Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov - Trump Blames Democrats, Demands His Ballroom, and Attacks Jimmy Kimmel Again (ft. Sen. Rand Paul)

Episode Date: April 28, 2026

Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov sit down with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to unpack a volatile political moment in Washington. In the wake of the attempted assassination at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Republicans and President Trump are blaming Democrats for fueling political violence — while critics argue the response is part of a familiar cycle of partisan escalation, and that President Trump has espoused even more egregious rhetoric throughout his presidency. At the same time, Congress is debating a controversial proposal to fast-track Trump’s $400 million White House ballroom, exposing new divisions over spending, security, and priorities inside the GOP. The conversation also turns to free speech and media backlash, as Jimmy Kimmel faces renewed pressure from the Trump camp following a controversial joke that aired just days before the attack. Senator Paul weighs in on political responsibility, party loyalty, rising polarization, and what these flashpoints reveal about the state of the Republican Party heading into the midterms and 2028. Follow Jessica Tarlov, @JessicaTarlov  Follow Prof G, @profgalloway  Follow Raging Moderates, @RagingModeratesPod  Subscribe to our YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@RagingModerates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Scott Galloway. And I'm Jessica Tarlov. Today we're joined by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. He served in the Senate since 2011 and currently chairs the Homeland Security Committee, where he's backed much of President Trump's agenda in the second term. He hasn't hesitated also to speak out when he disagrees. Senator, thanks so much for being here. Glad to be with you. Thanks for having me.

If you aren't already, please make sure to subscribe to our YouTube page to stay up to date on all news politics. All right, let's get into it. In the wake of the attempted assassination of the White House correspondents in our many Republicans, including the president, are blaming Democrats, accusing them of fueling political violence with inflammatory rhetoric. It's a familiar pattern, caused to cool things down, followed by a shift of blame. At the same time, congressional Republicans are pushing to fast track a proposed White House ballroom, arguing it's needed for security, that there's a split over how to pay for

it. Three Republican senators introduced a bill to allocate 400 million in federal funding, saying it shouldn't rely on private donors, while others in the party disagree. Here's Trump discussing it on 60 Minutes. I'm building a safe ballroom. And one of the reasons I'm building it is exactly what happened last night.

We're building a room right there. If you walk out and move 20 yards to the left, you'll be right at the entrance to the ballroom. And that ballroom's being built on the safest piece of property in this country, probably one of the safest pieces of land in the world. Senator Paul, you're one of the report. Republicans proposing this legislation to move it forward. Why do you feel strongly this is the right move to the country? Your thoughts? You know, I'm on a commission. There's a special commission, and there are two people, one from the House and one from the Senate, on the Building Commission, to approve products like this. So we've studied this issue. We've voted on it. I think the vote was eight to one in favor of allowing the building to go ahead. In this instance, there aren't appropriations necessary now. Some of the other people are proposing 400,000.

million dollars. I propose to allow it to go forward, but to let the president spend the money that they've collected privately. In the past, presidents have been given this freedom to redesign the White House, but typically it went through the appropriations process, so there was some congressional imprimatur on this because they had to vote to spend the money. This time is a little different in the sense that the president says he's collected the money to do this. So I have a bill that would allow this to move forward. Was precipitated. Some somewhat by the, both the opposition in court by people trying to stop it, but also in response to the attempted assassination as well. I think it is difficult to protect the president.

In all likelihood, there will be social events that will be able to be held there that haven't in the past. It won't be as big as the Washington Hilton, but I think there will be some events that will be held on the White House grounds that otherwise would have required removing the president. And so, I think it's a real thing. reasonable request? You know, I understand your point and saying he's already collected the money, which is what they told us, and now they seem to want government money for it, and Lindsay Graham is enthusiastic about that. But there are also questions, as there are with everything that's gone on in the Trump administration of, you know, who is giving him this money and what they might be getting

in return. Are you concerned about a potential, you know, grifting component or backchannel favors that the president is getting in return for support for something like a ballroom? You know, I think if those concerns are valid, we'd have to have some laws in place to stop. I don't know that we have any laws in place. You know, this same argument occurs every few years about presidential libraries with all the money that gets involved with that. So I understand the questions, and I think they're reasonable questions. I don't know that we have any laws in place or have any laws proposed where people say, well, you can't take private money. You could also argue that private money is, you know,

less tainted in a way. It's coming from people voluntarily giving their own money. So I think that if there's evidence of any quid pro quo, people giving money and getting something, that would actually be illegal. You know, it's not, it is definitely, there are laws against actually giving money to somebody in office and then getting something in return. So if you connect the two, that would already be illegal. Yeah, well, hopefully we can find out where this money is coming front if they're going to use it.

And then I just kind of have a general question because I know that, you know, you've pushed back on the Trump administration before. You voted against a big beautiful bill, for instance, you know, and I understand the security concerns for the president after what happened at the White House correspondence dinner. But are you concerned that this is the conversation

that we're having when gas just hit $4.18 a gallon? Farm bankruptcies are record, high food and groceries, all costing people too much. And over 70 percent of Americans say that Trump and the Republicans aren't focused on what actually matters in their lives. Well, I would agree that affordability price in the grocery store or price of the gas pump are really some of the most important things that people come up to me. I mean, people are telling me they're not filling up their entire tank. They're filling up a half a tank, a quarter of a tank because they can't afford a whole tank. So yeah, these are pressing concerns of

the public. It's why I've opposed the war. It's one of the reasons I've opposed the war in Iran. Also, because I think that the biggest national security risk we face is our debt and that the further we go into debt, the more we are at risk. I really think that our greatest challenge and our greatest threat is from within, not from without. I think defending our currency, affording our government, all the costs that we have domestically, I think really argue against getting more involved in international conflict, particularly if it's a war of choice. This war is not my choice.

So just we'll circle back to the war. I want to switch gears for a second. Jimmy Kimmel is facing backlash from the Trump camp after a controversial joke about First Lady Melania, Trump erred just days before the White House correspondent's dinner shooting. Now Melania is demanding action from ABC. Trump says Kimmel should be fired. FCC is now moving towards a review of ABC's broadcast license.

Let's watch Kimmel responding last night. Five nights ago, it was a pretend roast. I said, our first lady, Melania, is here. Look at her so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow, which obviously was a joke about their age difference and the look of joy we see on her face every time they're together. It was a very light roast joke about the fact that he's almost 80

and she's younger than I am. It was not by any stretch of the definition. a call to assassination, and they know that. I've been very vocal for many years speaking out against gun violence in particular. Senator, do you think Kim will cross the line here? And if so, what would you say to the people who believe that the president crosses the line regularly with much more incendiary content about his political opponent's thoughts? Well, I think there are two separate questions here.

You know, whether or not he crossed the line and whether or not you condemn what he said is one thing and whether or not the government should have any role in preventing him from saying it is a completely another discussion. I don't believe the First Amendment should prevent almost a all speech. I think almost all speech is protected. If you are making a joke about someone dying, I think it's in terribly bad taste. And so I would condemn it as being a bad taste, but I wouldn't involve the FCC or threaten somebody with having their job removed by anyone in government. So you're against the FCC going after trying to revoke ABC's license? Without question, I'm against the FCC being involved in limitations on speech. The only real limitations are they have to be very, very specific because the court has really

limited this as far as inciting people to actually do something. It has to be a very specific case. And this was true even when many on the left were wanting to, you know, prosecute Trump for saying, go fight, win, you know, carry your message down to the Capitol that, you know, no court would say that that is any kind of imminent threat to violence. And so I think that the left needs to be aware that they were equally as guilty of trying to restrict speech. And I think we have to sort of look at the First Amendment without partisanship. You can dislike what Trump says. You can criticize it. But there's no argument for the government shutting down Trump speech.

So given your reverence for the First Amendment, do you believe that Director Patel's case against the Atlantic is also misguided? Yeah, I don't know a lot about it, but in all likelihood, yes. I'm not really for the government suing people to shut down speech. I think that there are some exceptions to it. One is on the imminence of violence. I also don't think you can accuse people of crimes, defame their character. So, you know, if you say someone is a pedophile,

Pedophiles is not only a really a serious crime, it would be incredibly damaging to anyone's reputation, or if you accuse someone of being involved in sexual trafficking or thing, I think that is defamatory, and I don't know if that had anything to do with this case, but I'm just saying if you do accuse people of a crime, I think that defamatory stuff should be either taken down by whoever's hosting it, or there should be ramifications for hosting defamatory material. So I apologize, but I have to ask, do you think accusing someone of treason or saying they should be brought up on treason charges, as Trump has accused or said about Adam Schiff, do you think that crosses the line?

Well, these are real questions, and they're important questions, and you probably have to parse out the specifics. You know, I've had people posting stuff online, and we finally got it taken down, but a woman saying, I'm taking money from Maduro, and that's a specific crime, but it also would be guilty of treason, and the punishment for treason is death. So I would think encouraging things like that and saying things that aren't true, there probably should be ramifications on that kind of speech. It is a little different whether you're not you're saying in an more abstract or general,

you know, it's sort of like, I hate you, you're a terrible person, you're committing treason. If it's a vague sort of term, I think it's less likely, and I'm not an expert in defamation, but I think you're less likely to win a defamation case if you're calling someone something vague as opposed to something specific. In my case, I was being accused of a very specific crime that's not true. There's no factual data for it. And I think that people should be liable. And I got the person to take it down, but actually it was kind of annoyed that the internet hosts are willing to host things, because I think there is going to be a problem. This is different than Trump and different than

all these other issues. But I think of a small town minister accused of some horrible sex crime for which it gets all over the internet and it's hosted, and then there's no way to recover from that. You know, I can at least fight back because I'm a public figure, and so there's a slightly different standard for a public figure. But I do worry about things being hosted, lurid, things for which you could never recover your reputation, and you could be basically hounded out of a church or hounded out of a town if you're a small town mayor. I think there actually probably does need to be more policing. And I kind of wish the internet providers would. The debate I had with Google over this, I think, is informative because, see, Google police is

all the time. They police my speech when I say or said often that masks don't work, particularly cloth masks don't work, or say that I'm immune once I've had COVID, or say that basically the vaccine doesn't stop transmission. They were taking that down because they judged it not to be true, but then they don't bother taking down something where someone's accusing me of treason. So I think it's a big double standard that they say, oh, we are going to adjudicate the truth sometimes, but we're not going to do it when it comes to someone accusing you of a crime for which the death penalty, and for which I actually have received death threats because of this. So I think it's a weird situation we have.

If you call someone fat and treasonous, Google will take it down because you're bullying someone for fatness, but they won't take it down because you've accused them of treason. So I think it's a bizarre world they live in and we live in, but I think it becomes more dangerous over time as different people are accusing people of crimes. And people have no idea of what's true anymore. I mean, I have people who I thought knew me better who are saying, oh, I can't believe you're taking money from Maduro. And it's like, really, I didn't know that anybody was dumb enough to actually believe these over-the-top statements. But they're being given by newscasters,

pretending to sit at a broadcast desk, pretending to quote sort of authoritative figures. So I do worry about that. And then with AI and the ability to even, you know, used to be, well, at least it's hearsay, no one's going to believe it. But what about the idea when they're having pictures showing you receiving money from someone that is just completely made up and a fake? I totally agree with you. There's a rumor online that I'm having an affair with Jamie Raskin, who I have never met and we're both happily married to other people. And I've had friends text me and say, you know, I'm telling people that this isn't true. And I'm like, yeah, well, yes, please tell them that it isn't true. But there's nothing to be done about it. But you have a very important job on a comparative basis to me.

And I'm wondering what kind of legislation or movement, you know, the government could take to actually regulate these kinds of things in some way. You know, I watched the social media companies when the CEOs came in and, you know, kind of got dressed down about the terrible things that go online, especially in the bullying space and the sex trafficking space. But the contrition lasted 20 minutes, right? It was just the length of the hearing. And then they went back to business as usual. So what kind of regulations might you be open to, especially as someone who's such a, you know, First Amendment advocate. Yeah, and I've always been on the other side of all of these issues.

I've always been for Section 230, thought the Internet wouldn't have developed well. And I still think that we can't have a situation where everybody can sue everybody over name-calling so that that can be part of this. I do think, though, that Section 230, and I've come to believe this stronger, that exemptions from liability are exemptions from the normal state of common law. You know, we've developed common law for a long time for you to be responsible for things that you do and to have liability. So I've become less a fan of virtually all liability protection because I think it's a special privilege that government is granting. That said, when I look at Section 230, I'm not still advocating.

We just sort of get rid of it. I think really things that are illegal, that a newspaper doesn't host and won't, such as defamation. So you won't find your local newspaper says, saying, hey, the mayor is a pedophile and doing this, and we ought to run him out of town or her out of town. The newspaper won't print it because they are worried about liability. And people say it's journalistic standards were better. Some of it was that, but some of it was the whole idea of liability.

Those things weren't produced. I think that the internet, those who host the internet have hid behind, oh, we're just booksellers, we're just hosting this content, we're not publishing it, I think has some truth, but I don't think it should apply to things that are defamatory. And so I think that they go against their whole argument because during COVID, they decided what was true and wasn't true, and they were pulling down things they thought wasn't true. You know, when I mentioned the name of the whistleblower, who I think did conspire with others to bring the first Trump impeachment, they pulled that down. I actually mentioned that on the Senate floor because I don't think he was a traditional whistleblower. blow or any sense. I think he was conspiring basically with others at work to make something into an

impeachable offense that really was no different than everything Joe Biden had done. What had Joe Biden said when he was vice president, we'll cut your money off if you prosecute my son's company. And what was Trump saying, we'll cut your money off if you don't investigate the guy that should have been prosecuting Trump's son. So, I mean, both sides have used this threat of reducing money, this old idea of quid pro quo. But the bottom line is the internet providers are policing language. They're policing. If I misname you or gender or misname you, somehow that is an offense for being taken down. But you can call someone a pedophile.

You can even specifically say, we have four women that will say that they were raped by this person. And Google just leave that up. They say, oh, you have to prove it's not true. And it's like, oh, really, that sounds the opposite of innocent until proven guilty. Now I've got to prove that something's not true. You know, how do you end up proving something's not true? It's very difficult. So I think they tend to police language in areas they like, politically correct sort of areas of people.

They don't want to be bullied or criticized online. And then something, I think, is way more important accusing people of a crime for which it's death or accusing people of a crime for which they would be ostracized from their community forever is not policed at all, and yet they will police, you know, two kids calling each other fat or ugly. Okay, let's take a quick break. Stay with us.

Welcome back. I want to make sure that we do talk about the midterms, which are fast approaching just a few months away. You know, what's your prediction for how it's going to go? And I saw that you're backing Thomas Massey, who is in a primary fight with a Trump back candidate, obviously, Massey has, you know, is on the wrong side of Trump at this particular moment because of his fight to get the Epstein files released. What's that dynamic like as well?

You know, I have been working hard to help Thomas Massey get reelected. I think he has a good chance of being reelected. The people at home know him. They know his independence. And the irony is he's actually being attacked for holding positions the president either used to hold or may even still hold. The whole idea of the Epstein. No one had heard of the Epstein files or talked about it before Donald Trump talked about it extensively on the campaign trail. What Thomas Massey is doing is actually supporting Donald Trump and exposing the Epstein files. Now, Trump changed his mind, but the interesting thing is, is Thomas Massey did something extraordinary. He only had three Republicans supporting him.

In the end, every Republican supported him. This is probably never happened that I know of in Washington. We're a backbench congressman, Thomas Massey, took an issue where he only had three. three Republicans supporting him, in the end got every Republican, and even got the president to support him. So really, the Epstein thing really shouldn't be portrayed as Thomas Massey against Donald Trump. It's Thomas Massey actually passing what Donald Trump originally wanted and what Donald Trump eventually did sign. It's the same way with the other most important thing to Donald Trump, that's impeachment. Thomas Massey voted against both impeachments. I voted against both impeachments.

I actually brought up the constitutional question in the second Trump impeachment of whether or not it's constitutional to impeach someone who's not in office, which I think it's not, and there is no precedent for impeaching someone who's not in office. I don't know how you impeach somebody. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. And so, I don't know. I think of myself as still a strong Donald Trump supporter, not on everything, but on many issues, I still am. And it's hard because the news cycle has several items in it now where I've been on the other side, on trade, on the Iran war, and on some of the United States. And on some of the United States, spending and debt issues. But it doesn't mean I'm not still a supporter, frankly.

Yeah. And what do you think about the midterms? I think historically it's hard. Presidents very rarely, the opposite party usually does well in off-year midterms. And I think it's because the news cycle is dominated by the president and people who are opposed to his policies are motivated in that first two years to come out. So I think in all likelihood, a very good chance the House could flip. I think the war is also a negative. I think that people are motivated, particularly people, voters in the middle,

who are motivated by their own economic circumstances, see paying the price to gas and wondering, really, is it in our best interest to be involved in this war of choice with Iran? So I think the war hurts also. I think the closer we get to October and the war being continuing and gas prices still being high,

fertilizer prices being high, the farming community is suffering right now from this and the tariffs as well, I think that it makes it more likely that the House will flip and a possibility of the Senate. I think less likely the Senate, but there's a chance to house will flip. I don't want that to happen, and I'm trying to do everything I can. I wish some Republicans weren't spending so much money trying to take a Republican out, Thomas Massey, and we're spending that money on Democrats. I think that's wasted money, particularly something because I think Thomas Massey's going to win. So speaking of the war, you've called the war not good for America and expressed concerns about the ballooning costs of the conflict.

How would you describe the state of play right now in Iran? And what would your advice be to the administration in terms of a go-forward strategy, given where we are right now? You know, I want the war to end as soon as possible. I think the war is not good for America. I want our soldiers to be brought home safely. Ending the war is more difficult now, and you have to decide what you're willing to accept. for a while the president was saying unconditional surrender. Very rarely does war end with unconditional surrender.

Japan unconditionally surrendered, but realized we dropped two atomic weapons on them, killed hundreds of thousands of people, and at the next cabinet meeting, the imperial cabinet was still arguing to continue the war. The emperor who rarely spoke, spoke up and said, no, it's over. But there were still significant numbers of members of his cabinet that wanted to continue on. Unconditional surrender almost never happens. So I think if that's the goal, we will fight a long time or you'd have to invade with hundreds of thousands of troops to get unconditional surrender. Now, to get surrender and get some other advantage other than that they've been militarily defeated, if you want to remove the nuclear-enriched uranium, I think that would be a great goal.

But to get it, I don't think you're getting it unless one of two things happens. Either you invade and have troops on the ground or you negotiate with the Iranians, you give them something they want. Now, I think you could trade sanction relief and resumption of trade and release of international money that's been confiscated by the banking system. But is the Trump administration going to be willing to do what they have been opposed to in the past, both of those items that happened in the previous Iranian agreement? So I think it's difficult right now, and I don't see an easy way to end this where anything more positive comes unless you just declare victory and just say it's over. that could happen, but I think there are many things arguing against that. The people on the right, Lindsey Graham and others, won't want any end of the war until all the nuclear enrichment is gone, which is fine. But how does that happen, short of putting land troops into Iran?

I don't know how it happens, actually. And final questions here, Jess, so we let the senator get back to his good work. Yeah. It's kind of a meta question, and I know that about 90% of the time you do side with the president or vote with the president. But you have been outspoken on so many issues that have captivated the national consciousness and affected us deeply, certainly on trade, but also really on immigration and the violations of the First and Fourth Amendments that went on, you know, the president and Kristy Nome calling Alex Prady and Renee good domestic terrorists, et cetera. What is it like to be a thorn in the side of the administration on these issues that are so dominant in our consciousness? Well, I can tell you, first of all, it's not my goal. I don't wake up each day and want to be on the other side of the administration. I love you for it, though. I enjoy it when it happens. I know, but you may not be one of my Republican supporters in Kentucky.

I'm not. What I would say is I don't wake up wanting to be on the other side of the president. I am friends with the president. I've known him for 15 years. He helped with my mission trips before he was in office in Guatemala and 80. So I am friends with the president and want to continue. to be. But on immigration and on this, I did not like the images in the streets of ice agents all over the streets of the confrontation with people. People yelling at you is not enough to be sprayed in the eyes from six inches away with pepper spray. It's not enough to throw people to the ground because they're yelling at you. And in fact, when you saw leadership finally occur, Tom Homan went to Minneapolis, you saw no more ice agents in the streets. And I didn't see, I haven't seen one video episode since then. So it took leadership and some changes in policy.

I think that if they were to announce we made mistakes, we've changed policy, which has actually already occurred, and then add some of that into the appropriations process. I think you could actually have a compromise. I think it would be better for Republicans in the polls. You know, Minnesota is actually, it's a more Democrat state, but the state legislature is always up for grabs, you know, between Republicans and Democrats.

if we want a chance to actually break even or try to win at something in Minnesota, we should announce that we're going to do a better job. I see no problem in announcing that we made mistakes or that the government made mistakes and it's going to try to do a better job. But I don't do this because I'm opposed to the president. I do this just because I can't see images like that where Alexander Petty is shot and not speak out and say, this is not what we won. This is not good law enforcement. And frankly, the people involved in those shootings really shouldn't be doing that job. Now, I'm not for prosecuting them. I think it's a difficult job, and I think these are accidental shootings by people in the heat of battle. But they made the wrong decision. Shooting Alexander

Freddie after the gun had been removed was a mistake. They mistakenly must have thought he still had the gun when they heard gun gun. And that's an error, but it's an error in judgment so tragic that you really shouldn't be involved in law enforcement if you make those errors. And we have this all the time in law enforcement. We sometimes make a mistake, oh, we're going to prosecute every policeman, but we can't be prosecuting every policeman. It's a really, really tough job. What we need to be doing to the policemen who make terrible mistakes, you know, like the woman who drew her gun instead of her taser and immediately knew she had done the wrong thing, her punishment should have been not being a police officer. It shouldn't have been going to jail, frankly, even though there was a

tragic death because it really was an accident, as far as I can tell. I don't know. I think that we do need thorough investigations of the officers involved in those deaths. When you know, when you watch the video of Officer Ross with Renee Good and you see that her car was turned to move away and then he still shot her at point blank range, you got to think that there's more to this story and that the American people are owed that. But we're so appreciative of your time. Senator Paul, thank you for coming. Thank you. And thank you, Senator. And And just real quick, I taught macro-micro-miconomics and graduate school. And when we would talk about debt and the deficit, we used to play videos of your father.

So the Paul family has been teaching. Your father first got me sort of interested in the deficit way back when. I appreciate that. Thanks for having me. Thank you. See you soon. Jeff, what did you think? I enjoyed it.

I mean, it felt like we covered a lot of territory. I mean, he's obviously very defensive of his positive relationship. with Trump and wants to emphasize that. You know, and maybe I'm just used to being proverbially breadcrumped by anyone that speaks out against the administration. But I am thankful that he has taken stands on things like trade and immigration and on the big, beautiful bill. And I think he's more thoughtful than the average bear.

So what do you think? Yeah. The senator has voted with the president 90%, which makes him the closest thing we have to independent Republican Senator. Yeah. That's how difficult it is to find somebody who breaks from the president. And he's broken on some really key issues, the war, ice. So I think you got to hand it to Senator Paul that he's, you may not agree with his

principles, but he's principled. He doesn't, you know, he's not afraid to go up against the president, which is, I think, more than, you could say, 97% of the Republican Party right now. So certainly the ones trying to get reelected. I mean, some of them find their voice when they're on the way out the door. But, you know, he's sticking it out. And I like him backing Thomas Massey this hard against Trump. I think that's good.

Agreed. Before we go, a reminder that Raging Moderates is on Substack. Subscribers get ad-free episodes, which everybody loves, a place to connect with all of us, and access to the Raging Moderates newsletter, which we're super proud of and hope you guys are enjoying. Plus, we're going to be doing some more live streams that will only be viewable to our substack subscribers. So join us. raging moderates.com. That's all for this episode. Thank you so much for joining us today.