Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov - Things Are Getting Real Fascist (ft. Aaron Parnas)

Episode Date: August 27, 2025

Jessica is joined by lawyer, journalist, and Substacker Aaron Parnas to ask some alarmingly authoritarian news stories. Does Trump really intend to call in the military to police American cities? Does the administration ever intend to present evidence for deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia, or are they just being stubborn? And what is going on with Trump’s hands? Plus — as a Gen. Z luminary, Aaron reveals the key to reaching younger voters. Follow Jessica Tarlov, @JessicaTarlov.  Follow Prof G, @profgalloway. Follow Raging Moderates, @RagingModeratesPod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This winter, take a trip to Tampa on Porter Airlines. Enjoy the warm Tampa Bay temperatures and warm Porter hospitality on your way there. All Porter fairs include beer, wine, and snacks, and free fast-streaming Wi-Fi on planes with no middle seats. And your Tampa Bay vacation includes good times, relaxation, and great Gulf Coast weather. Visit flyporter.com and actually enjoy economy. Megan Rapino here. This week, A Touchmore is live from Seattle to celebrate the unveiling of Sue's statue outside Climate Pledge Arena. And in honor of the special event, we're talking to Sue's former teammate, Storm Legend, and icon Lauren Jackson, plus current storm star Gabby Williams. Seattle is in the house. Let's go. Check out the latest episode of A Touchmore wherever you get your podcast and on YouTube.

While going to Raging Moderates, this is the last week of Scott Free August, and we're going out with a bang. I am joined today by someone that Rolling Stone called The Left's Upgrade to Joe Rogan, no pressure there. Content creator, lawyer, TikTok journalist, Aaron Parnas. Erin, thank you for joining me. Super excited to be here, so happy to be here. What is it like when someone says that you're the Left's upgrade to Joe Rogan? I kind of laugh because I don't try to be that. Joe Rogan is like a Fear Factor host term podcaster.

I don't want to be Joe Rogan. I don't think the left needs a Joe Rogan, but that's a whole conversation for another day. I don't know. It might be a conversation for it. I mean, we are going to get to it at the end. But like, that does kind of live over all our heads where people are like, oh, no, no, no, it'll be fine.

We'll just like find our Joe Rogan, but you don't even want to be Joe Rogan. Well, no, I mean, when you think about it, you know Joe Rogan endorsed Bernie Sanders like a few years back, right? He's not this Republic and talk show host. He endorsed Donald Trump. because I think he just doesn't like women or didn't like Kamala Harris. I mean, it wasn't really like, oh, I'm this big MAGA supporter, I don't know, 2024 thing.

It was just he didn't like Kamala Harris. I bet you if James Tala Rico is on the ballot in 2028, you know, maybe he'll endorse a Democrat for the first time because he really liked Tala RICO on their recent podcast. So, I mean, I don't know. What do you think? I mean, do you think the left needs in Joe Rogan? I mean, we need a lot of stuff. Like, I wouldn't be mad if we had a naturally occurring Joe Rogan. And it isn't what you do, right?

So, like, you're a journalist and Joe Rogan is not a journalist. I think, obviously, having the gift of gab and being able to have long-form conversations without people running for elected office melting away into their seat and having a complete panic attack would be a good thing. So in terms of the battle testing, I would love to have a Joe Rogan because I'd like to see someone do three hours sitting with someone. But Joe Rogan, I presume he's going to be back. frankly, he seems very upset about the immigration stuff and kind of how the administration is doing basically everything. But I'm getting a little sick of people saying, like, well, why is he doing this? I'm like, Trump told you exactly everything that he's going to do. So why are you surprised by any of it?

It's really funny. I see people in these small towns across the country who are really upset. And I'm like, I'm looking at them and I'm like, well, you guys voted for this. Like, Project 2025 was outlined pretty clearly for you. I mean, you were told on the campaign trial repeatedly what he was going to do. do, they told you it. And then now you're having buyer's remorse. I don't know. To me, I think it's less of them being surprised of what he's actually doing and more of them kind of facing that social taboo of supporting what he's doing and coming out now publicly and saying, you know what, maybe, no, no, I didn't think he was go this far. Like, this is not what I support. Even on the back of their minds, they probably would still vote for him again. I don't know. I think so.

I mean, when people say, you know, I know, Democrats are up eight on the generic ballot or whatever, but I'm like, I don't know, election held today again. I'm not feeling that. fantastic. But actually, this is a perfect segue into talking about what's going on in D.C. and Chicago. In today's episode of Raging Moderates, we're discussing Trump possibly sending the National Guard into Chicago, the administration's relentless pursuit

of Kilmar Obrigo-Garcia, and where Democrats should actually be showing up in media if they want to win the midterms. All right, let's get into it, starting with Chicago. Trump is once again threatening to deploy the National Guard, his favorite thing to do, bragging that he could, quote, unquote, solve the city's crime problem in just a week. seems impossible for anybody. It's the same playbook, federal troops and Democratic-run cities, local leaders calling it unconstitutional, and Trump escalating anyway. He's even signed an executive order setting up specialized guard units to handle, quote, civil disturbances across the country. Doesn't sound scary at all. I mean, I follow you and know you well. So I know what your general take is on this. But can you talk about, I mean, you've been out on the streets of D.C. a lot documenting what's going on with the National Guard there.

Like, does Trump have the right to do this in Chicago? What do you think is going to be his next step? I mean, does he have the right to do this in Chicago? Theoretically, I mean, he does have the right to declare a national emergency of some sort like he did in Los Angeles and deploy the National Guard and say there's this massive crime emergency. A president really has brought executive authority to do that. It's going to be challenged in the courts. And then ultimately, we'll see what happens. but this United States Supreme Court has been very willing to kind of give significant executive leeway to the Trump administration.

So I wouldn't be surprised if it's all kind of held up. Should he be doing it? I mean, I think it's interesting that he's kind of selling the public, this kind of false bag of goods. He's saying that Chicago is this crime-ridden city. Yes, Chicago has crime. But when you look at the statistics, he's not sending it to the red states that are also in the top 10 crime cities across the country. He's not sending it to states with Republican governors. is he's doing it because of partially just retribution.

And second to me is just really a distraction. He doesn't want people talking about his falling poll numbers. He doesn't want people talking about the Epstein stuff. I mean, there's a lot of stuff that he doesn't want people talking about in D.C. I mean, it's really a dystopian kind of feeling walking down the street and seeing armed military personnel, just walking right beside you. But I will say I've spoken to a number of these National Guard members and I'm kind of asked them straight up, like, do you want to be here?

Is this what you want to be doing on your random Sunday at the National Mall, taking pictures with tourists. And their response collectively always is we don't have a choice. And I think that's what people forget is like there is so many people online and there's this overwhelming rhetoric right now of these National Guard members need to abdicate their duties. They need to stand up against Donald Trump. Folks, they can't do that. I mean, they'll be prosecuted. Like these National Guard members are not necessarily the problem. It's the president who's deploying them. So can he do it? Sure, he can do it. Will he do it? I don't know that he'll even deploy members to Chicago. We'll see based on public outrage. But I will say, I think this is all setting up for him to possibly

send in National Guard members during election time. I really think that's what he's trying to go for in 2025 and 2026. I think he's going to have military members watching polls in certain blue states where he thinks the election is rigged. Yeah. I don't know. I've been grappling with kind of since January 6th or maybe like a year after when it started to be clear that this threat to democracy argument, it doesn't really sway a ton of people that like you have to run on the bread and butter issues and that people aren't showing up at the polls saying like Donald Trump doesn't respect our democracy. Like I think a lot of Republicans would even admit that that was the case. But it feels like everything that we were upset about or concerned about is actually

coming to fruition at this moment and that it's too late. Right. Like he has all the levers of power. you know, we sit around and we get frustrated, like, well, why aren't Democrats doing X, Y, or Z things? I mean, unfortunately, for a lot of effective pushback, you actually need the numbers to be able to do something, right? Like, we don't have the votes for anything. We're not in charge of any of the committees. There's civil disobedience. They're showing up in the streets that happened, you know, no King's protest. I think J.B. Pritzker, who gave an impassioned speech yesterday about how this is an authoritarian move. It's un-American. We don't need you here. There's no national emergency. Like, he's meeting the moment. Gavin Newsom is, quote,

unquote, meeting the moment. But when push comes to shove, they can just kind of steam roll through. And, you know, you brought up, he's going to declare a national emergency, which is the way that you can get away with absolutely everything. And I saw online that it was pointed out that, you know, we have national emergencies in like real things constantly that Donald Trump doesn't care about at all. Like, overdose deaths, you know, bad schools, power grids failing, teen pregnancy. Like, all. these things that you would think that a Republican would actually be hot and bothered about and he's just like, eh, I don't care about that, really. I'm on this march towards complete control of the country. So the gerrymandering in Texas and whatever other seats they can

pick up, that's obviously part of the plan. But it sits in the back of my mind. And I don't want to, I've been accused of minimizing Trump before, I guess, or at least saying he's kind of an Unserious guy, right? Like, this is a reality TV star. You know, a businessman failed in a lot of those businesses. Sometimes this just doesn't feel like him. It's like we know Stephen Miller, obviously, is pulling a lot of the strings behind the scenes, a Russ vote and the Heritage Foundation with Project 2025. But where do you think that this really comes from at core, this idea that I'm going to take over all of these American cities with the Army? Like, that's not, he's a kid from Queens, and sometimes it just doesn't add up for me. I think it all goes back to this kind of feeling that Trump has that he's constantly on the defense, right? Like, he's constantly being attacked. So every move he's taking to kind of take that complete control, take that power, whether it's with the National Guard or attacking institutions or taking over Congress, whatever it may be, he wants that power back. He feels as though that power was kind of stolen from him after 2020.

he really felt the first four years of his presidency back in 2016 and through 2020 were stifled because people around him didn't let him wield full control and full power. But I will say this. I mean, and I also get attacked for minimizing Trump. And I'm going to minimize a little bit over here. Take a look at his first seven months. He hasn't actually accomplished a whole lot, right? Like they passed the budget bill. That was a big piece of legislation. Outside of that, they haven't really passed much legislation at all. When you look at the executive branch, he has signed hundreds of executive orders, but we know executive orders are not law. And when you read a lot of these executive orders, it's really just saying, oh, DHS, go study this, or Department of Health

and Human Services, give me a report in 90 days about this. Or like, don't burn a flag. Right. Don't burn a flag. But we can't criminalize flag burning via executive order. It's not a law that Congress passed. So it's a lot of show and not a lot of action. It's a lot of us, he likes to say all talk, but no action. Even the deployment of the National Guard, like, these guardsmen are just walking around the city. They're not actually conducting any law enforcement activities. They're not really supporting law enforcement. They're there for show. They're not really there to take any action. And so I think that when people really, there's so much outrage, justifiably. But that's what they want people to feel. They want people

to feel like they're flooding the zone with all this information and all this news. And at the end of the day, when you kind of pierce through all of it, he's not actually getting much done at all. I think the country today is in a worse off position than it was a year ago, but it's not necessarily because Donald Trump has taken all these radical actions. It's more of just he hasn't actually done much in the affirmative to allow the country to continue its growth. Okay. I mean, I'm willing to go with that. And like, I look at the numbers a lot and I see his deportation numbers or even below what they were in the last year of the Biden administration, which is shocking to people because it feels like such an incredible assault. But that's because so much

much of it is made for TV. And he has a cabinet that knows exactly what it is that he wants in that kind of sense. But like one place where there is a really big difference is in the economy for people. And that is what folks go out and vote on. Right. And I was looking at David Shore from Blue Rose. Research had a memo out about the focus on DC crime that when Democrats get up there and they say, well, crimes at a 30 year low, putting aside the investigation. And to whether they're cooking the books, proverbially speaking or not, but that, like, people don't really want to hear, oh, there's nothing to see here. And that's something as a New Yorker that I felt that as well, that you shouldn't stand there and say, well, there are absolutely no problems.

Like, you know, someone was lit on fire on a subway car. Like, that's going to be a problem. That's something that's going to be built into kind of the general vibe of the city. But David Shore was arguing in this memo that the two things that break through are to talk about the tariffs and protecting Medicaid. You already mentioned the big, beautiful bill. And I find myself struggling, I guess, to decide, like, which direction to go in with all of this. And I guess that's the point that he creates these outrage cycles where you can't help but go down X, Y, and Z rabbit holes. But, like, they feel important enough that you have to go down them and that you have to say something like, is the crime problem perfect? Of course not.

There is a crime problem. There's a crime problem in Chicago. There are also crime problems in all of these Republican-run cities as well. well. But if you give up the opportunities to be making this big argument, which is that Donald Trump is trying to control every single facet of American life, then you're missing the big picture and that that has to be something, even if you lose an election, which I don't want to. I would really like to win the midterms and the presidency again in 2028. But if you are the one who's not talking about it, then you're missing one of the biggest plot lines. I mean,

certainly that we've seen so far at the 21st century. Yeah, I mean, I tend to agree with that. But at the same time, I don't know if people are going to care about the fact that he deployed the National Guard in August of 2025 in November of 26. I mean, we live in such a fast-paced news cycle where you're forced, I guess it has to be kind of like a two-fold response. Like, you have to respond to everything he's doing on a kind of day-to-day basis and call it out when you see it.

But at the same time, continue this overwhelming narrative of he's trying to take over American life. He is completely remaking our economic system. Tariffs are bad. Medicaid cuts are coming next year and just continuously reminding people of that. It has to be a double-pronged approach. And you can't rely on just the media to do that because the media's job isn't necessarily to debunk what he did back in February or continue to remind people what he did back in February. It's their job to just report in kind of real time. And so it's kind of up to like folks like you to really constantly kind of hit those general narratives of, listen, like in a year and a half, you're going to lose access to health care. It may not happen now, but it'll happen in a year and a half,

and it'll happen because of what happened in July of 2025. It also takes me back to a point that I've made a lot in the past is that Democrats don't necessarily need a viable message or opposition, in my opinion, right now. If you look back at August, July of 2021, right now, four years ago, Republicans, after losing the House, Senate and White House, we're talking about Mr. Potato Head and the fact that people were misgendering Mr. Potato Head online, and that was their unifying message, quote unquote. A good old day is. Right? Yeah. So I mean, like, and then a year later, they ended up winning the House and it wasn't really, I mean, it wasn't a huge lift for them to win the house. And so I don't know that Democrats really need to have this like overarching, like, Medicaid

cuts are bad message right now and trying to resonate with voters because I think that this time next year, yes, like you're going to have to be on the ground and educating folks. But right now, I don't know. Oh, well, I mean, that would make a lot of people's lives less stressful if that were the case. I mean, Hakeem Jeffries would love to hear that. And Chuck Schumer, I mean, Chuck Schumer is not long for this world, like this leadership world. He is, I hope, living a very, very long life. But you mentioned something that I did want to, once that term, when you say I want to double tap on that.

That's what my colleagues say to me. Because you mentioned, like, what the job of the media is in all of this. And J.B. Pritzker mentioned that explicitly in the speech that he gave. To the members of the press who are assembled here today and listening across the country, I am asking for your courage to tell it like it is. This is not a time to pretend here that there are two sides to this story. This is not a time to fall back into the reflexive crouch that I so often see where the authoritarian creep by this administration is ignored. in favor of some horse race peace on who will be helped politically by the president's actions?

I thought that was a really important point to make, because I feel like the media or the press has really been struggling with the Trump administration this time around. Because, like, there's obviously more of a mandate, right? I mean, he was elected. He won the popular vote. It's not something that Republicans do regularly, haven't since Bush. and I find that they're always trying to make sure that they can both sides it a little bit, right? Like that there's this kernel of truth from the other side. And so that's how we ended up in this position. Or frankly, they're just straight up scared of Trump. You know, they work for an organization that is having to pay him, whether you're at an ABC. You know, he's now saying he's going to come after the licenses at NBC. Like the guy is litigious, every bone of his body.

So where do you see, and, like, as someone that is, you know, you haven't been particularly partisan in this conversation. And you're saying, like, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but like, I'm hyperventilating. And you were like, I mean, what's really happened? Yeah. Right? And do you think that the press, how good of a job, I guess, do you think the press is doing in covering this? And at moments where he is deploying the National Guard or at least threatening it, I mean, he did in D.C. and he did in Los Angeles. how do you think the media should be meeting the moment? Because they did meet the moment at a

hysterical level before. And a lot of them ended up with egg on their faces. And then you have people like, you know, Jake Tapper and Alice Thompson that were writing these big books about, you know, how Joe Biden was essentially like dead for four years in the Oval Office. And they've been pretty quiet about behaviors from Trump that I think at the very least mirror the level of concern that people would have had about Joe Biden's ability to do his job. Well, yeah. I mean, have you seen his hands lately? I mean, his hands.

What is going on with him? I don't like to. I mean, I, you know, my dad was sick for a long time and I know, like, what it looks like when you're bruised from getting IVs in there all the time. And I've, you know, seen the folks, the calendar counters, right, who are saying, like, this happens exactly at the same time every month. Like, he has engulfed in, what is it, 13 days, which is something very unnatural for him. Like, are you a hand-truther?

Like, what is going on with the hand situation? I'm not a hand-truther, but I think the White House needs to do some more explaining. I mean, I think that there is a legitimate conversation to be had about whether or not the president is healthy and fit for the role. I mean, he has the bruising on his hands, but it's not just the bruising. I mean, he routinely forgets things. If Joe Biden said just 2% of what Donald Trump says on a daily basis, the 25th Amendment would have been invoked years ago.

And this is where I think the media really gets it wrong, is that they normalize Donald Trump as this figure who can just rant and say these off-the-cuff things and say that he did an interview or a speech this past weekend when he didn't do anything and forget things and all this stuff. But then at the same time, say that if Biden did any of those things, he would have been kind of unfit to serve. So I think normalizing what Donald Trump is doing and the way he acts is a problem that the media is engaging with. But that wasn't just this year that's been ever since Donald Trump first announced he was running for office. They just say, listen, he's this eccentric figure and he just says these crazy things and we're just going to let him get away with it. Another place where I think the media gets Donald Trump wrong is by not sticking to certain stories, I think the fact that Jeffrey Epstein's name isn't brought up repeatedly in White House press briefings and in Oval Office conversations, when media asks Trump questions is a problem. I think it's allowing these major stories to kind of be swept under the rug. And I get that media needs to kind of stick to the news of the day, but Epstein is a conversation that should be still had four weeks after

the Wall Street Journal's 50th birthday story. And I get it. I mean, it's out of fear. They don't want to be the next Wall Street Journal. They don't want to get sued. And honestly, it might not even just be out of fear. I mean, CBS has now a bias monitor installed because of this agreement with Skydance and FCC, whatever, that merger. So maybe just that these executives don't want their journalists covering certain stories. And that, too, is a scary thought. But I will say this. I think mainstream media's role in all of this is kind of becoming more and more obsolete as the second Trump presidency goes on. And independent media is where people are going to get their news and their information from. And yes, we still need the journalists and mainstream media who are doing

the amazing work on the ground and doing this investigative work. But they're not the ones asking Trump the questions that he should be asked. And so people turn to independent media. And for better or for worse, I mean, you have independent media who kind of promote conspiracy theories on the left and on the right and those shouldn't be listened to. But people kind of stick to the facts and independent media who ask legitimate questions about Donald Trump's health, about the Epstein files and more. I mean, that's kind of where this is going. Well, I mean, your success would certainly indicate that that's the case. I mean, do you get a lot of feedback? I mean, you have, what are you up to now, like 4.3 million followers on TikTok? Yeah, almost. And then like 1.4 million

on Instagram, but sub-sec is kind of my baby. Okay. So it's not the 4.3. on TikTok or the 1.3 on Instagram. It's the substack baby. Yeah, I tell everyone, I don't like TikTok these days. I mean, it is not a fun platform to be on. Social media is not fun at all. Substack is fun because it's like a smaller community and it's people who are actually interested in what I'm giving them, not kind of just people behind faceless accounts, shit posting in my comments. Yeah, I know a thing or two about the shit posting in the comments. But, I mean, what's the main feedback that you get from people and, you know, you have a very high heavy Gen Z audience, which matches, you know, where you are in life, 26 now, right?

26, 26. Old. I'm like losing hair. Stop it. I think I saw a gray hair on my head, not your head the other day. I don't, I'm not 100% sure because now it's somehow gone, but I have them too. Anyway, don't talk to me about feeling old. Like, what do you hear mostly from people that are avid fans of yours or are coming to you for their news? I think the number one thing I hear is just thank you for just providing the facts and not like sharing your opinion. I rarely, if ever, share my opinion in any kind of report that I put out. And that's intentional because I'm kind of like, I'm tired of the shows where it's like Abby Philip and Scott Jennings arguing for an hour about their opinions rather than just sharing the facts and people getting news from media. And so that's kind of what I'm trying to do.

And that's what I hear on a daily basis. And yeah, I mean, but I tell everyone my audience isn't necessarily, like I'm not competing. with mainstream media in any way. My audience are young people who'll never turn on the TV or don't even know what a newspaper is or older folks who are just tired of mainstream media, who won't watch it these days and they're turning to something else. So the avid Fox News or MSNBC watcher isn't necessarily watching me on a daily basis, and that's okay. I mean, not trying to monopolize the entire industry. I mean, with those numbers, it kind of sounds like you are. And I do appreciate that you used Abby Phillips and Scott Jennings and not me and Jesse Waters,

because that could be a comp that you would have gotten. I love The Five. I think it's such a fun show. I mean, same. Well, some days, I feel sad and tired. But in general, yes, I understand why people love the show. And you grew up in a Fox News watching household. I did, yeah.

We watched The Five growing up, yep. Yeah. And now here we are being so civil. I know. We are going to take a quick break, and then we're going to talk about immigration, but then I want to talk about Media More. According to some people, especially in Silicon Valley, AI is about to upend society and wipe out countless jobs. But is it?

There's a long history in the U.S. of adoption of major technological advances that really fundamentally change the economy. And in each case, we have not lost jobs. In fact, we've added them. This week, on Solutions with Henry Blodgett, I talked to Harvard economist David Deming about how AI will actually change the job market. Plus, how to improve education in the age of AI and how we can use AI to make ourselves more valuable at work. Follow Solutions with Henry Blodgett on YouTube

or wherever you get your podcast. This week on Criminal, in 2019, E. Jean Carroll published an essay called Hidious Men. In it, she said that President Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her in her Bergdorf-Gudman dressing room in the 1990s. Donald Trump told her reporter that it didn't happen and that, quote, she's not my type. You knew he would react, though. I thought he would say it was consensual.

This summer, I went to visit E. Jean Carroll at her house in the woods. We spoke about what her life has been like since she wrote that essay and what it was like to sue Donald Trump twice. You can hear my conversation with E. Jean Carroll on the latest episode of Criminal. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. In the old days, ESPN hated sports betting. And ESPN wouldn't let you watch ESPN without paying for cable TV. Now both those things are changing.

You can finally stream ESPN and just ESPN. And ESPN head Jimmy Petaro is totally into sports betting. It would be very hard for ESPN today to serve the sports fan without providing substantial betting content and frictionless experience around placing a bet. This is Peter Kafka. You can hear the rest of my conversation with ESPN's Jimmy Pataro over on channels wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts. Welcome back. Kilmar Obrigo Garcia, back in the news. His immigration saga took another wild turn this week.

He's the Maryland construction worker who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador earlier this year, brought back to face charges, then taken into ICE custody again when he was supposed to go in for just a routine check-in. Now the Trump administration is trying to deport him to Uganda, a country he has zero connection to. A federal judge stepped in Monday to block it,

at least temporarily, but the fight rages on. Erin, how do you see the fight over Kilmarrago-Garcia going? Do you know anything about why they're sending him to Uganda? I actually looked into it, and it weirdly makes sense when you see how much American evangelicals have invested in Uganda over the years. But I don't know if you have a view. So, I mean, from a high level,

I think that this is a fight that the administration, I don't know why they're picking. I don't know why they chose Kilmar, and they're like, we're going to literally torture this family and him and try to send him across the world. Because to me, it's a very stubborn administration. And we see the same thing with Kilmar that we see. Even recently, there was news out of D.C.,

where Judge Janine Piro, your former colleague, tried to indict someone for assaulting a law enforcement officer three times and wasn't able to do it. And they kept trying to present the case in front of a grand jury, and it wasn't working. And the same thing is happening here with Kilmar. It's like they're trying to stick a square peg into a round hole. They unlawfully send him to Seacot, violating the law,

then knowing that they could bring him, back. They fought so hard in the public not to bring him back. Then they were like, no, we're going to bring him back. Bring him to Tennessee on these trumped up trafficking charges, which one judge, the judge presiding, said there really doesn't seem to be much evidence supporting this. And instead of just saying, you know what, fine, we're going to let Kilmar go back to Maryland and then go through the criminal process, they're now saying we're going to deport him to Uganda. To me, that seems like they don't have the evidence to prosecute him in Tennessee. If they had him dead to right, I think they would prosecute him, have a jury convict him. And

deport him and then say, you know what, all of you liberals, you guys screamed about Kilmar, now he's this convicted human trafficker. They're not doing that. They want to send him to Uganda under this third country agreement. I think they're just sending him to Uganda specifically because Uganda is one of the only countries right now that they have these third country agreements with, and the Supreme Court has greenlit their ability to send undocumented migrants to these third countries. But ultimately, I actually think that they're going to lose here. I think that they're going to have egg on their face because I think the Maryland judge is going to say, you know what, you can't deport him to Uganda while he has his criminal case pending

in the United States. It'll go up to the United States Supreme Court. And I wouldn't be surprised if this Supreme Court, even with the 6-3 majority, says, no. I mean, you can't deport Abrago Garcia. Let him go through the criminal process here. And then if he's convicted, send him off. But he doesn't have an order of removal to Uganda. He doesn't have that. So it's a very weird situation. It's a losing situation for Trump because he keeps trying to say He's this MS-13 gang member. And if he is, present the evidence they haven't. If he is, convict him in a courtroom, they haven't.

And so I think this is coming from stubbornness more than anything. I really think they don't want to seem as though that they lost something. And they're losing every single step of the way with Kilmar. Yeah, it is interesting to me because I mean, like you, I thought, okay, well, if you have the evidence, all these things sound terrible, right? like human trafficking and like children being involved. And he beats his wife and he's an MS-13 gang member that might not have the tattoos that Trump thinks he has on his hand. But that, you know, that's his affiliation. But very much like what we saw after the 2020 election, in the put-up or shut-up moments, they all kind of cower out of court because they know that there are real implications to what you say in a court of law versus what you say in front of a camera. So they all. run to position and they stand there and they say, you know, like this guy is a representative of the monstrous illegal immigration problem that we have in this country. And we have a monstrous illegal immigration problem in this country. I'm just not sure that it's him. And there's, I mean,

this balance between like the stubbornness, which I think is what it is and that they're kind of dogs with a bone. And I don't know, again, if it's Trump or that it's Stephen Miller on this one, who I definitely think is the mastermind behind all of the immigration moves. But within the Democratic Party, we had this debate about whether, you know, you go to the mats for Kilmer, Rega Garcia, and Chris Van Hollen, his senator said, I'm going to see Cot and I'm going to try to see him. And a few other representatives went. But I think it was really Van Hollen sitting there, not sipping a margarita, no matter what my

colleagues say, that really drew attention to this problem in a way that shifted how the American public feels about Donald Trump's management of illegal immigration, not border security, but immigration writ large. And they have never recovered. So like in any given poll, he's down five to 15 points when it comes to illegal immigration. You know, you have people talking about the importance of due process that if there are people who have been in this country for decades and they go to their check-ins and they're responsible members of society that they should be able to stay here. And it feels like in a world of many own goals, and Trump's doing it certainly all over the place with the tariffs, but like this might be the biggest one because it's really his, his marquee issue. Like managing the economy well matters, right? He says, I'm a businessman. I'm going to make sure that you have more money in your pocket and that your groceries are affordable. None of that has happened. But when he came down the golden escalator in 2015, he got up there and he started talking about a Muslim ban and the bad hombreses.

Yeah. say, I'm going to start, you know, I'm going to be McKinley again. I think that people would be so relieved if he would just back away from this particular case. Yeah, I mean, 100%. And they could do it smartly. And they could, if they want to trap Democrats into something, they could trap Democrats into something by having a child rapist detained or whatever, sending him to Seacot, making this whole big deal, and then having Democrats defend a child rapist. That's not what's happening here. I will say that I think the Trump administration really rushed their entire immigration policy and they haven't recovered from it. On January 20th, they came in and they were like, we want to start deporting people, we want to start rounding up people off the streets, but they didn't have the resources to do it and they didn't have the kind of structure in place to do it.

And so they started rushing into it. Then they got this mistake with Kilmar. And then they got those low numbers that Stephen Miller yelled at ICE officials for saying that they need to get up to $3,000 a day or whatever, which I see. still don't even know that they have met. No, they haven't. Right. They just still talk about it. If they were doing this in a smart way, if I were sitting in the president's office and I was

like, you know, this is what you should do, sir, I would have said, pass your budget bill, get an influx of cash into ice, build up detention facilities, do it as though you're going to war against illegal immigration, which is what he's been saying, build up your troops, and then go out and take care of the problem. And do it in a targeted way where you take out the worst of the worst and you move on. But he came in and he was just like, we're just going to go balls to the wall, rush this, and it's not working. There are mistakes after mistakes. Kilmar's case is Exhibit A, but for every Kilmard, there is another 19-year-old nursing student in Stewart, Georgia, sitting in a detention facility because she was rounded up as part of a raid that wasn't even targeting her, and she has no criminal record, or you have U.S. citizens being targeted in raids in Chicago, in L.A., and elsewhere.

And so it's just, it's stubbornness. I mean, he can back off for four more months until the end of the year and restart this next year and really do targeted raids, but he's not going to do that. And I think this is an issue, like you said, that he's losing on, but it's also an issue that is going to lose the Republican Party a lot of voters, not just in 26, but in 28. And everyone says, well, as Vance, the kind of anointed leader of the Republican Party, I think so. assuming, I think it was Kelly Ann Conway or someone else said this the other day, assuming he does not get beat up enough as vice president. And I think that Vance is going to have to run

on an agenda in 28 that was Trump's four years. And right now, it does not look too good for him, in my opinion. No, it doesn't seem great. I do think, you know, I have little kids. I understand you need to get away on vacation. but I think that this look where they're on vacation a lot and the way that they are going on vacation is negatively affecting the other folks that are there. Like, I have a friend whose in-laws actually are in the Cotswolds in England where the vances

were going and that they were trying to see the social media posts of the people who lived around there, which is a direct comp to what we're seeing that they want to review, like the 55. million visa holders here in the United States to go back through their social media. So if something like that ever comes to fruition, kind of feels like the end of the United States, as we know it, right? That there is absolutely no free speech rates. But, you know, Vance going away all the time. But then he also is like almost bragging about the fact that he has no portfolio.

And he saw how terrible it was for Kamala Harris to have been the quote unquote borders are, think it was a right-wing construction anyway to call her that. But either way, that she was supposed to be addressing the root causes and immigration was obviously a huge problem for the Biden administration. Then she gets saddled with that, has to run with something terrible and ends up losing. So he's basically just like, if I can sit here and look pretty and give some very aggressive interviews, which he's good at, right? Like, he gets interviewers twisted all the time. he's wrong about a lot of things, but he's very smart and good at debating. So I think that you're right.

The JD Vance is like, if I just sit here, then things are going to go a lot better for me in 2020, than if I'm really involved in all of this. Oh, for sure. 100%. I mean, he's setting himself up for a run to the presidency. And I honestly don't think there's going to be anyone who'll come close to challenging him on the Republican side. Like, DeSantis doesn't really have a chance.

You don't think Rubio will? I think Rubio may challenge him, but I don't think Rubio can beat him. I don't think Rubio has the fanfare around him that Van Zendezzo. does. Because I don't think people really know where, I mean, I don't know where Rubio stands anymore in issues. Rubio eight years ago was very different from Rubio today. And if he ran in 2028, would he be in America first Rubio? Or would he be a traditional neocon Rubio back from the early days? So I don't, I don't know where he stands. And ultimately, I think the MAGA base will coalesce around Vance. With the one caveat that if Tucker Carlson runs, then I think he has a real good shot.

Oh, God. Do you think he's thinking about that? Yeah, he definitely is. He 100% is, and I think that he'll, I think if he jumped in the race today, he starts out at 18 to 19% in the Republican primary easily. But no, like, normie Republicans would want that. I mean, Trump built quite a special coalition, right? Right. Like, if you go back to just the base, and it's funny seeing, like, in the breakdown of polling right now, you can, like, totally pull them out. Like, you know, 30% of Republicans think that it's okay if you suspend the Constitution. You're like, oh, no, I know exactly who that 30% is. Right. Is that the Tucker Carlson 30%, or are they, like, regular Rockefeller Republicans or Wall Street dudes that are like, oh, yeah, Tucker Carlson. No, I mean, I think the Tucker Carlson 30% is a mix of the two, weirdly enough, because I think, like, I think it's part of the Republican Party who really is so hellbent on being isolationist is the Republican Party that's anti-Israel, right? Like the Marjorie Taylor Greens of the world. I think that right there is 15% of your base. And then I think you have another sect that Carlson appeals to in just his plain talking ways. Because Carlson could sell ice to an Eskimo.

I mean, he knows what he's doing. Yeah. And so I think that it's good. I think he could. I think Tucker Carlson could be the nominee if he ran, but that's up to him. Aaron, you're killing me. All right. We've got to take one more quick break.

Stay with us. What is up, people of the internet? My name is Marquez Brownlee, aka MKBHD, and some of the biggest smartphones of the year are about to launch, including the brand new iPhone 17s around the corner, with a model you've never seen before. So on the Wayform podcast, myself and co-hosts Andrew Mangonelli and David Amel gather the biggest tech news of each week and then discuss at length everything we're excited about, and sometimes things we're not so excited about. So this time of year, we'd like to call smartphone season. So if you're interested in hearing all the latest releases from Apple and Samsung and Google and others, Be sure to check out the Wayform podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen. See you there.

Welcome back. And before we go, I want to talk about Democratic messaging heading into the midterms. You already said that I guess we can just lay down and play dead, which is what Carville said as well. But we're going to talk about it anyway. Party's trying everything against Trump, impeachments, prosecutions, branding him a threat to democracy. He's still standing. Now we're testing a new play going a little, quote, Trump light. Gavin Newsom is trolling Trump on social media while pushing a redistricting fight in California

that mirrors Trump's playbook in Texas. At the same time, the DNC is overhauling its campaign tech for the first time in nearly 20 years. That totally blew my mind. I thought that, I mean, A, again, going back to being old, it feels like yesterday that Obama was running to me. I mean, you were in diapers, maybe. I don't remember what Obama, I don't remember his presidency at all. He was good at the tech, like it was this digital revolution that was happening. And I guess we just, like, never updated from the Obama years. That's wild. That is wild.

Silly millennials. I mean, it's why we, I mean, the DNC as a whole, I don't think, has been properly run for a very long time. But I don't think the DNC needs to be run properly. I don't think the DNC really plays a fact in any election. It's really just an arm of the candidate who's running for president. Like, the DNC, under Jamie Harrison, didn't do a ton to support Kamala. It was Kamala's operation or Joe Biden's operation.

that was just kind of injected into the DNC, and that's what happens every four years. The RNC, meanwhile, is a little different and that it's kind of more year-round. I don't know, we'll see. I think that this DNC under Ken Martin, I think Ken's trying to do some different things, but he's got to figure out his own house first

before he tries to go after Republicans, in my opinion. I think Democrats are just not aligned on much these days. Even, like, Gavin Newsom, like, he's doing great, I think, and, like, he knows what he's doing, but there are people in the party who are attacking Gavin Newsom and saying, God forbid Newsom is doing this, like, he's not our nominee, he'll never be our nominee. And I'm like, guys, like, chill out. This isn't about the presidency.

Like, you want someone to fight. He's fighting. And now you're mad that he's fighting. Like, stop trying to find problems where there aren't any. And that's what Democrats love to do is finding problems when there aren't any problems, especially within their own party. And so I think Ken needs to look in-house and find a message that appeals to all Democrats before he goes out and tries to bash Trump every day.

Yeah, and part of the problem is the fire hose effect, right, that there's so much going on that you feel like if you're not addressing it, that the base is going to be mad at you, that you're not meeting the moment. But when you look at these fundraising numbers, like there can be no bigger indication of not meaning the moment than the fact that nobody is giving the DNC cash. And a lot of Republicans are giving the RNC cash now. On the congressional side, the D-TCCC outraised the Republican arm. So we're doing well there. People are giving to individual candidates. And Gavin News, brought in, what, 6.2 million in his first week from 200,000 individual donors from all over the country, right? Because people want to see some backbone, some fight. I think J.B. Pritzker is giving that as well. And, you know, you say it's not about the presidency. I mean, I don't think Gavin Newsom is mad about the idea that he's being talked about in terms of 2028 in a way that isn't like San Francisco's covered in poop. And there's a crime problem in Los Angeles. or whatever, and all these things are trending in the right direction, but it is going to be very hard to run for precedent from California, putting aside fourth biggest economy in the world,

which, you know, that's awesome. And that speaks very highly of you that you can do the job from a competency point of view. But there are a lot of pictures of a lot of things that went on and continue to go on in some cases in California that are going to make that very difficult for him. Oh, for sure. I mean, I do think that I tell everyone, if he wins this referendum, in November, I think he'll be the nominee. If he loses this referendum in November, I don't think he has a shot in hell. And I really think that Newsom can coalesce the base enough.

If he can win in California get his redistricted maps past the ballot, I think he'll be successful enough where he's so out there, he's raised all this money, he's built this massive list. Pete isn't really doing much, right? Like the other, I don't know, Josh Shapiro isn't doing a ton right now.

Yeah. I think it'll ultimately depend. If Kamala runs again, I think he has a problem, but if Kamala decides not to run, I really do see a clear path for Newsom to the nomination, with the caveat, if he loses this referendum in November, which I don't think he will. But if he does, I don't know how you tell voters, hey, I can build a coalition when I can't even build a coalition of my own state around this big issue. So I don't know. I do think, though, that looking ahead to 2028, right now it seems like a Vance Newsome matchup. I just don't, I don't see anyone else. I don't know. Do you see anyone else? Well, I think, I mean, you already mentioned Josh Shapiro. I think that he is waiting for his moment. I think it will be very tough for a Jew to become the nominee with what's been going on, the kind of internal fracturing over Israel and Gaza. I mean, hopefully we are way past this war and not just because I want a clean primary, but because people are dying and, you know, hostages are still being.

held in. Kids are starving and it is a humanitarian crisis of the highest order. We'll know more in two weeks. Oh, right, the two weeks is that after a couple infrastructure weeks. But, you know, I imagine Wes Moore is going to get in. He's starting his competitive posture with Donald Trump. And I think, you know, when you say, who's our Tucker Carlson? I don't, we don't need one of those. But I'm sure there will be some curveballs as well that are going to at least flirt with the idea of getting in. Cuban. If you're listening, I will... He is listening. He does listen, but he said his family doesn't want it. I mean, it's a big, it's a big life change. To even be running for this.

I heard him say that, but then recently I heard him say something where he was like, well, if Trump decides to try to run for a third term, then I'll step in. He said, and to me, that rhetoric is kind of shifting. It's like, okay, now there's a new condition. Okay, maybe in a month from now, it'll be like if the streets are military. And then it'll just be like, whatever, I'm running. It's going to be awesome. Right. Yeah. Fine by me. I'm totally into it. And he can sit on a podcast for three hours. Absolutely no problem. I want to kind of put a bow on a few things that you said. So you said, like, I don't think Democrats really need a message right now. Yeah. Right? You just like need to stand up there and be a viable alternative. But for so many young voters and a lot of them who are, you know, following you and turning to you as someone that can break down the news for them, they're completely disenchanted

with the political process. We're at large. I mean, Donald Trump's already lost 20 points with Gen Z voters from what he had in 2024 and we're kind of back to the normal Biden levels. What do you think is the key to unlocking youth engagement in politics again? And I'm not even like, I want to win elections, obviously, but politics means something to me. It lights me up. I enjoy it. I think it's important. I think it's a cool aspect of culture. I think there is a way for it to have a positive impact on people's lives, to build communities, to build better results, right, for all the things that we want from filling your potholes to making sure that you can get a good paying job and that you have health care. And a 25, 26 year old, I could understand why they would be looking at this scene and just saying, I don't see any of that in our politics today. Well, to anyone who wants to get Gen Z motivated or even Gen Alpha motivated in politics, there has to be a complete change in the way you think about young people, older folks, the way they talk about and think about young people, people don't realize, and I said this earlier,

we don't remember President Obama. We don't remember President Bush. The first presidential election, my generation, remembers where we were actually somewhat cognizant of what was happening in the world, is 2016. So all we know is Donald Trump, Joe Biden, then Donald Trump. Donald Trump is politics to us, is what's normal in politics to us. And so when everyone's like, well, back in the day, you can go disagree on the House floor and then go get drinks afterwards. We would disagree about the kitchen table issues. We would disagree about policy and not name calling.

We would go back to the normal days. That's normal. That's not normal for us. That's not normal for our generation. What's normal for our generation is Donald Trump, is these past now. almost 10 years. And when you think about politics from that lens of like, okay, accept this as our normal, stop trying to tell us that we're going to go back to something that we don't even know, then you can message to young people differently. And you can have candidates who actually

are like, listen, like, we're not just going to run on an issue and tell you we're going to do something. We're actually going to do it. When we tell you, we're going to forgive student loans, we're actually going to do it. When we tell you, we're going to make housing cheaper for you, we're actually going to do it. And until you have a candidate, because trying to get young people engaged is a tale as old in time, like you're never going to do it

until you have a candidate who actually stands up there and does what they say they're going to do. Joe Biden, one of his biggest faults, which I know is not his fault, he couldn't get student loan forgiveness done. It's not his fault. Supreme Court blocked it.

He tried, but he couldn't get it done. And he ran on a platform that he would be able to get it done. And so to many young people who don't understand the nuances, they know Joe Biden as a president who couldn't forgive their debt. And Donald Trump, if he can't lower the cost of housing for young people, which is what he said he would do,

it's going to be very bad for Republicans in 2026 and 28. And right now housing costs, well, they're still as high as they were, if not higher, than pre-November. All right. We have a game plan. Actually, deliver on things. Who would have thought that that's something that a politician should be doing? Erin, it was great to hang.

Thank you for joining me. Thanks for having me. This was super fun. All right, that's all for this episode. Thank you for listening to Raging Moderates. Our producers are David Toledo and Eric Genie Kiss. Our technical director is Drew Burroughs. Going forward, you'll find Raging Moderates every Wednesday and Friday.

Subscribe to Raging Moderates on its own feed to hear exclusive interviews with sharp political minds. And this week, I'm talking to Representative Marilyn Strickland. You won't want to miss it. Make sure to follow us wherever you get your podcast so you don't miss an episode. Thank you.