Metta has made a best seller, Sarah Wynne Williams released Careless People documenting her six years at the company earlier this month. She was there quite a bit ago, I think 2018 is when she left. Metta has recently successfully stopped Wynne Williams from doing interviews based on a non-dispersion agreement signed at her termination.

Wynne Williams has filed an emergency motion, overturned the ruling, citing lack of proper notice and whistleblower protection. She apparently wasn't present when they made the ruling. At the time of the taping of the book, it's number three on Amazon's bestseller. I think this was the strategy of this publisher. They didn't inform the company before. There was a lot of quietness around the release. They didn't seem to fact-check. The ones I checked, they did not,

the ones I, people I checked with, they did not call. And they have, you know, they, the company is very upset about the book and has been trying to stop it, and in the process has made it very popular. She did a bunch of short interviews, there was one or two interviews before, but then has not been able to do that, but it hasn't stopped it.

I think, I don't know. I think it's a problematic book. I have read it. We can discuss it, Scott, if you want, because you haven't read it, but there's a lot of important stuff in this book. And at the same time, a lot of stuff that is not, what I say fact-checked is what I would say and is questionable

about her taking credit for certain things. I think some of the stuff, the personal stuff is, should have been fact-checked. There's some stuff about Joel Kaplan, about sexual harassment. There's some stuff about Charles Sandberg wanting her to sleep in a bed on a plane, which I think, I'm sorry, I don't believe. I believe it happened. I just don't believe it the way Williams is telling it, although only people there would know, I guess. And I think Facebook is reacting rather emotionally to this because of the personal stuff in it.

But the stuff around China is really interesting. It's really interesting that their preparations to go into China, but then they didn't. And I don't think she was there when they decided not to, so she doesn't know why they didn't, but they didn't do it. But some of the stuff is really interesting. It gives you an insight to this company who are indeed careless people. But I'm not so sure this is the best narrator to tell it, although a lot of it is really important. And lots of people I trust have mixed feelings on this book as I do.

Well, I'll put forward, I haven't read it. I've read a lot about it. I'll put forward a thesis and you validate it or nullify it because you're just gonna forget more about this topic than I'm gonna know and you know these people I don't. And that is, when I saw this, it reminded me sort of one of the issues, or I think, dangers of Joe Rogan and RFK Jr.

I think my thesis is she's mixing truth with bullshit here. And that is, I don't know Sheryl Sandberg. I know a lot about her just following her career, but her making advances on female employees employees or Joel Kaplan, who I do not know, but I followed his career closely, him engaging in a pattern of sexual harassment, a lot of this just didn't ring true. And it felt like, quite frankly, I just read a lot of this. I love readings about whistleblowers and meta.

Frances Haugen, everything she said just felt true. And she was measured and she was happy to say, that's not true, that's hyperbola. This, quite frankly, your bullshit sensors just go on high alert when you read about this stuff. It just, for me, didn't ring true. What are your thoughts? Some of it, some of it.

Some of the memos she has are really important to read. Like these are actual memos and things like that of how they did things. I just think it's her take on the situation. She's always the hero in the story, and I know a lot of people who work there who try really hard to do the right thing. I think in some places where they had successes, she takes a lot of the credit. I think that's one of the things certain people like Katie Harbath, who I like very much, who have been big Facebook critics, find issues with this, like in the telling of the stories.

Now, it's a memoir, so this is her telling of the story, and I just wrote my own memoir, so I understand how people might not agree with my take on situations either. But this has been met by a lot of people whom I trust saying this is not the way it happened. That said, I think her vibe is absolutely correct. This sort of carelessness, I think, is absolutely true. I think how they go about doing things is true. The China stuff is really interesting to understand. It gives you great insight into the company, and that stuff is really interesting to understand. It gives you great insight into the company and that stuff is, I think, very much. The vibe is correct. I also don't know why she waited so long if this was so critical.

Of course, that's a Facebook argument and I don't think it's a wrong one. But I do think Facebook has reacted emotionally on this stuff and has made it into a best seller. So more people are reading it because of the, because one of the things, and I told this to someone from Metta, I'm like, they're like, it's not trustworthy. I said, neither are you.

So it's not like we trust Metta when they're actually telling the truth. And that's the problem is that nobody has any trust for this company. And so you assume the worst of them. And in my case, I do think it does hurt for people who are critics of them when things aren't buttoned up. Unfortunately, you have to be super buttoned up with these people. 100%. And I was supposed to interview her, but there was way too many holes.

I didn't feel like slagging her and I didn't feel like defending Facebook. And I just think she's got the vibe right. She's got the vibe right. That's for sure. But didn't it feel very sensationalist to you? It did. I hate to say that, but I really did. The Sandberg stuff, I'm a little kinder to her than you are, but I can see how that happened and the way she told it isn't correct. I can see Cheryl's very, I would say sisterly or motherly with her employees and all tech companies and Facebook included are far too familiar with their

employees and especially in the early days. It was like a frat sometimes. Sometimes it was like a family, a dysfunctional family for sure. Not, not Facebook wasn't as much of a frat as say Google was in many ways. And I think there was a familiarity in those companies that has long gone now, but initially was present. And I think all these companies were sort of behaved in ways that HR would just blush at. And at one point, there was a meta, it was Facebook at the time, person in HR, and they had just gotten there and I said, what's your job?

She said, I'm the vice president of keeping people from fucking each other. It was like I laughed out loud. Facebook wasn't the worst of them, which is interesting as I recall. But there was just a familiarity so I could see her saying, oh, sleep in the bed, you're pregnant. Sleep in the bed. No, do it.

I can see her doing that in a very sisterly and motherly way. I can't see her saying, oh, sleep in the bed, you're pregnant. Sleep in the bed, no, do it. I could see her doing that in a very sisterly, motherly way. I can't see her. She depicts it as a sexual overture. But I don't think she does, but it's not quite there. Also, if you read it, it's more invasive, I guess, than anything else and it leaves the reader to decide what the intent was.

But let me just say, I can see Shoshone being overly sisterly, motherly. I could not. This is just ridiculous on some level. So even leaving it open really irritated me, I think, in a lot of ways. Although again, I would read it because I think some of the memos and the vibe is correct. I think she does nail these people as the vibe they have, which is whatever it takes.

And I think that is, but that is not a new fresh piece of information for any of us. So. Your point, which I thought was a powerful one, is that when you're making accusations of someone being a sexual harasser or a bigot, or being responsible for the coarsening of our discourse

and enraging the population. I mean, I really don't think people have any sense of just how much damage that has done to the US and the world, pitting people against one another. I absolutely, 100% believe that Sheryl Sandberg likely saw research saying, oh, one in 18 girls in the United Kingdom cite Instagram as a reason for the depression

and then her trying to wallpaper over it. I absolutely believe that Sheryl Sandberg saw research saying and approved saying, we have this great new system of selling cosmetics and beauty products by identifying girls when they're feeling especially depressed and have especially low self-esteem at that moment and then targeting them with beauty ads. I, I, all of that really rings true for me that Sheryl Sandberg, while weaponizing the important discussion around gender balance in the workplace, decided to continue to deploy a business model that absolutely attacked

the self-esteem of girls resulting in a dramatic increase in self-harm. All of that rings 100% true to me. Some of this stuff, I just can't imagine Sheryl Sandberg ever taking the risks. Or some of this stuff, it just didn't ring true. It felt very gossipy, very sensationalist, meant to like feel more sinister and just sell more books, quite frankly.

And I actually think this book does harm because there's a lot of really credible people who have reported on what is going on inside of Facebook. And I think this helps Meta, because it can go, we have critics that are just full of shit. Yeah, I think that was my concern. So I think what it does is it diminishes the credible calls and accusations and findings that this company continues to levy tremendous damage on our society. That's why I recommend reading it because the stuff around the memos is really interesting

and I found insight in it, that's absolutely true. Anyway, we should move on. Speaking of which, another person, another piece of shit, in this case not Facebook, but RFK Jr.'s latest target is surprisingly one we can almost agree on, cell phones in schools, sort of. Talking about the risk of cell phone use for kids, Fox and Friends Kennedy did mention depression and poor performance, but then what did he do? Let's listen. Cell phones also produce electromagnetic radiation, which has been shown to do neurological damage to kids when it's around them all day and to cause cellular damage and even cancers.

And there he goes, down the highway. Research so far has not found an association between cell phone use and cancer nor DNA damage. Last year the Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on schools to ban phones in classrooms for the good reasons which are depression and poor performance. That he had to do this, oh god I want to just, I can't slap someone, I mean I would like to virtually slap him for doing this because it's an important issue and as usual he enters all kinds of conspiracy theories into it without, I don't know what to say.

Just once again, this is the exact same thing. It's like he's making a good point and then down he goes down conspiracy highway with his nonsensical bullshit. Your thoughts? When I was in junior high school, I saw my first R-rated movie, me and my best friend Adam Markman, we would get bored after school and we would go into Westwood where they had

all these amazing movie theaters and still do them. We'd sneak into a movie theater. We'd find a way. We'd try and sneak in through the back door or the front door. Side door. We'd get kicked out. Yeah, side door, whatever it was. Wait till the movie was letting out, the back door into the alley, sneak in.

We snuck in accidentally into the Exorcist. And for about the next six years, I had to like sit in the corner to put my socks on. I mean, I was so fucking freaked out. That movie traumatized me for years. That's a trauma to me. Mine was Halloween. Halloween was mine. I was 14 and for about two weeks, my mom would wake up in the middle of the night and look over and I'd be sleeping next to her bed. I just could not sleep around. And there's a scene in it where the, I think it's the priest says, the devil will mix in

truth with lies to really confuse you. And here's the tough part about R.F.K. Jr. is that he, I think he's actually really good on some issues and really articulate. He's very forceful about the industrial food complex and how it's optimized for profits and not for health and it's gone too far and kids' health. I think he's really, I think he's really good on some issues. And then he goes on to say, as the person who's supposed to be measured in siting research, that this shit causes cancer.

There's no, like you said, there's absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. He ruins it. And loses a ton of credibility. I agree. That's a good lovely story about the exorcist. But again, mine was Halloween. Mine was Halloween. I hate that movie. I love Jamie Lee Curtis, but I hate that movie. The guy with the hockey mask, he won't stop coming back.

No, no, that was a different one. That's Halloween. Yeah, the chainsaw. Oh, no, wait,, that was a different one. That's Halloween. Yeah, that changed. Okay. No, that's Friday the 13th. I'm sorry. Yes, that's right. Yes. No, it's not that.

Jamie Lee Curtis. She's a great person. She's a great person. Yes, I've interviewed her and have talked to her in the interim and she's a wonderful, lovely, jolly, fantastic person. Just a real winner. In any case, RRFK, we really think kids should not have phones in schools.

You're now fucking wrecking it for us. Stop wrecking things for us. This is going to set it back, unfortunately. Same thing with, I think, careless people. But again, read it nonetheless. Okay, Scott, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, Elon Elon must visit to the Pentagon. When you get into an Escape plug-in hybrid, you get the perfect mix. You can chill in electric mode, turn it up in gas mode, or get the best of both in hybrid mode.

Or get the best of both in hybrid mode. Choose how you move in the all-in-one Escape. And right now, get a $3,000 rebate on the Escape Plug-in Hybrid and all 2025 Escape models. For details, visit your Toronto area Ford store or ford.ca. Scott, we're back. President Trump is denying a report that Elon Musk was set to be briefed on top secret war plans for China during a visit to the Pentagon last week, according to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Elon's visit was just an informal meeting about innovation, efficiencies, and smarter production. Trump was later asked about Elon's possible involvement in Chinese foreign policy during a press run. Let's listen to what he said.

We don't want to have a potential war with China, but I can tell you if we did, we're very well equipped to handle it. But I don't want to show that to anybody. But certainly you wouldn't show it to a businessman who is helping us so much. He's a great patriot. He's taking, he's paying a big price for helping us cut costs. He's doing a great job. He's finding tremendous waste, fraud, and abuse.

But I certainly wouldn't want, you know, Elon has businesses in China, and he would be susceptible perhaps to that. Well, at least Trump's telling the truth there, but I don't think he's telling the truth. I think Elon has enormous access to Intel. I think both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, I think, reported this, and the New York Times, I think broke it. I just think this is exactly what they were going to do. And then they, and I don't believe Pete Hicks, I don't believe Donald Trump, I don't believe Elon Musk.

And so in this case, I believe the reporters and they probably pulled it back, the briefing he was going to get. I think he's got his fingers in all kinds of stuff that has potential conflicts of interest. I don't even think they're potential. I think everything he's doing right now has a massive conflict of interest. Any thoughts on this one? Because there's also one, of course, SpaceX is positioning itself to get billions of dollars in new federal contracts or other support, according to report, again in the New York Times. NASA,

the Pentagon, the FAA, and the Commerce Department are among the agencies with ongoing and new deals with SpaceX. SpaceX will also get a boost from Trump's new space-based missile defense project called the Golden Dome. This is just ridiculous. Like, he's just so, he's got so many business interests and so many conflicts, Scott. Scott McPherson Well, I mean, if you think about the very founding of our nation, one of the pillars that our constitution rests on is that people were trying to escape religious persecution and they were visionary and said,

all right, we're going to try and set up a separation between church and state. And that has now been breached. You could argue that a lot of like the political orthodoxy of the right is just white Christian nationalism. It's no longer even conservative ideals of small government, strong defense. It's white Christian nationalism. So that kind of wall has been breached. The other thing that people don't talk about enough is the separation between business and state.

And that is they create an operating system for competition, for full body contact violence and competition. They don't pick winners and losers such that we produce the best companies in the world that are more prosperous, that hopefully pay taxes to pay for schools, roads, and health benefits for veterans amongst other things. We've now breached that. I mean, that thing has just

been overrun. And essentially the White House has decided, okay, the guy who gave us the most money and probably put me in this chair, we're going to become the marketing department for Tesla. We're going to do a used car lot, bad infomercial, late night TV commercial on Tesla. We're going to do a used car lot bad infomercial late night TV commercial on Tesla. In addition, Musk comes out and says that the FAA is on the brink of near collapse. That causes panic. You don't need to make people who don't like to fly even more nervous claiming that the Verizon system is outdated. Then he has to come back and correct himself and go, oh, the current system is not from Verizon, but Verizon was picked to implement the new system.

I mean, this is just, you're not supposed to have be the outsource marketing department. Now, on a couple other levels here, there's a lot of stuff here. I think Doge's critical mistake or one of their strategic errors, if they had started instead of with USAID, instead of starting with Snap or Veterans, if they had started, instead of with USAID, instead of starting with SNAP

or veterans, if they'd started with the Pentagon, I think that actually for them would have been tactically very smart. Because I do think that there should be tighter integration between kind of that Silicon Valley ethos of innovation and our military industrial complex. I do think that some of the innovators in Silicon Valley and the ability to build better weapons, I like that.

I think that's a good idea. And I think there's probably a lot of waste you could find. I won't call it fraud, but a lot of waste you could find. There are ships being built that the Navy does not want, but because they bring billions of dollars to certain congressional districts, they refuse to pull the plug. And the commanders in the Navy, the admirals are saying, we can't use these things. They're a liability. So if they'd started with the Defense Department, it would have been better. And then just to go tactically again,

he's either stupid or using it as a weapon of mass distraction with the fact that we're surrendering to Putin and massively running up our deficits. And that is the following, this notion of a golden dome. Okay, and they cite Israel. Israel has the Iron Dome, but just a few facts. The Iron Dome is very expensive

and it only covers, purposefully and logistically, certain key population centers. The Iron Dome can't cover all of Israel. And by the way, Israel is the size of New Jersey. They have ground defense systems, missile systems in place. To do that for America is feasibly right now impossible. What was the Reagan one? The Reagan one that was genius. The Reagan one, the defense shield or the missile or the space shield, whatever it was. But do you remember they released a video of an invisible laser taking out a rocket

on the launch pad? Do you remember this? Yes. It showed them disintegrating a rocket on the launch pad. Do you remember this? It showed them disintegrating a rocket on the launch pad. It ended up that that freaked out the Russians and they immediately went to work on this and started investing a ton of money. And a lot of people say that incremental investment

in military and defense spending was too much for the Russian economy to handle and actually led to the fall of the Soviet Union. Reagan not only spent them into oblivion, he gave them the perception we were further, it ended up that video was bullshit. We had nothing of the sort, but it freaked them out and got them spending so much money

that it supposedly bankrupted them. I think that's genius. I think that's the kind of shit you want our security apparatus doing, fooling the enemy into doing stupid things thated them. I think that's genius. I think that's the kind of shit you want our security apparatus doing. Fooling the enemy into doing stupid things that hurt them. He did a lot of that. He did a lot of like noise making and that caused the Russians to overreact.

Go here, go here, look over here, no spend here. He did that a lot. But this is- Tear down this wall. He was quite good at that. Anyone who understands defense systems or can just do any sort of scientific investigation goes the idea of building a shield I mean, maybe you put some of our universities and think tanks and scientists to work conceptually on this But it don't it the mother of all false equivalences

It's like it's like it's not even comparing when you compare the Iron Dormant Israel to this concept They're talking about the Golden Dome. It's not even apples to oranges, it's apples to aircraft carriers. You're talking about two entirely different things. Yeah. And I think let's get back to the grift of Elon Musk. I mean, I think it's just literally he cannot be in meetings like this. He should not be in meetings like this. He has already attacked people that are regulating him and cut their budgets so that they don't

regulate him. He's already been involved in all kinds of things that have to do with his businesses, several of which are cratering. All the videos this week about Tesla's being pulled apart by glue, and we'll talk about that in a minute, literally get back to your business, sir, because really a lot of your businesses should not be advantaged in this way maybe SpaceX is the best person for some of these things but all of them I doubt it and I think one of the things that that's happening here is he puts himself in a place and one where

he's explicitly trying to to to advantage himself he's taking a page out of his 2024 playbook to influence Wisconsin State Supreme Court election. What's he doing in there paying voters? His super PAC announced it's offering $100 to register voters in Wisconsin who signed a petition opposing activists, judges, and register themselves or identify themselves. Elon-affiliated groups have now spent more than $13 million to get a GOP candidate, Brad Schimel, elected in the Wisconsin race for a judge's race. And the reason is they want to flip it from liberal to conservative.

It's a four-three kind of situation. He's very interested in Wisconsin. Why is that? Why do you think that is? Because he's trying to save abortion, I mean, trying to help anti-abortion forces? No. He's interested because Tesla's involved in a lawsuit, which will go to the Supreme Court, challenging a state law that prohibits car manufacturers from owning dealerships.

He has a beef with Wisconsin around his own personal businesses, and he's put enormous amount of money to get this one guy who is a Trump acolyte into power. And that is that. That is what's happening there. And so he's going to go around the country and do this, not just abroad, not just in China, not just everywhere else, where his self-interest take effect. He's going to pump money into these things like these judgeships and these smaller things that will get him enormous payback.

And it's just, it cannot be allowed to go on. It absolutely cannot. And I think the Democrats are fighting. There's enormous amounts of money going into this, like $56 million. It's a crazy amount of money for a judgeship. It's just, this guy has got his fingers in every pie and it's always goes right back to his self-interest.

Well, he's allowed to do it. And there's a lot of pharmaceutical companies and, you know, big tech spent 60 or 70 million dollars in lobbying. It all reverses back to the same place. One, in terms of 13 million dollars, Democrats should be able to match that, even though we're not the wealthiest people in the world. And they are.

This all goes back to Citizens United. Unless we get money out of politics, like the majority of democratic nations do, and say, all right, they ring-fence the time of the election, the amount of political spending, you know, we're just not going... He's allowed to do this. And we position him as sinister and the shock and awe of a third of a billion dollars and weaponizing his communication platform really quickly.

Quite frankly, it was brilliant. It was strategic. And he got to put, because our electoral system is all fucked up per your previous comments and because money can run unfettered, he was able to probably decide who was president. But he gets to do that just the way a couple of our very wealthy donors could probably do the same. What we're upset about is they're better at it right now. And until we reverse engineer to, unless you do something to modify or overturn Citizens United,

this is only going to get worse. And both sides will complain about it, but the reality is he's allowed to do this, we're allowed to do it back, we're upset. Quite frankly, they're just to do it back, we're upset, quite frankly, they're just more brazen about it. But- Well, I think the second step is, and now I want all the contracts,

and I get that some donors get contracts after they give giving, but not in, this is like an unprecedented level of that. I would have thought the Republicans had more self-esteem than to just let this guy kind of roll in and start making decisions on their behalf. I mean, that's a different level, but the idea that he can win contracts by giving money to certain people, you know, welcome to America. That's how American politics work. But it's everywhere. And

I think at some point, this may spur a lot of reform, which will be interesting because someone just went a little too far, I think on these kind of things. Anyway, we'll see where this goes. It's going to be on April 1st. He of course had Brad on X. Do you saw that thing of X, the amount of how it's changed in terms of that there's mostly,

it's a MAGA echo chamber down? I don't read anything on X. I'm not on it. No, it's not on X. It was a chart which showed that 95 percent of the largest voices on there. Besides, Elon's the number one because he facilitates it. So he is. He pushes people towards his content. And Kanye. Kanye, whatever. It's 95 percent MAGA.

It's crazy, like right wing stuff now. It was pretty mixed actually for a long time, of screaming people, but now it's 95 percent that. Anyway, pretty mixed actually for a long time, screaming people, but now it's 95% that. Anyway, let's go to a quick break. We come back. Unfortunately, there was a lot of Elon this week, more trouble for Tesla and Elon's daughter, what a heroine, speaks out. Looking to simplify? How about the simple sounds of neutral vodka soda with zero gram sugar per can for the next 15 seconds? Neutral.

Refreshingly simple. Scott, we're back with more Tesla turmoil. Tesla's recalling 46,000 Cybertrucks. They really haven't sold that many. They were supposed to sell 250,000. That was an interesting number. Basically, all of them because of an exterior panel that could fall off while driving. Meanwhile, Tesla owners are trading their cars at record levels amid Elon backlash,

according to data from car shopping site Edmunds. Trump is also now threatening to send people convicted of vandalizing Tesla's to prisons in El Salvador, which is bullshit, but whatever. It's really obnoxious that he did so. This is really interesting. Elon addressed Tesla employees at an all-hands meeting last week saying they were still in good hands and hang on to your stock even though the board is selling its stock. So maybe not hang on to your stock, Tesla employees.

There's videos all over the internet. My sons cited them. They're all watching them of Tesla's fucking up and people pulling off things because of the glue on the front panel or something and stuff like that. It's getting all over the place. Well, let's talk about that. How do you look about this? Because now the videos are going crazy. I mean, again, my son's just said, have you seen these? And they have seen all of them, which is really interesting. Well, again, as a general rule, just in terms of corporate governance, when boards address employees, including the CEO,

you're not supposed to make stock recommendations. No, you're not. You're just not, I mean, in the 90s, and this is one of, I've been wealthy three times, which means I lost it all twice. And one of the reasons I lost it all and ended up being worth negative $2 million at a stage in my life where I was just starting to have kids was when I was on the border red envelope

and I had a bunch of stock, the gestalt and the pressure from your investors was, oh, you don't get to sell stock. I mean, when they sell stock, it's for diversification and business reasons. But as the founder or the chairman or the CEO, you're setting the wrong signal. I thought you were in this to win it. It's changed a lot now. Now, entrepreneurs are allowed to do secondaries

and get liquidity and VCs will let you do that because there's more competition, there's more capital than there are entrepreneurs. Back then, whether it was Sequoia or the people backing my companies, you were not supposed to sell. They got to sell stock, but not you. And just in general, also when you're on public boards,

I remember when the New York Times went to three bucks a share saying on the board there, maybe we should as a board start to buy some shares. And Bob Denham, who was I think the lawyer for Warren Buffett said, we shouldn't pressure anyone, including each other to buy stock. And you know what? I was wrong. He was right. This is people's personal. You know, when the world's wealthiest man is telling you what to do with your own financial security, it's really not your fucking business boss. If they have shares that they've vested because they work there, I mean, Elon Musk does not

care about you. And if you, you know, that's not appropriate for a board member to be telling employees to hold on to stock or buy stock for their own benefit. That's for his own benefit. He wants his wealth to go back up. And also just on a, just on a evaluation basis, this company, even with its drawdown, it's still trading at I think at 120 or 130 times earnings and its revenues, Tesla is about to be the auto company

that is declining faster than any automobile company in the world in terms of sales. And yet most of these companies traded 5 to 20 times earnings and it still trades at 130. So, I mean, I would not get near the stock for the 10-foot pole, much less tell employees who are probably have a net worth of maybe 400,000, maybe including their house, when you're worth 400 billion or 300 now, you should not be telling them to hold on or buy stock.

That's totally inappropriate. Agreed. And I think, you know, this shares, we'll see where these shares go. They have stuck in the two forties, sort of pretty much. They've gone up actually in the last week. Everything's recovered in the last week. They're still down 24 or 25% in the last month. Still up for the year though, still up 12 months. Yep, still up the last week. Everything's recovered in the last week. They're still down 24 or 25% in the last month.

Still up for the year though. Still up 12 months. Yep, still up year to day. Yeah. For 12, well, no year to day, they're down 34%. Last 12 months. One year. 12 months, they're up 44%.

Yeah, they are. So we'll see that there was a big run up right after the, that they're sort of dealing with and it's sort of, it's probably going to stick down in the 200s, although some are predicting lower. And he'll do some nonsense, give some Grokstock to it, you know, or something like that, like they did over on Twitter where he larded it with Grokstock and has made the valuation of Twitter go up.

One of the things that got a lot, besides these videos, which are getting a lot of attention of people taking apart the Teslas, and especially the Cybertruck, and also doing, there was a Ford 150 versus a Cybertruck face-off that was very sad for Cybertruck, and very happy for the Ford 150. There's this interview that his estranged daughter,

Vivian Wilson, did for Teen Vogue, and was on the cover. I love Teen Vogue, by the way. I think it's a really great publication. Wilson, who is a trans woman, called her father cringe and a pathetic man child. She said she had not had a relationship with him since 2020. This apparently, not a very good one before that,

this apparently did not sit well with Elon, who dead named his daughter on X again, calling out the woke mind virus yet again, saying he's going to kill it once again. He's also been amplifying a conspiracy theory about trans people vandalizing Tesla's, like he went on a rampage. I thought this interview was fantastic.

It was very funny. It was like a 20-year-old, a young person, just pretty cool, a pretty cool young person who also had a lot of wisdom. At the same time, really did understand herself in terms of not knowing everything. It was very self-aware and really, I thought a very smart way. It reminded me a lot of my own two older kids. They know what they don't know,

but they also love to brag a little bit. I thought it was a wonderful interview and I thought the pictures were wonderful, and that she gets under his skin so much is really quite delightful on so many levels. And it's a big risk for someone like this. She lives in Japan, but she doesn't have financial links with him, but he's still a very powerful person.

And obviously, it set him off quite a bit, especially because she is everything. She is a delight online, and he is not. She is a delight online and he is not. She is funny online, he is not. And so she's everything he's wanted to be online, which is cool, I guess. Your thoughts? Look, I generally think you cut a pretty wide berth

in the people's kids and the relationship with their kids is sort of off limits. But when you dead name your kid on a podcast and say that she is dead to you, you're opening yourself up for scrutiny. And in my view, you know, when you talk about masculinity, when you talk about what it is to be a man, it can distill down to three basic points,

your protector, your provider, and your procreator. Okay, ground zero for being a provider as a man is you stand by your kids, full stop. I mean, you see all these parents in the courtroom when their kids have done horrible things. Yeah. And you understand and empathize that they are going to side with their children. They're going to protect their children.

So I had, when I was at South by Southwest, I had lunch with a friend and he was talking about how his daughter said that they wanted to now identify as a man and it was very traumatic for the parents. Not because they, you know, they're struggling with, all right, a person should be comfortable in their own skin. They're trying to put aside, they're trying to say, okay, one of the wonderful things about being a human

and being in America is having the right to present you as you are most comfortable. At the same time, they're also worried that teenagers make bad decisions. And, you know, you could just understand they're really like worried and upset about it. But the idea that this guy would ever be critical of this kid, they were just,

you could just tell how much, just how much pain he was feeling, because not because he didn't wanna have a trans son, but because he wanted his kid to make the right decision and was concerned about his kid. And that's the right, that's what I think it means to be a mother or a father. You default to protection.

And this guy does not default to protection. He is making his daughter's life harder. And that is exactly what it means to not be a man. I mean, this guy is such a terrible role model. He is saying to other men, because of his incredible achievements, they look up to him and they are going to model him that if your child makes certain decisions

you don't agree with, you're going to publicly shame them and make their lives harder. So this is just so wrong on so many dimensions. And he's just, again, I go back to the same thing. This guy's the worst fucking thing to happen to young men since porn, since old men deciding to protect their own land, decided to send young men off to war.

I mean, there are very few worse influences right now on young men than Elon Musk. That's my TED Talk. I would agree. I don't think it's working, though. I have to tell you, my sons make constant. And they used to really like him, I have to say they did. But now they're like, they trade back and forth all these videos on Teslas and so on. And they were horrified by his response to the daughter. They thought the daughter was cool. Like, the daughter's fucking cool. Like she really is.

And again, what I really liked about it is she understood what she didn't know. And she says like, maybe that'll change. Maybe I'm wrong. Like she had more self-awareness at 20 years old in a very difficult position than he has had his whole life. So let's just give kudos to her mom who was quoted in the piece, and I thought was a wonderful piece, essentially calling her daughter magical. It was a wonderful quote from the mother and sounds like, and I know Justine a little bit and is just really terrific.

Thank goodness for that. I met her at Ted, she seemed lovely, smart. She's lovely, she's really interesting. Friendly. Smart and just obviously a great parent here in this situation, this really incredibly difficult situation. I met my first wife at Ted. I think that's the whitest thing I've ever said. It is actually. I have to say.

I'm translucent. I've become invisible. We're going to move on. Okay. Anyway, Vivian, great job. Great job, Vivian. We think you're amazing and you think your father's an asshole, just like you do. Anyway, Scott, one more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails. Okay, Scott, let's hear some wins and fails. Would you like me to go first? No, you go first, here.

I think you got to give the- Well, there's one small win which is this New York Times piece on Hooters becoming a refuge for young gay men. And it's this wonderful piece where a lot of dads apparently brought gay sons to Hooters trying to get them. And the Hooters waitresses thankfully saved these gay people. We're like, don't worry about it.

Like there was this wonderful thing and it was just, just just, just go find it. Hooters, Gay Men, and you will, it's a delightful read and thank God, Hooters is on the Recipes of Bankruptcy apparently, but thank God for Hooters Waitress. This is all I have to say in that regard. But I think you have to give it to the Severance season finale. I watched it here in Puerto Rico on Friday. How you did? How is it? Yeah. Amazing. I'm not going to give away too much, but boy is Ben Stiller one hell of a director. Did he direct this one? He hasn't directed all of them. He did. I believe he did.

Yes. He directed a lot of them this season, more than he was supposed to, he told me. But it is just, wow, was that a mind-fuck in a way that was really good, and it leaves open for a whole new season. That is really great. It was not going the way you thought it was going to go, but it did, so it had a very satisfying and you didn't feel at a loss. At the same time, it was a lot about innies and

outies and the relationship you have with yourself, and it was real the struggles you have with yourself. There's so much to unpack and Patricia, every single person in it, Milchek, the guy who plays Milchek, did this incredible, there's a marching band, there was a big fire, and the whole thing was every single,

there was a goat lady, there's so much to it. Every single character had their moment and every single character took advantage of their moment in a really profound and wonderful way. I couldn't recommend it more. It was really funny too. It was really funny and also heartbreaking and etc.

Every character was wonderful. I just have to say that was such a win and Ho cetera. And every character was wonderful. So I just have to say that was such a win. And Hooters, also Hooters. Wait, can I comment on your wins? Sure. Yes, please. Go ahead. So I'm an enormous fan of Ben Stiller and he gives awkward Jewish guys hope that they can marry a hot, interesting woman. I got to know his wife a little bit.

She's very interesting. Also very good looking. Not that that's important. Okay. She's an actor too, but she's also wonderful. But go ahead. Go ahead. What? Like interesting and hot wasn't enough? Anyway, so- Okay. Smart would be good.

Go ahead. Just on the Hooter story, I read that. I thought it was really sweet. I actually know someone who was a waiter at Hooters and was in a car accident and lost her leg, and now she works at IHOP. and was in a car accident and lost her leg and now she works at IHOP. Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Come on. You just waited for that. You don't wanna talk about profound things, please. I couldn't think about anything else when you were reading that win. Also, also, I wanted, just as a joke,

I went down and applied for a job at Hooters and they gave me a bra and they said, okay, fill this out. Oh my God, all right. By the way, the story. Let me just tell you, Hooters waitresses rock. So they just fucking rock. I got more stories here, one is true.

And also the reason they're writing about it is because Hooters is declared bankruptcy, but I have an idea how to save the franchise. They should do home delivery of meals. They could call it boobereats. All right, now the true part of the story. Yeah, okay. Somebody, this is true.

Somebody very close to me was a Hooters girl. You want to take any guesses? Worked at Hooters through college. Who? Mother of my children. Oh, wow. Oh, she did? Wow.

And occasionally she still has the outfit and occasionally puts it on. I'm sure she was lovely like all these people in this piece. No, she wasn't lovely. She was fucking hot. No, I mean lovely in terms of the way that she handled these. I'm sure she was sitting down gay kids and telling them it's okay. I don't know if she was.

They weren't. They would just sidle up to him saying, don't worry kid, you're fine the way you are. It is a sweet story. I'll give you that. It is a sweet story. It's a sweet story. All right. Thank you for that. All right. So fail is that they really aren't finding as much of this Doge thing. I think it's an absolute fail.

They are not finding as much fraud, waste, and abuse. Oh, you think? They thought. Especially in Social Security, they're just not finding it. There's a great story in the New York Times, at the Wall Street Journal, and all of them, they're talking about how they're just not finding it, especially in claims of massive problems. The lying about—reforming government is a critical thing in our age.

We should always be reforming government and making it better for people to get their stuff. Stuff you pay for. I'm very cognizant. Like right now, the fact that we're paying for innocent people to be sent to El Salvador, to this lunatic who runs that country, and I know he's like there, but nonetheless seems like a lunatic, is heinous. It's just heinous. So I just feel like it's always important to understand how government can work better. But this is making an argument that government does work well.

And I think that's great. But at the same time, just like stop it. Just again, just like a lot of things, we really care about government reform, you're fucking ruining it for government reform. That's my feeling. And I think we're gonna have a problem with it because this will tarnish efforts like that

for years to come. Scott, all yours. No Hooters jokes. If the audit, if this is an audit of the federal government, then the federal government comes out with a clean bill of health. They have struggled despite all of their lies, hyperbola, and the fact that this is the largest business in the world, and the fact that there is a lot of largesse.

There's a lot less waste and fraud than even Democrats I thought might be there. This is like going into the doctor's office and they do a full body cavity search of everything, and they give you a colonoscopy, and they take your blood, your urine, and it's like, okay, you're actually pretty good. So I think if anything, Doche has found that, no, there's not nearly as much fraud and waste as people had feared. Anyways, my fail is the Yale University's humanitarian research lab, which has been tracking the missing children. Russia has allegedly been kidnapping children from Ukraine

and then bringing them back to Russia. And the humanitarian research lab from Yale University had been tracking this. And the humanitarian research lab, which by the way is still, you can still make donations, says that more than 19,000 children had been deported to Russia, and only about 1,236 had been returned.

And according to the lab's research, the children have often experienced abuse, inadequate food, and have been cut off from their families as they are indoctrinated by Russia and often given military training. And a bipartisan group of lawmakers said it has reason to believe that the data from the repository has been permanently deleted.

And what do you know? The Trump administration's cut off all funding here. And this could have devastating consequences. Like, these kids have literally been disappeared. And it's the same sort of thing that's going on right now where you have due process for tech companies, but a kid in a... More than due process. And Tim Miller did a great job on this.

By the way, Tim Miller for the Bullwork Podcast, I decided he's my future ex-husband. I'm in love with that guy. Yeah, he's handsome, man. Smart, too. Passionate. But he's brought attention to this kid. This kid, I think his name's Andre, who's basically fled communist Venezuela

and was rounded up and has been sent to this hellscape prison in El Salvador. And Tim went on his Instagram. I mean, the kid is clearly gay and clearly not a member of a deadly Venezuelan gang. I mean, and it goes to the same thing. I mean, for God's sakes, and this guy's not a member of a killer Venezuelan gang.

All right? And it's the same thing. I've been saying for a long time that we're one economic shock away from rounding up people, and this is a form of that. And that is, all right, you're a Japanese dentist, you've been a great American citizen, but we're under threat,

and we're gonna start putting you in internment camps. This is a form of that. Without due process, they are finding people, and of course, it's people who are poor and don't have Tim fighting for them, which he can for every person. They're just gonna maybe disappear and never be heard from again.

But that along the lines of cutting funding from this fantastic organization of people at Yale, trying to track down kids who've basically been kidnapped, people don't, Americans don't realize the price we're gonna pay from going from the good guys to the bad guys. When you're big and strong and a good person, people wanna be your friend, people wanna be your ally,

people respect you, people wanna help you. When you're weak and small and when you're weak and kind, people might be nice to you and feel sorry for you, but it doesn't have the same implication. When you're big and strong and mean, people start plotting against you behind your back because you're seen as a threat. People start thinking, you know,

I'm gonna ignore those funds being funneled to terrorist cell groups in the US. I am going to, I am not going to be as kind, I'm not going to help or protect American tourists when I see them under threat. I'm not inclined to help or protect American tourists when I see them under threat. I'm not inclined to do business with American companies. When you go from big and strong and trying to do the right thing

to big and strong and just mean, people start plotting again. People are gonna decide, you know what? I'm gonna ignore that uranium enriched uranium shipment to Iran. I'm just gonna ignore it. I used to like those guys. I'd probably contact the U.S. embassy and say, hey, FYI, confidentially, there's something going on here. People have no concept, I believe, of just how much damage over the medium and long term are done when

you go from the good guys to the bad guys. And this is happening everywhere. And my loss is these national security advisor, Waltz, was on Face the Nation and refused to answer questions because the reality is he has no answers about why we're cutting funding to a database. And they're not only cutting funding, they're trying to delete the data. So these Ukrainian parents can't even find their kids. So in just a matter, it feels

like of shock and awe speed, we're going from being the good guys to the bad guys. And regardless of your morals, your ethics, that's just stupid. That's kind of, we've gotten so spoiled to people giving us the benefit of the doubt, to people being nice to us abroad, to people wanting to work with American companies, to people informing us the benefit of the doubt, to people being nice to us abroad, to people wanting to work with American companies, to people informing our security apparatus when very bad people are trying to do bad things to us. There is, so my fail is just an unnecessary transition from being the good guys to the bad guys in record time.

My win is I do love these town halls that a lot of Republicans for people are showing up and what I feel is a civil manner exercising their first amendment rights. There's a lot of jeers and shouts, but there aren't expletives, there have been no reports of violence. I think they're powerful.

I think the representatives hear them. And also it's got to give it to Senator, Senators and Representative Ocasio-Cartez for their Fighting Oligarchy Tour, which is drawing record crowds. It feels really good to have what I feel is like a coordinated, effective response. And it's powerful and it's very satisfying and they're doing a great job and they're, you know, they're kind of touching on what I would argue are some of the the

the key points here Today we are here to say very loudly and clearly No, we will not accept an No, we will not accept an oligarchic form of society where a handful of billionaires run the government. I think they're doing a great job and the rallies are fun. They have sort of that, quite frankly, that early Trump feel with a group of really impassioned

people. So anyways, my win is these people showing up to express their viewpoint in a civil but robust but engaged manner at these town halls and as Senator Sanders and Representative Ocasio-Cortez and their fighting oligarchy tour. Agreed, agreed. Of course, Trump is saying it's all fixed

and he would know. Anyway, it's not, it's really real, I have to say. It's really fun to watch. I would love to watch democracy like that. I like Screamy town halls. I love Screamy city hall meetings too. Anyway, that's a great one. And they look fantastic and they sound fun.

You're right, they sound fun actually. We wanna hear from you. Send us your questions about business tech or whatever's on your mind. Go to nymag.com slash pivot, submit a question for the show. We'll call 855-51-Pivot. And elsewhere in the Kara and Scott universe this week on On with Kara Swisher, I talked to Alvara Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, the two Democratic commissioners Trump

fired at the FTC last week for without cause. They didn't even mention it. It's an illegal act, what he did. But let's listen to a clip. I fear that the next merger that comes before the commission, it's not going to matter if it raises prices on consumers, it's not going to matter if it screws over workers, not going to matter if it screws over small businesses. The only thing that's going to matter is which billionaires have the president's ear on it and which way they can tuck it. It was a great interview. It's really interesting. I'm sure they'll get their jobs back, but at the same time, the fact that he tried it is typical of Trump at this point. Okay, that's the show. Thanks for listening to Pivot. Be sure to like and subscribe to our YouTube channel. We'll be

back on Friday. Scott, read us out. Today's show was produced by Lara Neiman, Zoe Marcus, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie and her Todd Andrew did this episode. Julian Villard edited this video. Thanks also to Drew Gross, Miss Viverio and Dan Shulon. Nishak Kherwaz, Vox Media's Executive Producer of Audio. Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. You can subscribe to the magazine at nrmag.com slash pod. We'll be back later this week for another breakdown of all things tech and business.

Kara, have a great rest of your vacation.