The David Pakman Show - 10/3/25: Trump is getting ignored as pollsters drop brutal warning

Episode Date: October 3, 2025

-- On the Show: -- Governors Josh Shapiro, Gavin Newsom, Kathy Hochul, and J.B. Pritzker defy Donald Trump on healthcare, climate, abortion, and immigration -- Eric Trump repeatedly blames everything on an undefined 'they' during a rambling viral video -- David cancels an appearance on Jubilee’s Surrounded citing safety, editing concerns, and doubts about debate culture -- Some Democrats are failing to connect with voters, while Zoran Mamdani excites supporters -- Donald Trump’s tariffs, bailouts, and trade wars raise everyday costs for Americans and act as a hidden tax -- A new poll shows nearly half of swing-district voters support impeaching Trump less than a year into his second term -- The Friday Feedback segment -- On the Bonus Show: Right-wing reactions to the government shutdown, right-wing reactions to Bad Bunny being announced as the Super Bowl halftime performer, and much more... 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.com/pakman 👩‍❤️‍👨 Try the Paired App FREE for 7 days and get 25% OFF at https://paired.com/pakman ⚠️ Ground News: Get 40% OFF their unlimited access Vantage plan at https://ground.news/pakman -- Become a Member: https://davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe to our (FREE) Substack newsletter: https://davidpakman.substack.com -- Get David's Books: https://davidpakman.com/echo -- TDPS Subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow -- David on Bluesky: https://davidpakman.com/bluesky -- David on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow (00:00) Governors defy Trump on key issues (07:09) Eric Trump’s “they” rant goes viral (14:32) Jubilee debate appearance canceled (22:05) Democrats struggle with messaging (31:29) Trump’s tariffs hit Americans’ wallets (35:12) Poll shows impeachment support rising (40:05) Friday Feedback

Governors are increasingly ignoring Donald Trump. I love it. This is a form of resistance that makes a lot of sense and has the potential to have a huge impact. I want to talk about it with you. Trump's back in the White House, but there are governors across the country that are starting to act like he's really not. The latest example comes from Pennsylvania, Governor Josh Shapiro. Josh Shapiro makes it very clear.

He is not going to take orders from Washington when it comes to issues of health care. Like for example, Donald Trump's secretary of health and human services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Now, you might be asking yourself, what about the federal supremacy clause? Isn't it the law that the federal government decides and supersedes state law? And the answer is sometimes, but only on some issues. So we're going to delve into that because that is really at the core of this. But first, let's listen to what Governor Josh Shapiro had to say about this, making a lot of sense, folks. That could happen.

Yeah, absolutely. Well, RFK Jr. doesn't run health care here in Pennsylvania. Dr. Bogan does as the health secretary. And I would like nothing more than to have a good working relationship with the federal government where they relied on facts. in science. But in the absence of that, we're able to set our own rules and regulations and laws here in the Commonwealth. The 10th Amendment allows us, of the U.S. Constitution allows us to do that. So I'm exercising my authority as governor. These secretaries are utilizing the authority they have that comes from the people of Pennsylvania. And so we are not going to let

those who do not believe in science, those who instead push conspiracy theories dictate health care here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Now, there are a lot of other governors that are going in the same direction and they are saying we're just not going to listen to the federal government. California Governor Gavin Newsom has said California is going to keep their emission standards. They're going to keep their climate rules. It doesn't matter if Trump rips up the federal protections. California doesn't care.

They're going to keep doing their thing. New York Governor Kathy Hochel has said no matter what the federal government does, we're going to keep doing our gun safety laws. We're going to protect access to abortion. It doesn't matter what Donald Trump says or does. You go to Illinois. Governor J.B. Pritzker is preparing to shield immigrants from Donald Trump's deportation push and has already done so to some degree.

So this is now becoming a pattern, which is blue state governors saying, we don't care, Donnie boy, on health care, on climate, on civil rights. We're going to go our own way. Trump may be president. He doesn't control the states. And the more fringe policy Trump tries to push, the more we're going to say, get the hell out of here. Now, then we get to the legal question.

We care about the rule of law here on the left. What about federal supremacy? Doesn't federal law reign supreme? And the answer is only sometimes. What does the law say? Well, we have the supremacy clause, right? Article 6 clause 2, which is that the federal law is the supreme. law of the land. If there is a conflict, federal law prevails. But the reality is that that is only

in certain areas. Some of these things don't really relate to areas of law where the federal government has that undisputed authority. So I'll give you examples. Civil rights. When we have the civil rights act, states cannot go, you know what, we are going to make it legal to say no black people allowed in my shoe store. You can't do it. The law is very, very clear on that. It's unconstitutional. There's Supreme Court precedent. Certain environmental regulations in terms of doing less regulation than what the federal government says. So if the EPA issues an air quality standard that says, we are going to limit emissions of a certain substance to seven parts per million, states can can't go, ah, we're only going to do six parts per million or we're only going to do five parts per million. However, states can have stricter climate and emissions guidelines. If the federal

law is no more than seven parts per million, uh, I'm, and I just did it backwards. And I'm sorry. States can't say we're going to allow more than seven parts per million, but they can say we are going to be even stricter than federal law. I completely screwed up that up in my head, but I hope you understand the point I'm making. On immigration, federal immigration law overrides state laws. So if the federal government says in order to come into the country legally, here's what you have to do, you can't have a state that says, well, we're going to have different laws for what's required to come into the United States. Now, this is separate from whether cities or states must work with federal immigration authorities. That's a different

issue relates to sanctuary cities and states, but that's a different question that we're talking about here. But there are other areas where state law does supersede federal authority. Police powers, for example, states regulate property law, states regulate traffic law, local businesses, unless there is a specific federal law that steps in, states have superseding authority in a lot of those areas. As I already mentioned, states can always go beyond federal requirements. If the fed say no more than 10 parts per million of this polluting gas, states could say we're going to be stricter. If the federal government says the minimum wage must be $7.25 an hour, states are allowed to say, actually in our state,

it's going to be $9 an hour. It's going to be $10, $15, $20 an hour. They can't go below, but they can go above. And so the key distinctions here are that if there is a direct conflict on something which federal law controls. Federal law wins in a sense. But big picture, federal law sets floors and not ceilings. And if the constitution doesn't give federal government power over an area, it really does remain up to the states. We're seeing this in a lot of places. You know, Josh Shapiro in the video we watched was talking about when it comes to health stuff in Pennsylvania. We've heard from other governors like Maura Healy in Massachusetts, example, they don't care what the federal government is doing as far as vaccination, vaccines

will remain available and the vaccine schedule will remain in place in Massachusetts with regard to public schools. I love this. We have to look for opportunities to oppose and to resist wherever they present themselves. And there are a bunch of different governors that are making it clear. They are going to resist. Eric Trump suffered a they stroke on live television. What do I mean by a they stroke? You got to see this. How many times does Eric Trump refer to they here in this interview? And importantly, keep track.

I'm going to do it here on a piece of paper I have. Keep track of how many different entities they is used to refer to. He does this all the time. Take a listen. You made it and so did America. How do you feel? Listen, the book just went to number one on Amazon. on Amazon in virtually every category, so I feel

awfully good, Greg, to say at least. But, I mean, they tried to kill us. I mean, I was outside the courthouse in that little clip that you just played there defending my father because they gag ordered him about 200 times every crooked judge, but they impeached him once, they impeached him again, they made up the dirty dossier, they spied

on his campaign, they made up Russia collusion. They, you know, had FBI calling me to say that we had servers in our basement that were communicating with the Kremlin, which was nonsense. They took him off of Twitter. They Okay, okay. I have to stop because this, I'm making notes here.

Okay. He's using the ubiquitous they even to describe stuff that Republicans did. Think about all of the different things he talks about here. They tried to kill him. Well, one of the they was the son of Republicans who tried to kill him in Butler. Okay. They. Oh, like a Republican.

Got it. Okay. Cool. Different judges in accordance with the law passed gag orders in their courtrooms. They, they, they, they sounds like one entity. These are completely disconnected entities. They tried to impeach him. Well, the members of the House of Representatives did vote to impeach Donald Trump.

The members of the Senate voted to acquit. They as if it's all one party. They did the dossier. Now we're talking about intelligence agencies. They accused him of Russia collusion. Now we're talking about different investigative agents and he's under different power. They, they, they. He's referred to a dozen different entities here, none of which are coordinated in any way that

they've been able to demonstrate. And he keeps going. He's in a, he's having a stroke of they. He's off of Instagram. They took him off of. Oh, they took him off of Instagram and Twitter. Yeah. So now we're talking about moderation on platforms.

Instagram and Twitter, of course, have nothing to do with each other. Facebook. They rated our home. They rated Marlago. They went through Melania's closet. They went through a baron's room. They took him off, you know, the ballot in Colorado. Then they took him off the ballot in Maine.

I became the most subpoenaed person. They, they, they is using one term here, they because he wants you to believe that they who served a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago and they who took him off the ballot in Colorado are the same. To conspiracy, everybody's working together against his dad. The biggest victims in the world, if you listen to him. In American history, I got 112 subpoenas. I was in a deposition every single day. They tried to bankrupt our company.

They tried to de-platform us. They tried to debank us. Every bank capital one and all the rest of them were shutting down our bank accounts all day long. They were hitting us with half a billion dollar cash judgments for doing absolutely nothing wrong. You know, Gray, it was a siege. And I came up with this name about two years ago, you know, long before I ever started writing, the book and then they tried to kill my father and butler and then they tried to kill him again at the golf course. And you saw what they just did to Charlie Kirk and you saw what they tried

to do to Kavanaugh. And you saw what they did to Steve Scalise. They have put our family. They have put our movement. They have put all of us, including all of the people watching right now. They have put them under siege. And honestly, I had to tell the inside story. Yeah. He is showing up here to tell us the inside story in his book, Under Siege. This is a family that wants you to believe there are no stronger people, there are no smarter people, there are more, no more robust people. And yet, despite being ultra wealthy and hyper privileged, they are the victims. They want you to believe that they are the victims, not the migrants being treated like crap, not the people being deported, not the people having health care taken away, not the people

that now can't afford groceries because they've gotten even more expensive since Donald Trump became president, this is the face of victimhood, according to Eric Trump. Didn't they attack the left for constantly going on about grievances? And yet here they are saying that they are actually the ultimate victims. These are truly pathetic people. And I know that Eric Trump was never the smart one. Like I understand that, you know, who the hell is Eric Trump? But he wrote a book about this. Now, hilariously, I meant to pull this up. Let me see if I can find it under siege Eric Trump. My family's fight to save our nation. The book comes out in a few days. It is when you look at the book from what's been released so far, it is taking anecdotes and minor incidents

and claiming that these are just examples of how the Trump family are the targets of everybody. At some point, I would love it if someone said, hey, if you guys are really the alpha males you claim to be, why is it that everything is just such a threat to you and such an attack and something you need to go and write a book about? I don't know that anybody's really going to be asking those questions. So it's a they stroke. They did it. They tried to kill them.

They tried to indict me. they try to subpoena. We need something new. And I know that people keep talking about further further Trump's, excuse me, Eric or Don Jr. or Ivanka, potentially becoming president. What a horror if that were to happen. Every time you Google your name, you will probably find dozens of sites that expose your personal information. This can include phone number, home address, family details. It's just sitting there waiting to be scraped or abused. Incogni is a privacy service. They go after these sites on your behalf.

They contact the data brokers. They demand your data be removed, which the brokers are legally required to do. Incogni will automatically remove your information from hundreds of the biggest and most notorious data broker sites, but you're not just limited to those. You can use Incogni's custom removal if you find your info on a website outside of Incogni's default list. team at Incogni will work to get that information removed. This is how you protect yourself and your family from identity theft, financial scams,

harassment, even AI-powered profiling by ad companies. And Incogni's data removal process is the only one verified independently by Deloitte. This gives them a unique level of credibility. Try Incogni risk-free and get 60% off when you go to incogny.com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman. The link is in the description. All right. I have canceled my forthcoming appearance on Jubilee's surrounded. Some of you knew I was going to do it. And I feel like I owe you the truth about why. Now, the concept was going to be one progressive millennial, me versus 20 right wing gen Ziers. And I have decided not to do it. Now, after Charlie Kirk was killed, I really thought hard about what.

whether this is something that I still want to do. Now, there were sort of two sets of concerns. Initially, there was certainly a thought about security, right? I mean, surrounded is essentially what Charlie Kirk used to do, except it was a controlled environment. It was, you know, indoors and it's me versus 20 people, not a huge crowd. And the people are pre-selected by the casting directors and that sort of thing. So there was initially like a might this give somebody an idea, would it be safe? Am I tempting fate by doing the same thing Charlie Kirk used to do? The truth is that the security stuff I was satisfied was pretty well dealt with. Jubilee was very nice. And everyone I've dealt with at Jubilee has been nice this entire time. They were going to essentially

quadruple the security presence. And they were talking about some additional protocols. And at the end of the day, I believe that the security issue is not really the concern in the immediate location of the event. But then I kind of started thinking bigger picture. And I heard from a lot of you and I heard from a lot of people whose opinions I respect. I started having a sort of like, you know, reckoning about the type of content that I want to put out, the situations I want to put myself in. And I started devoting some thought to like is this entire kind of debate format a good idea. It is kind of a rage bait, prioritized extremism sort of thing. I'm not sure that it's the best thing in the world. And I had said it before, right? I actually did a whole video about

this. It was a segment called is the memeification of debate killing us. And from what I heard from a lot of you, some thought the format of surrounded is fine. Some thought it was problematic. there were different opinions. Bottom line, I've made a decision. I came to a conclusion. I don't think the conversations that Charlie Kirk was having. And I don't think the conversations that I would have if I did this event would really foster understanding advance a productive cause or bring people together in any way. In fact, I mean, when you look at some of the techniques that Charlie Kirk used to in a sense it would actually do the opposite like charlie kirk did this is an aside but charlie kirk would do this thing where whatever topic comes up he would like funnel it funnel the conversation

into a bucket that he controls so like if anyone says anything related to abortion he immediately goes hold on a second when does life begin and then now he is just leading you down a predetermined conversation or if someone brought up anything related to israel or gaza he would say wait wait wait wait wait does israel have a right to exist and then just from there he's guiding it's it's a technique. It doesn't really get us anywhere. But moving on and back to Jubilee and surrounded. I spoke to people who have appeared unsurrounded. And you know, you film for hours and hours, three, four hours. It gets cut down. What ends up being published just highlights extremism. It highlights people who are in a sense quite unhinged. A lot of the good

conversations end up excluded. And the other thing, quite frankly, that made me not feel good about it is that in reviewing some recent episodes, some of the participants are pretty obviously mentally ill. Like, you know, not only is the debate stuff bro, maybe not the best format for what I'm trying to build. Is it even ethical when some of the people selected are very clearly not of sound mind? Now, I'm not even going to mention which episodes this is particularly clear in, but it is many. are people selected who forget about being extremist, which is like, fine.

You know, you talk to extremists, depending on the format. There's some people that really, it's almost like predatory to include them in some of this stuff. So I've made the decision not to participate and I am foregoing significant publicity by doing this. You know, I've spoken to people who said, yeah, it was wacky, but by appearing on there, it really blew up my platform. It blew up my YouTube channel and, and, you know, we've had some negative publicity lately. As many of you know, it's not like I couldn't use the boost. But overall, at the end of the day, it just doesn't feel right. And if I think ahead to the next five years, the direction I want to go, the second book I'm working on, I just don't know

that I am getting us in the direction of the world I envision by doing this. And some of you might go, David, it's so stupid. Take the publicity. Get the 50,000, you know, YouTube subscribers that you would get from doing it or whatever other people have gotten. But it just doesn't seem like I am kind of putting my money where my mouth is if I do that. I want to hear from you. Tell me your thoughts. I believe the way for shows like ours to really grow and to grow the ecosystem is not necessarily to do the debate bro stuff in this format. It's people who just like what we're doing, supporting directly, liking videos, subscribing, and building an ecosystem that actually is where we would like to see the political discourse go.

And at the end of the day, when I look at the final product of Surrounded, it is not discourse that I believe takes us in the direction that we should be going in. So I want to hear from you. Leave a comment. send me an email info at david packman.com did i screw this one up or is it a decision that is in line with the what we want to see from political discussion and discourse in the future let me know your thoughts have you ever wanted to feel more connected to your partner but found that daily life gets in the way there is an app designed specifically to help couples deepen their bond called

paired. Our sponsor paired gives you daily personalized questions, quizzes, fun games, really just crafted to inspire meaningful and enjoyable conversations with your partner. And you won't see your partner's answers until you've shared your own. So it's like a safe, genuine space for honest dialogue and discovery. Recently, one paired prompt asked, what's something you admire most about your partner? Answering this simple question created. a conversation with my girlfriend and highlighted things that we sometimes overlook. The paired app is a great daily reminder of the qualities that make relationships special. Whether you're just starting to build your connection or you've been together for years,

paired helps make it easy and enjoyable to strengthen your relationship and it's just five minutes a day. Head to pared.com slash Pacman for a seven day free trial and 25% off your subscription. The link is in the description. All right, I need to talk to you about something that has been on my mind. And I know I recently did a segment about my concern that the Democratic Party is heading towards some brutal losses. But after the last two weeks, I'm even more worried. And I'm going to have to name some names here.

I realize that by doing this, I'm probably burning some bridges. I'm realizing we're going to get fewer offers for elected officials to appear on this. show and I'm a big boy. I can handle that. Maybe I won't get invited to stuff. I don't know. But what's happening is so existentially serious for Democrats and for the left more broadly that I don't think I can stay silent. Now, here's the problem. 95%, 98% of Democrats are either unable or unwilling to communicate in an emotionally safe. alien, meaningful way with voters on shows. Now, I am not saying this from the outside. I am seeing this in my conversations with these elected officials. I have them on the show all the time.

I know that when you watch MSNBC, sometimes Democrats are asked questions and they go into like a talking point coma. And you're like, did they just answer the question? I don't even know what they're talking about. But it's not just happening on MSNBC and CNN. It's happening when I try to talk to them as well. Now, everybody I'm going to mention, and I have to mention some people, they're all nice people. I think they want the best for their constituents. This is not personal. But when I see how the right is communicating and how these Democrats are communicating, I see us barreling towards disaster and I want to fix it. Okay. What I'll this is there's there's risk to doing this, but I think it has to be done.

When I interviewed Colorado Governor Jared Polis, things were fine until I brought up to him that nearly a quarter of Colorado apartments are owned by private equity. And like, is that really good? And he kind of got defensive and he defended private equity's ownership of apartments. And when I pressed a little bit further, the tone shifted. And you could tell he wasn't happy with me by the end of the interview. And just that light pushback completely changed the dynamic of the interview. That's not good.

I then interviewed Colin Allred recently running for Senate in Texas. I think he's a fine candidate on paper. I like the guy. I've liked him for a long time. Supported his previous runs when he was running in the Senate previously. When I asked Colin, why would Republicans in Texas vote for a Democrat in 2020? What is it that you're offering? He gave me this long answer going back to 2017.

Now listen, I understand history matters, but I pointed out you're not really answering the question and we hit an impasse. And if you look at the comments on that interview, this isn't even my opinion. Look at the comments on YouTube for that interview. Your reaction was exactly what I was thinking, which is he's not answering the question. He is really talking around the issue and he never really gets to the. to the point of saying, why are Texas Republicans going to vote for you or any Democrat this time around, given what's going on? We didn't get an answer. It was a very straightforward question.

We didn't get an answer. More recently, I interviewed Rahm Emanuel, who is considering a 2028 run. And I asked him what I thought were really straightforward questions about Democratic messaging, connection with voters. What is it that the left needs to offer in terms of like, what are we doing economically, right? With Kamala, it was so muddled. She's got this tax deduction for new business expenses. Give me the clear economic thing. And he responded by speaking six minutes uninterrupted about education. Now, education is a huge issue, of course, but when I explained, that wasn't my question. My question was about economics and he sort of interrupted and said, David, you know, maybe you don't care about education, but I do. And I. And I,

I don't think it was good. And again, if you look at the comments, you guys hated it. This is just like one example. Dan wrote to me and said, David, what the fuck is Rahm Emanuel's deal? He got defensive and hostile in your interview and acted as though you'd insulted him or slandered his honor. All you did was ask a pointed question about strategy. Then you politely interrupted his lunatic word salad after what felt like 20 minutes to gently

push for specifics. All he wanted to do then was change the subject and pontificate about totally unrelated topics. When you agreed with him on those unrelated things while trying to refocus him on the original question, he got visibly angry. Vains were popping out of the M. Fers head. Dude needs a shot of Haldol and some smelling salts to calm his ass down. I've never seen a guy so full of himself. We don't need another thin-skinned, hot-headed psycho in the White House.

Two terms of Trump have been more than enough by 2028. Great show. Take care. I wouldn't characterize that interview with all the F bombs, but that sentiment was the overwhelming reaction to my interview of Rahm Emanuel. Now, I am doing everything I can to tell these officials when I don't think that they're communicating well. And I've done it behind closed doors and I've done it on interviews.

And if there is not a clear platform, clear policy ideas, an emotional connection to voters, Democrats are going to keep running into the same wall. Now, let me address Zoran Mamdani. With someone like Zoran Mamdani, who let's be clear, he's a socialist and I'm not, right? Like I have fundamental differences with Zoran Mamdani. He is emerging as one of the few Democrats who actually excites people and just answers the questions that he's asked. You might agree with his policies or you might not.

You might like what he's suggesting or not. You might be a capitalist and he's a socialist. But when he asks a question, he answers the question and he's speaking in a way that connects. Let me give you an example. I don't think his free bus plan is remotely realistic to fund it. He would need state taxes to go up. The governor's not going to raise state taxes or you've got to try to raise city taxes. I don't even know if that's possible by statute, but that would fail.

And also making the bus free in other places. places we've seen just put downward pressure on the quality. The buses come less frequently. I think what a lot of people in New York City want is the bus is to run more frequently. And that might actually take more money rather than less. But it doesn't matter, right? This is like we're in the details. He has excited voters.

He answers questions. Even if when he says how he's going to pay for the bus plan, I don't believe it. He's got an answer and he doesn't talk about some random thing from 10 years ago. almost no one is doing that. So people are excited to hear that. And that should really tell us something. And this is what terrifies me by even doing this segment rather than it's serving as a wake up call to anybody. And at the end of the day, like who am I? Right. They've got high price consultants. They've got all this stuff. But what do I have? I have you. I have you giving me instant feedback to what the communication is from these elected officials. And you're all

telling me, Mom Donnie's answering questions and he's exciting voters. The people that you're interviewing with some exceptions, right? I mean, listen, there are people on this show who answer questions when we had, you know what, I'm not even going to name people, but you all know that there are people I've had on this show. I'll name a few. When I had, uh, when I had, uh, Gavin Newsom on, he answered questions and he spoke in a way that connected with people. When I had Governor Josh Shapiro on, he answered my questions and spoke in a way that connected with people. Jimmy Gomez, the congressman, you all loved him. And he actually was answering my questions substantively and connecting with people, not redirecting for seven minutes about

something else. So there are some Democrats at the national level doing the right things, but they're the exception. And so there's two things that could happen. And you'll know because they might stop appearing on this show, right? If you see no more Democratic electives on this show, you'll know why. It's because this served as a, F, that guy, rather than damn, maybe he has a point. On the other hand, if you see them continuing to show up and maybe they're communicating more effectively and making you think, oh, there's actually, I can understand why I would vote for this person over a Republican nut job in 26 or 28, then maybe we'll be going in the right direction, but if nothing changes, we're staring down disaster in 2026 and 2028. I'm going to do

everything I can to prevent that, but I'm just one person. We all need to get involved. I want to hear from you. Leave a comment. If this resonates with you, please like the video and share it. Like the video and share it. So important. Let's talk about who pays for Trump's insanity. Trump loves to brag about him. He's tough on trade. The truth is, you're the one paying for his so-called toughness. Every time you go to the store, every time you pay your bills, you are footing the bill for Donald Trump's economic insanity. Start with tariffs.

He promised China would pay. That was a lie. Tariffs are attacks on imports. The cost gets passed to you. You pay for Trump's tariffs. As of this year, Trump has slapped massive tariffs on everyday items. You know, the percent, at this point, it's hard to even keep track 30 percent on furniture, 25 percent on heavy trucks, kitchen cabinets, foreign-made movies.

He's talking about 100 percent tax tariff on. That just means higher prices on everything. Higher prices on homes, repairs, things like just going to the movies. We've got the farmer bailouts that are pending. Trump loves to say tariffs bring in money. What's he doing with the money? He's needing to give it to the farmers because they're getting hurt by the tariffs. So in essence, you pay twice.

You pay with higher prices in the store, but then your tax dollars from the tariffs are funneled into bailouts designed to shore up Trump's political base. You are paying. The trade war with Canada and Mexico is another punch. Trump slapped tariffs on almost everything coming in from our closest neighbors, food, energy, raw materials. So what happened? They hit back.

Prices go up both ways. Groceries cost more. costs more. Everything made with imported parts costs more. Does it make your life better? No, his disasters and you pay. The other aspect of this that I think is worth mentioning is that Trump is using the tariffs like a shadow tax. This year, we are expected to collect about $170 billion from these tariffs. But it's not coming from China. It's not coming from Mexico. It's coming from you because you now pay higher prices, inflation, you're paying for the tariffs, and that raises the tax burden, even though Trump said he would lower the tax burden on the middle class. And you have ripple

effects. Trickle down in the sense of cut taxes for the rich and everyone benefits. Doesn't exist, doesn't work. The trickle down to housing and construction costs going up because building materials are getting more expensive. Furniture, therefore, gets more expensive. Fixures get more expensive. That is trickling down. That then trickles down. to higher rent prices. It makes homes less affordable. And it leaves local governments who often lack the money to do it to try to scramble and cover up the gaps. They then say, hey, you know what, we've got to raise property taxes because of the tariffs. How could that be? Well, as I told you, tariffs, building materials, home costs, all of a sudden you have to find yourself raising

property taxes to cover the expenses of the municipality. Companies decide we're going to wait on hiring. We will delay giving people raises. We'll pass the higher costs on to workers and families. The economy becomes more fragile. And when things break, it's average people that get hurt first. The people that have got a million in the bank, they're fine. The people that can't meet an unexpected $400 expense without borrowing, they're not fine. So don't be fooled when Trump says tariffs make America strong. They make life more expensive. Don't believe him when he says the bailouts are free. You're paying for the bailouts. Don't fall for the tough guy routine.

Trump's economic policies are hurting you. He said other countries would pay. You're paying. And you're going to keep paying every single day of the week, month, year, whatever, until this insanity finally stops. What will it take to get it to stop? I don't know. Donald Trump's presidency is effectively over, according to a pollster.

New poll has landed. It's devastating for Trump. research partners working with free speech for people looked at voters in swing congressional districts. These are the critical districts likely to determine who takes the House in 2026. And there is one number that should terrify Donald Trump. It's 49. No, it's not the average IQ of his cabinet. Forty-nine percent of swing district voters support impeaching Donald Trump. And 45 percent say they support it strongly. This is not a fringe survey.

This is the exact voters that will decide who controls Congress. And they seem done with Trump. Think about how extraordinary that is. A majority, 56%, say they disapprove of the job Trump is doing as president. This isn't overall. This is in the critical swing districts that will decide who controls the House. Now, pollers are looking at this and they're saying this is remarkable, might even be unprecedented, that you've got about half of swing district voters.

saying the president should be impeached, and we're only eight months in. Nixon didn't hit these numbers until the end of his second term. Clinton never had numbers like this in battlegrounds. Trump is bleeding support in the exact places that he needs it. Now, when you look at history, one of the things we've talked about before is that presidential approval ratings rarely go up. Why? Governing is hard. Scandals pile up. And the way presidential approval often works is the term starts and you go, I approve. He's new. I approve.

He does the thing that you don't like. Now you switch to I no longer approve. And even if he comes up with stuff you do like later, very rarely do people go from disapproving to of a president to approving. Exceptions are like what Bush dealt with on 9-11. A lot of people who did not like Bush said, I now approve because he sort of behaved after 9-11 in a way that I liked. But short of a 9-11, presidential approval tends to go down. Now, the list of impeachable offenses is staggering. We've talked about it before.

There are some who say there are 25 different issues on which Trump could be impeached right now, but using the military to occupy American cities would be there, gutting the Justice Department and the FBI, turning them into tools of revenge, pressuring media outlets to fire hosts or change programming, demanding that Letitia James, James Comey, and Adam Schiff be prosecuted. And by the way, James Comey is now being prosecuted attacking the First Amendment. The list is very long. question here is, do Americans see it? And the answer seems to be that they do. The polling seems to prove that they see it. This is not a survey of progressive activists. This is a survey

of regular swing state voters. And they are saying we've had enough. They want Trump impeached. They want Trump gone. Unlikely to happen for as long as the Republicans control the Senate. But the question is, will we see the Republicans removed from power in 2026? Now, I saw, It's on my subreddit, some people going, is that really all it's cracked up to be? Is that really, you know, do, is that really going to do that much? Well, it's what we can do right now. This November, we've got Prop 50 in California for redistricting and a couple of special elections. That's 2025.

2026, it's take back the house. Okay. We do everything we can when we can do it. It's not everything, but it is crucially important to take back the house. So Trump's presidency could be effectively over right now. The numbers are pointing that way. Left is formally remove Republicans from power from the House. And hey, you know what?

Maybe actually do the impeachment wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. A pending Supreme Court case could strip our Fourth Amendment rights and allow immigration agents to come into our homes for any reason, no probable cause needed, all while Republicans try to twist things so that you think this is all great for America. This should be the biggest story in the U.S. right now, but it's almost impossible to keep up with the millions of moves that Trump is making every single day. That's why ground news exists. Ground news is an app and website that exposes the blind spots and spin before it takes

control of our opinions. Ground news is the smarter, more reliable way to stay informed when MAGA is banking on us getting distracted. I'm partnering up with ground news to give you 40% off. the same vantage plan that I use, so you'll pay only five bucks a month for all of their premium features. Just go to ground.news slash Pacman or use the code Pacman in the app when you sign up. The link is in the description or scan the QR code. All right, it is time for Friday feedback where I hear from you.

You can always email info at David Pakman.com. We'll sometimes feature comments from different platforms. be YouTube, Spotify, Substack, whatever. We start today with a YouTube comment from M and me who said, I don't recall those 24 children who died from flooding in Texas getting as much coverage as Charlie Kirk's death. I know it's not a competition, but how do those kids death got casted away, whereas Charlie Kirk's death got so much attention? I mean WTF.

Yeah, listen, we spoke about this the day after Charlie Kirk's killing. which was not just in general other people are killed yesterday the day of charlie kirk's death there was a shooting at a school in colorado and it got a fraction of the attention and this is you know some of this is inevitable right i mean there's i don't think that there's any way anyway for Charlie Kirk's killing and the killing of a 14-year-old in Florida to get the same amount of media attention. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying the way our corporate media is structured, that's just not going to happen.

But what I do think is of critical importance is that when we hear of a big story like this, the opportunity for me to remind everybody of how widespread. spread this sort of violence is, is to say, you know, think about everything surrounding Charlie Kirk's death. Think about all the people that were there who are now traumatized. Think about all the friends and family who have lost a loved one. Think about what this says about the country. Think about all of that.

And then multiply it by the fact that on the same day Charlie Kirk was killed, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but there were something like 30 other shootings in the United States. I believe mass shootings where you've got at least multiple, multiple injuries. And multiply that out and just think of the unconscionable amount of devastation that political violence reigns upon us, guns reign upon us, this culture of firearms, all of it. And so I think I don't I don't know that the expectation that it'll all get the same amount of media coverage is reasonable.

It just won't. And also if if all media outlets did was cover shootings, it's all they would do. Like it to cover every shooting, it would be 24 seven. That's how sick the situation is. But using it as an analogy for, we have this times however many every day. And we're not really doing anything about it. I think that's maybe the opportunity. Matthew Atensio wrote on Facebook, I don't think we're as divided as people think.

It's just the narrative of news outlets that are owned by people who want us to think we are divided. What I see in the news and what I see in real life don't match. There is an aspect of truth here. And the aspect of truth is that if you just take all issues, including ones that are not controversial, you can nominally say that the country isn't as divided as media makes it, makes it think. So I'll give you an example of what I mean. If you watch political media, you see coverage of who should be president? Should we arm Ukraine? What should be done in Gaza?

Should abortion be legal? How should we deal with poverty? Okay. Those are inherently politically divisive issues. But if you zoom out, there's a whole bunch of stuff that the country mostly agrees on. Now, you could say, well, yeah, David, everybody agrees on that stuff. Murder should be illegal when it comes to, you know, sort of like going out there and stick an armed robbery where you kill someone. Or there should be government authorities should handle police, fire the roads.

Right. Like the point I'm struggling to do this articulately, but the point is, yes, we are not divided on huge swaths of issues relating to everyday life. Pilots who fly planes should be properly trained and monitored and subject to competency retesting, whatever, right? However, that stuff doesn't get media coverage because everybody agrees on it. So I believe the takeaway is is twofold. Yes, as people, we are not nearly as divided as the corporate media makes it seem.

And also some of these divisions that we do notice from watching the news are highly relevant and salient to our everyday lives. And so they aren't any less important to figure out. From the subreddit, friendly drummers said, I think Tyler Robinson is the shooter. I don't think it could be anyone else. I've seen plenty of people say no 22 year old texts like that. This text is fake. I can assure you, some kids are weird, terminally online kids especially.

And it seems as simple as this. Tyler used a gun. It matches with the gun of his grandfather. The grandfather recognized the gun on TV, knew it was missing. And that was when Tyler confessed to his dad. Tyler knew, his family knew, the gun was missing. I mean, the FBI can't just fake all of that. I understand not trusting the FBI, but we can't just deny something just because it's

inconvenient. The truth is the truth. Yeah, listen. I mean, you know, even the video we looked at last week of, oh, Charlie Kirk got shot from the back like it seemed obvious that that was not the case looking at the video. I think that there are a lot of sociocultural and psychological reasons why people start kind of, I would even say fixating or obsessing over some of these alternatives, conspiracy theories, we might call them. But I believe all the evidence points to Tyler having just done it. He's,

of course, alleged to have done it at this point in time. And sometimes it's nice to see someone just go, listen, guys, I think it just is what it is. Deborah Moore wrote on Spotify, America is in decline. That great, the great experiment is done. Average person just doesn't give a shit. confidence, laziness, entitlement, greed are too widespread and has a strong hold on the majority. I really wish I was able to relocate to another country. More people than ever who I know personally are relocating to other countries. I don't mean they're thinking about it. I don't mean they Googled it.

I don't mean they said to their spouse, maybe someday we would consider this. I know more people than ever personally who are leaving or have already left the United States. And it's a number of countries that they have gone to. Canada, Spain, Denmark, UK, Uruguay, trying to think of others, as to whether the great experiment of America is done. You know, I always hesitate to make these broad declarations. You know, you sometimes hear from people, America's so powerful. it will never fall. And others say, every empire has fallen. And my view is kind of like, listen,

things are different in 2025 than they used to be. I don't know that any of these rules of thumb are necessarily predictive in terms of what's going to happen. But what I can tell you is the following. I hope, I hope that we can survive three and a half more years of this insanity. But if we were to get another version of Trump in 28, I would start to worry about the survival of this country. Nerpy scunfo on Spotify says, of course Democrats aren't trusted. Fox and right wing media smear the Dems 24-7. Republicans lie constantly in place blame on everyone but themselves. Kamala had a fantastic economic plan she made available online and talked about every debated interview. The media held her to an impossible standard. Trump had nothing, no plan, just tariff. And people fell

for his nonsense and fear. We will not fix this until Republican voters wake up. I don't agree with this. I think that a lot of the facts here are true, but that the overall conclusion is wrong. Saying Democrats are merely bystanders and Democrats will never be trusted until Fox News says it's okay to trust Democrats. Wrong. I think that that's flatly wrong. Democrats do have challenges that they face based on the right wing media ecosystem. There's no doubt about it. Democrats do have challenges because a lot of Republican voters are clueless. Sure, I will acknowledge that. But at some point, you've also got to look inward. And if you said to me, well, David, what is Kamala's great economic plan? I'm not really sure. And I studied this stuff. I can tell you a couple of elements of it.

I can tell you about some of the credits and subsidies for certain types of spending, child tax credit, etc. But big picture, what was Kamala Harris's tax plan specifically? I know rich pay their fair share. I get it. But what really was the tax plan? The the tax brackets. And this is not just about Kamala. This applies to a lot of candidates. And sometimes they just tell me, David, oh, I wouldn't be specific about that stuff because I'm sort of short-circuiting my own ability to later negotiate if I say too much now. All right. Well, listen, I think that there is a lot to point to in this country as a result of education's a mess. This leads to, you know, these people who can't think critically, they fall for Republican ideas. I'm with you. But you've also got to

consider Democrats in all of this. Absolving Democrats of blame doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Corey Clark says on substack, hi, David. I actually thought I was a paid subscriber, but I was not, but I am now. Your podcasts are definitely one of my favorites. You're obviously very knowledge. in many diverse ways. And I like that. I'm 64 and have never felt so uneasy and scared about what our country is turning into. You know, I appreciate this message, Corey. We are building or trying to build more than just a podcast here. We're really trying to build a movement. And the movement includes other shows. And it includes you as well. So it's not just the progressive media ecosystem. It's the progressive media ecosystem plus our audience. Corey says he's 64.

I recently got a message from an 87-year-old grandmother who is a member. I recently got a message from a 13-year-old whose parents got him a membership. 13, 87, and everything in between. We might have some members older than 87 as well. I don't know. This is a movement that I believe should welcome people regardless of any background, age, personally, you know, identity characteristics of any kind. But we've got to all build it together. And Corey, thank you for helping to do that. I really do appreciate it. Jeff Stram says on YouTube, thanks for another

fine report, David. I appreciate your videos for many reasons, especially the fact that you create five minute videos to relate five minutes of information. Too many news channels are giving us five minutes of content in a 20 minute video. You know what's funny about this? One of the reasons that I am not as I'm not really like a streamer, you know, these streamers who do three, four, eight, 12 hour streams, I don't want to keep you here as long as possible and turn five minutes of substance into 20 minutes. I want to give you as much useful stuff in five minutes as I can. And if I could put eight minutes of stuff into five, that my goal is people are busy.

There's a lot of stuff out there. I'm respectful of your time. We are going to keep the show as jam-packed as possible as we can. Adriania, Adrienne, Adrienne, okay, on YouTube, says, I enjoy your podcast, David, but don't think that the current administration will not come for any progressive platform. He'll come for you. Ben Myceles, Brian Tyler Cohen, Mark Elias, Adam Mockler, Glenn Kersner, and more. Don't capitulate. Stand firm. Your voice and views are necessary. I really appreciate that.

We are planning to be here. We are planning to stand firm. I know Ben, Brian, Mark, Adam, and Glenn are planning on the exact same thing. I want to say thank you to everybody who took advantage of our membership drive special on Tuesday that we did. The biggest discount we've offered on membership in years. If you miss that and want to take advantage of it, just email info at David Pakman.com and say, David, please give me that coupon code. I miss the special and I will gladly do it. We've got a great bonus show for you today. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else makes money to fund themselves is bad. Yes, I hope you have a great weekend and I'll be back with you next week.