The David Pakman Show - 4/9/25: MAGA struggles to defend tariffs as Trump increasingly desperate

Episode Date: April 9, 2025

-- On the Show: -- Donald Trump orders a massive military parade to take place on his birthday at huge taxpayer expense, reminiscent of 20th century authoritarians -- A slurring and disheveled Donald Trump speaks nonsense to the National Republican Congressional Committee dinner -- Attorney General Pam Bondi tells endless lies about deportations taking place in the United States under Donald Trump -- Karoline Leavitt, Donald Trump's White House Press Secretary, melts down over simple questions -- Fox News completely ignores the stock market collapse for days -- The MAGA civil war builds with Elon Musk referring to Peter Navarro as "Peter Retarrdo" -- Republican Senator Rand Paul eviscerates Donald Trump's tariff scheme -- A point-by-point breakdown of Charlie Kirk's claims about tariffs quickly falls apart upon a cursory examination -- On the Bonus Show: Judge says White House can't ban Associated Press, more Americans say Trump favoring Russia too much, Trump tariffs trigger "alarming" bond market fire sale, much more... ✏️ Outschool: Use code PAKMAN for up to $20 OFF at https://outschool.com/pakman 🔬 Freedom From Religion Foundation: Text DAVID to 511511 or visit https://ffrf.us/freedom 🩳 SHEATH Underwear: Code PAKMAN for 20% OFF at https://sheathunderwear.com/pakman -- Become a Member: https://davidpakman.com/membership -- Become a Patron: https://www.patreon.com/davidpakmanshow -- 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

. Welcome everybody. In a growing number of ways, we are stuck in a loop that increasingly resembles 20th century authoritarians. You know, Ruth Ben Guyot has written about this extensively. We recently interviewed her. There are policy ways in which the current Trump administration mirrors 20th century authoritarians. And there are also optics ways in which we see that. And here we go again. Donald Trump has ordered

a four mile long military parade. And I wish I were joking on his 79th birthday. This is not independence day. It's not veterans day. It's certainly not, you know, a wartime victory celebration. It's Trump's birthday. And on that day, not necessarily for, but on that day, he wants tanks and fighter jets and soldiers marching past in what sounds like something out of North Korea or a bad 20th century flashback to authoritarians around the world. The date he picked June 14th happens to also be the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. Convenient excuse, right? But make no mistake, because everything for Trump is about Donald Trump. Let's talk money. Remember when Donald Trump promised to balance the budget during his first term? Not only did that not happen, but now he is back demanding taxpayer money for what is essentially a vanity project of no real substance.

Military parades are very expensive. The last time he tried this, the price tag was estimated at $92 million before it was scrapped. You might wonder how is it so expensive? It turns out that mobilizing all of this military equipment, including preparing the road surfaces on which the road based elements will move as well as gasoline and fuel of different kinds. It's all insanely expensive. And the eventual sort of pared down salute to America back in 2019 cost twice as much as a typical 4th of July celebration.

And that didn't even include tanks tearing up the DC streets and the cost to repair those streets. Now, in the background of all this, we have the question about its legality, which I will get to in a moment. But we also have remember, there were some who said, I think Trump is going to pare down military spending in conjunction with the request for this parade. We see that Donald Trump is now moving forward on the biggest military budget in American history.

Not exactly paring down military spending. Now let's talk about the legality. This probably isn't legal. The department of defense doesn't approve parades just because someone's feeling festive on their birthday. These are meant for formal military occasions, not to satisfy a presidential ego of the size of Trump's very small hands, but very large ego for Trump. But of course the DOD is now filled with Trump loyalists and Congress

is a mix of enablers and cowards. The guardrails aren't gone, but they've stopped working. And so, as we've been saying increasingly over the last few weeks, something being against the law, it's like, uh, if a tree falls in the woods and there's no one around to hear it, you know, that one, if something's against the law, but no one enforces the law, does it really matter? Now, one other thing you won't hear from mega media is that speaking of Trump's 79th birthday, Donald Trump is older now than Joe Biden was when he took office in 2021. Remember all of that Biden's too old rhetoric. It's gone. You don't hear anything about that.

Doesn't apply when it's their guy. And Trump turned 79 years old in June. The cries about him being too old. There are none. And you'll see in the next segment that he's not exactly at his cognitive peak. So what do we have here? We step back. We have a wannabe authoritarian strongman president older than Biden who was

too old, demanding a military spectacle on his birthday using your money while the institutions that were built to stop this kind of thing just kind of shrug. And meanwhile, Trump's tariff scheme, which is of course meant to also portray strength, is just screwing everyday Americans to the point that even Fox News can no longer deny it. We'll talk about that later as well. The parade is sort of like a Kim Jong Un costume party with worse choreography and more flags. And there's also a geopolitical angle. While Trump is out here staging military parades for himself. China is quietly expanding its influence in Africa,

in Latin America, in Southeast Asia, through trade deals, diplomacy, infrastructure investments. It used to be the United States that would lead with soft power. And now we lead if Trump gets his way with tank treads rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue to celebrate a guy who spends more time golfing and trothing than governing. Every dollar spent on this parade is a dollar not spent rebuilding global trust that Trump has torched in the first. What is it? 30, 60, 70 something days or something like that of his

second term. Actual veterans groups don't want this. Most of them see these parades as performative and wasteful. What they do want is better VA funding, which Trump is decimating through Doge, easier access to care, which won't happen if you eliminate 83,000 positions at the VA mental health resources. But Trump's not doing it. He's not showing up for veterans. He's showing off instead. And it's not about honoring troops. It's about forcing them to honor Trump. What's terrifying here isn't just the narcissism. It's that he might actually get away with it this time. The rules that used to stop this kind of thing are gone or ignored and or rewritten. I guess I should add as well.

We've got a DOD that now answers more to loyalty tests than to the Constitution and a Congress that's just too afraid of mean tweets to assert even the most basic control over appropriations. If Trump wants to, you know, waste millions to feel like a dictator for a day. I don't know that there's anyone who's going to stop him. A slurring and extraordinarily disheveled looking Donald Trump spoke to the National Republican Congressional Committee dinner. Trump telling obvious lies about how everyone's so afraid of him because of the tariffs.

There's coming to him with tears in their eyes and quote, kissing his ass almost out of energy, completely slowed down. This is a sad state of affairs. Take a listen to this. And the history of our country. And don't let some of these policies go around saying, you know, because I'm telling you, these countries are calling us up, kissing my ass. They are they are dying to make a deal. Please, please make a deal. I'll do anything, sir. Do anything, sir. And then I'll see some rebel Republican, you know, some guy that wants to grandstand. So I think that Congress should take over negotiations. Let me tell you, you don't negotiate like I negotiate. None of this appears to be true. There is no evidence whatsoever that countries are now cowering to Trump and kissing his

ass. And Trump seemingly less and less energized as the speech went on and saying that China will now be paying tariffs to the United States treasury. Of course, China doesn't pay the tariffs. American importers do. Wow. China will now pay a big number to our trade. A big number. This is all taxes. And don't let them keep telling you that this is a tax on our people. I hate that. You know, they say it's a tax. Now, often much of it is paid. And hey, look what

happened during my first term. Totally disoriented, distracted and then distracted from the distraction, mispronouncing, slurring. But most meaningfully, he still doesn't know how the tariffs work. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that companies all over the U.S. are saying, here's how much more we're going to have to pay for the stuff we need to buy for our product. And then here's how much more we're going to have to sell the finished product for. He can lie and lie and lie. But the business owners are going to start getting the bills from the Chinese distributors.

And it's not going to be a good situation. Trump strangely claiming that states are agents of the federal government for it. I think it's something that you you should work on. You should go out and put a bill in demanding you demand, you know, because the states are just an agent of the federal government of you. You're to demand paper ballots. You're to demand one day elections. You know what they do when it's longer than one day.

All of a sudden, well, we're fixing the room up. Move. You know, it's funny how the guy who screams the loudest about being all about the Constitution can get something about the Constitution so wrong. We have federalism in this country, like it or not, we have it. The U S constitution creates a federal system of government where sovereignty is shared between the federal government and the States. The States are not in any way agents of the federal government. It's, you couldn't be more

wrong about the relationship between the federal government and states. And of course, Trump is now this doesn't sound very, very good. Trump says we're going to start tariffing pharmaceuticals soon. What do you think that's going to do to drug prices? But we're going to tariff our pharmaceuticals. And once we do that, they're going to come rushing back into our country because we're the big market. The advantage we have over everybody is that we're the big market. So we're going to be announcing very shortly a major tariff on pharmaceuticals. And when you and when they hear that, they will leave China. They will leave other places because they have to sell most of their product is sold here. Who's going to explain this one to Nana and Nana and Bob G and Zeta at the pharmacy? Who is going to explain that? Because that sounds very, very bad.

About two thirds of brand name drugs and four fifths of generic drugs are manufactured outside the United States. I'm not saying that's good. I'd love to manufacture them domestically. That will take years. That will take years. So when you put tariffs on pharmaceuticals, we are going to see people pay more for prescription drugs. Biden's priority was let's have people pay less.

Trump is now gleefully saying we are going to make people pay more. Trump then bragging about the hundred and four percent tariff that he has placed on China and people are paying tariffs. Countries are paying tariffs right now. China is paying a one hundred and four percent tariff.. Listen to people clap. 104%. They don't even know what they're clapping for. Now, it sounds ridiculous, but they charged us for many items, 100%, 125%. Many countries have. They've ripped us off left and right.

But now it's our turn to do the ripping. That's OK. We're going to make our country even skills. We're going to now rip other people off. You know, I think that the experiment of letting the least qualified person in the country run the federal government isn't working again. It's not. It's not working for a second time.

And then finally, Trump wrapping up very strangely this. These were supposed to be just dinner remarks. Trump spoke for nearly two hours, two hours of slurring and talking super slowly. Here is a completely de-energized Trump wrapping up this bizarre rant. And we go back to 2016. It was brilliant. Then they stole it from us by illegally rigging the election. And we did great in that election, but we had to write it off and we all went through hell.

I went through hell in particular indictments. We what we had to go through is hard to believe. This is not slowed down, by the way. This is this is the speed at which this was delivered. Each means two impeachments over nothing over a phone call that was perfect. They knew it was perfect. And they found out after they realized that the calls were essentially taped by the government because you were talking to a foreign leader. And when that was played back, they didn't know what the hell to do, but they went forward with it anyway, because they're sick people. The American dream will come roaring back in our country together. We're going to make America greater than it's ever been before. And I just want to thank you and congratulations on your record evening. And I'm with you all the

way and I'm going to be campaigning with you and we're going to win, win, win. All right. So Trump speaking nearly two hours in what were supposedly simple dinner remarks, making it all about himself, his genius, his victimhood, and then saying, thank you very much. And congratulations. He's running out of energy and he is desperate, desperate to find a way to be seen as the winner with these tariffs. But he is making us the losers. And that's a tragedy. Make sure you're subscribed to the YouTube channel.

It's free. And remember also to get on my sub stack mailing list if they shut us down. The only way I'll be able to reach out is through our newsletter because it's the only place we own our data. Go to David Pakman dot substack dot com or just email info at David Pakman dot com and say, David, please put me on that newsletter. It can be really challenging to find the right learning opportunities for your kids, whether they need extra support or enrichment beyond the classroom or just something fun and engaging to get more interested, you can check out out school. Our sponsor out school is an online learning platform for kids

age three to 18 with small group live classes and one on one tutoring on demand courses on thousands of topics. I'm a parent and as someone who's always looking for more opportunities for my daughter to learn in new and valuable ways, I think what out school is doing is fantastic. Something any child could benefit from, whether you're a kid like science, art, coding, music, niche interests like mythology or chess out school has it all. And what sets out school apart is really the flexibility and personalization. Kids get to learn on their own terms with passionate expert educators, many of whom hold advanced degrees in what they're teaching. Over a million learners have taken out school courses and parents online rave about the experience. If you want to try out school, get up to $20 off your

child's first class or tutoring session for a limited time. When you go to out school.com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman that's out school.com slash Pacman use code Pacman for up to $20 off. The info is in the podcast notes. This is an audience funded program. Primarily we're mostly funded by members of our audience who listened to the show, get the newsletter, watch the YouTube channel, listen to the podcast who say, Hey, I like this enough. And sometimes it's just enough. It's not by that much. In many cases, I like this just enough to say, I'm going to help support the work that you're doing. The best way to do it, the most direct way is to sign up at join Pacman dot com. Many people don't know this, but when you support us through any platform other

than our Web site, we love it. We appreciate it. But platforms take slices and sometimes those slices are pretty big. When you sign up on our website, the only expense is the two point nine percent we pay to process credit and debit cards. That leaves the vast majority for the show. So consider the full David Pakman show experience. Read about it at join Pakman dot com. Donald Trump's attorney general is Pam Bondi. Pam Bondi is in essence the top law enforcement official in the country in the sense that she leads the federal government's prosecution and non prosecution decisions. She is endlessly lying and making assertions for which she has no evidence with regards to the disastrous, dilapidated and disgusting deportation program of the Trump administration.

Here is Pam Bondi on the Maryland father who was wrongly deported to El Salvador and insists on a lot for which they have presented not a shred of evidence. Well, the last gang member we arrested who was a violent murderer was also hanging wallpaper in a place called the villages in Florida, one of the biggest retirement places in our country. So these people are living among us. One of the big cases we had, I think you're very aware of, half an hour from where we're standing, was another violent gang member living right among

us in a very, very nice residential neighborhood. Wreaths on the door next door to him, children's bicycles. So that's what these gangs do. They infiltrate our country and they live among us. So to say that he was training to be an electrician does not legitimize him from being a violent gang member. Now, remember that they have presented no evidence to back up that claim. Caroline Leavitt, kooky and kaleidoscopic. Caroline Leavitt has made the same assertion, but she's provided no evidence. At what point do we say, I don't even know

about trust, but verify, but just verify. Is there anything you can present to us that would actually support the claims that you were making? They've provided nothing yet. Do we believe these people just on their say so? And we will continue to fight for the safety of Americans and get these people out of our country to make America safe. Every victim of crime deserves to be safe. And these families who have lost loved ones to these, they are foreign adversaries. They are terrorists and they are living among us no longer. And especially after that ruling yesterday, they better start self-reporting because we're

coming out. There have been no forms of proof at all for these claims. The person with the tattoo that was misinterpreted as being a gang tattoo, which by the way, by itself wouldn't even be enough to deport based on their own eight point scale that we looked at. There is no evidence whatsoever. And this is all part of the sort of Trump motif, which is you never admit you got anything wrong. You never you double down. Bondi was asked during the same fiasco that about the investigation that found that 75 percent of migrants sent to El Salvador have no criminal records. Remember, they told us we will focus on criminal

aliens, I think is the term they use. Or do they do they say criminal illegals? I know it was a very dehumanizing term. And here is how Pam Bondi responds. And it's not good. 60 Minutes found that 75 percent of the immigrants who were sent to El Salvador do not have public criminal records. Is that true? Do you mean in our country? The Venezuelan migrants who were sent to... Okay, so they're not Venezuelan migrants. They're illegal aliens from Venezuela

who should not have been in our country who are committing the most violent crimes. So if you committed a murder in our country, we're going to keep you here, and we're going to seek murder in our country, we're going to keep you here, and we're going to seek the death penalty, and we're going to keep you in prison because our victims' families deserve that. But we don't have to charge them with every crime.

We can deport them and get them out of our country and save room in our prisons because they should have never been in our country to begin with. So you confirmed they didn't commit a crime, right? Is that what you confirmed? didn't commit a crime. Right. Is that what you're saying? Thanks for bonding. And off she goes. You're confirming that that, I mean, listen, you're asked about these individuals. Did they commit crimes? What crimes did they commit? And first she goes, well, are you saying they didn't commit crimes here? I guess

she's sort of suggesting these may be individuals who have been charged or convicted of crimes in other countries, but she doesn't provide any evidence of that. She then says these are folks who really are here illegally and therefore they are subject to deportation. Fine. But that goes counter to what we were told about this deport deportation scheme, which is we are going to go after individuals who have committed crimes, not simply that they are here undocumented.

And then she says we can deport them without charging them for any crimes. Well, we're not disputing that. But the question is, if you're claiming they committed crimes and then you go, do you mean in the US or in other countries? And then at the end of the day, you're asked, so did they commit crimes? And then you walk away. It is not a profile in courage. It is not a profile in consistency.

And it's simply not what they told us that they were going to do. Now, I think it's very important for us on the left to acknowledge, of course, countries have a right to enforce immigration law. Of course they do. But the deportation of people who are here illegally is something that you don't need to announce militarized roundups in order to achieve. We've had visa overstays for a very long time. We've had asylum claims for a very long time that sometimes are adjudicated. We're not granting you asylum and therefore you are now subject to deportation. Not all of that stuff is in the law already. The reason we were told we needed this extra thing, the reason we were told this is going to be a little ugly and it's going to be a little

difficult. And you might see some images in the media that are not so good as Donald Trump said, we might wrap up, you know, there, there might be a mom who gets deported because she committed crimes. They said this is a different thing because too many criminal illegals have ended up in this country and that's who we're going to be focusing on. And then now all of a sudden it's people with no criminal record being deported to countries. In many cases, they don't even have a connection to. And Trump now starting to say, well, we might even look at doing that for American citizens. As we talked about earlier this week, this is a completely different scenario than what they said they were going to do.

And of course, the reason she can't answer these questions is because there are no answers to these questions. Caroline Leavitt is the White House press secretary, and she suffered a complete and total meltdown when she was asked really simple questions, including, for example, why was Donald Trump not at the dignified transfer of the remains of the four American soldiers who died in Lithuania? Why wasn't Trump there? Now we all know where Trump was. He was golfing in Florida. Here is Caroline Levitt's answer. Quickly, can you explain why the president opted to send Secretary Hegseth to the dignified transfer last week instead of attending himself?

Sure. The secretary Hegseth was there to represent the administration. The president has expressed his condolences to these families, as have I from this podium. He was golfing. He was golfing. The better question would be, why did the president choose to golf when that dignified transfer was taking place? Now, the topic of tariffs, of course, came up because the lack of sustainability of this scheme is evident. I will mention just as an aside that as I am recording, the Dow is down an additional 300 points. At this point,

I don't even know what the total is. Thursday, Friday, Monday, Tuesday. It's down. It's down. It's down. Now, maybe it'll end up today, but we are it's it's just a freefall. And so reporters are coming to Caroline Leavitt and saying, what the hell's going on? What's the off ramp? What's the end game? What's the goal? And she just says, nobody knows more than Trump. Just trust the guy. I do just want to point out one thing that the president, everybody in Washington, whether they want to admit it or not, knows that this president is right when it comes to tariffs and when it comes to trade. In fact, Democrats have long said that the United States of America has been ripped off by the countries around the world. They just don't want to admit it now because it's President Trump who is saying that in June.

I do. Everybody knows that he's right, except, of course, we've been explaining for a year why this doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Now, the MAGA civil war is also growing, including Elon Musk referring to Peter Navarro as Peter Retardo. That's a quote, OK, not language I use. We're going to talk about that later. Caroline Leavitt was asked about that and she chalked it up. That's locker room talk. She chalked it up to boys will be boys. Quick follow up. There's been some public sparring between Elon Musk and the president's trade adviser, Peter Navarro, on some of these tariffs. Musk actually referred to Navarro today as being, quote, dumber than a sack of bricks.

Are you or is the administration, the president all concerned that this is maybe impacting the public's understanding of these tariffs? It might be messing with them. Might it be slightly confusing for the public to, on the one hand, be told by Peter Navarro that these tariffs are the greatest thing since dragon fruit and sumo mandarins. And then on the other hand, Elon Musk is calling him Peter Retardo. Might might that send mixed signals? Caroline, I said, John, you know, look, these are obviously two individuals who have very different views on trade and on tariffs. Boys will be boys and we will let their public sparring continue. And you guys should all be very grateful that we have the most transparent administration in history. And I think it also speaks to the president's willingness to hear from all sides that he has. Listen, we're talking about real stakes here.

OK, if these tariffs are the right versus the wrong thing, quite literally could determine do random random do Americans have retirement accounts or don't they? Do they see their savings evaporate before their very eyes such that they have to delay retiring because of what happens in the stock market? Or is this a brilliant scheme to bring manufacturing and strength and power and goodwill back to the United States? Two different views. Yes. Peter Navarro or Elon Musk. Boys will be boys when we're talking about the livelihoods and retirements of millions or tens of millions of Americans. Stunning, stunning. Caroline Leavitt also saying that as of last night, there would be a 100 and it's almost cartoonish.

Well I tariff you 11 billion, 104% tariff on China. You mentioned the 70 countries or so. I'm curious though, under what conditions at this point would President Trump talk to President Xi about tariffs? Look I just spoke to the president about this, and he believes that China wants to make a deal with the United States. He believes China has to make a deal with the United States. It was a mistake for China to retaliate. The president, when America is punched, he punches back harder. That's why there will be 104 percent tariffs going into effect on China

tonight at midnight. But the president believes that she and China want to make a deal. They just don't know how to get that started. And the president also wanted me to tell all of you that if China reaches out to make a deal, he'll be incredibly gracious. But he's going to do what's best for the American people. Now, you might be asking yourself a very astute question. On the one hand, Caroline Leavitt is saying countries should reach out to make deals. But on the other hand, Trump has said that these countries have acted poorly and therefore they are going to be punished. And this stuff isn't subject to negotiation.

So how could it be that these are not negotiations, but at the same time you are saying countries should start negotiations? Well, here's how Caroline Leavitt answered that question. Being explained the White House's evolution from this is not a negotiation on tariffs to countries should pitch us and start negotiations. Sure. As the president said yesterday, Jasmine, both things can be true at the same time. And it is a non negotiable position that the United States has faced a national security

and economic crisis because of the unfair trade practices by countries around the world. As for the president, I have maintained this position. The entire administration has always said that president Trump is willing to pick up the phone and talk. And the president met with his trade team this morning and he directed them to have tailor made trade deals with each and every country that calls up this administration to show you go. So everything is true. Yes means no. Up means down.

Negotiation means no negotiation. And then finally, Caroline Leavitt getting down and praying at the altar of Trump saying Trump's spine is made of steel. Yikes. The president's message has been simple and consistent from the beginning to countries around the world. Bring us your best offers and he will listen. Deals will only be made if they benefit American workers and address our nation's crippling trade deficits. America does not need other countries as much as other countries need us. And President Trump knows this. He's going to use the leverage of our markets and our country

to the advantage of the people he was sworn in to represent. On the other hand, countries like China, who have chosen to retaliate and try to double down on their mistreatment of American workers, are making a mistake. President Trump has a spine of steel, and he will will not break and America will not break under his leadership. And quite literally, as we listened to that segment, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropping another 100 points. I don't mean while she was reading it. I mean now in real time as I'm recording the show and she says this is all going to work out really well. Another hundred point drop. They have no idea how to get out of this. We've covered on the show extensively how more and more

people are stepping away from organized religion. For some, it's just the realization I don't have to participate in that. And all of a sudden we have seen a serious shift, but not everybody is okay with that shift. Christian nationalism is on the rise. They are working overtime to put their beliefs into the law, into our schools, even into our personal lives. It's sort of like, hey, I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but just don't make me live by it. And that is where the freedom from religion foundation comes in. Our sponsor, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, fights to keep church and state separate. This is what the founders intended. So whether you've

always been secular or you've left religion behind or you have beliefs that you don't think should be part of our government, FFRF has your slash freedom or text David to 511 511 and become a member today. That's FFRF dot US slash freedom or text David to 511 511 to join the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The info is in the podcast notes. Text fees may apply. The U S stock market is in freefall experiencing its biggest two day decline in decades than a three day decline. And as I am coming to you today, the Dow is down another 400 points and Fox news has apparently

decided that the best course of action is to pretend that it's mostly not happening other than random 15 minute segments during which Larry Kudlow will express some concern or Maria Bartiromo will casually mention a recession is coming and then move on to attacking Democrats. thousands and thousands of points down, trillions of dollars in wealth, erased retirement accounts, 401 s pensions, all taking serious hits. This is the kind of story where if you're a legitimate news outlet, it leads the front page. It's the top of the hour. It's every single show. But if you checked Fox News's website or watch their programing late last week and this weekend and early this week, you'd be forgiven for thinking everything's fine in the stock market

on Friday during peak market turmoil. The Fox News home page had no mention of the collapse anywhere above the fold of the page. Instead, they had a whole bunch of other stories that while I guess maybe titillating to elements of their audience, uh, not necessarily, uh, the most important things. Pro-life activist assaulted federal judge directs Trump administration to return Maryland man, uh, deported to El Salvador prison. Kamala Harris's reaction to Trump's landslide victory revealed in bombshell book. Anyway, I think you get the picture. Not really much there about what is the most impactful financial story in a very long time.

According to Fox, the issue was not the economic damage that Trump's tariffs are causing. It is this other stuff. And then over the weekend, once again, A.G. Bondi punishes federal prosecutor for not towing White House line in deportation case, which countries have solved mass migration, dark new measles discovery surfaces as RFK heads to outbreak zone. And of course, nothing there, nothing there about the insane economic turmoil. Why the silence? I think the answer is pretty simple. The crash is being driven by Trump's own policies, and there is no plausible way to talk about

the crash without at least partially blaming it on Donald Trump. Trump comes in, announces these sweeping global tariffs, which send shockwaves through global markets. Investors panic. Economists say we may be heading to a recession here. J.P. Morgan Chase raises the odds of a recession to 60 percent. And so your Fox News, your job is mostly to protect Donald Trump, at least for now. And you have two options. You report honestly about the unfolding financial crisis and the role that Donald Trump is playing in it. Or you look the other way and you pretend that, you know, the alligator in someone's toilet is more important. Or I guess there's a third option, which is you pretend that, you know, the alligator in someone's toilet is more important.

Or I guess there's a third option, which is you cover it, but you blame it on somebody else, Democrats, Marxists, socialists, communists, maybe Justin Trudeau. Um, but it doesn't seem like that would be believable right now as more and more Republicans are saying, no, Trump is the one who's to blame for this. So Fox chose door number two. It's fine. Even though Nana has lost 15% in just a week, it's fine. Even though all of a sudden pensions are starting to look a little bit questionable. And so you see users on Reddit and viewers of the show sharing these disturbing anecdotes about how Fox News is spinning it to the extent that they're even covering it.

One commenter on our subreddit said that their grandmother watched Fox and was told that the tariffs might cause a little bit of pain now, but it's part of some genius long term plan. And so that particular grandmother was okay because it's making America great again. Think about how dangerous that is. Millions of people being told essentially, don't worry about your tanking retirement account. Even if you're close to retirement, Trump is helping you somehow over the longterm.

Now, of course, the real result is economic disaster, tire prices. It's fewer exports. There's no coherent plan. There's no benefit on the horizon and nothing but pain for American workers. So what we're seeing is pure and total propaganda and it's not a one off when there's good economic news under a Democrat. Fox would still run with Biden. Inflation still a threat when there's an economic meltdown under Donald Trump.

What about the dog Walker who's using eucalyptus to calm the dogs or something like that? And the consequences are that it's not, you know, it's not that Fox is bad at news. We know that they've chosen not to really do news. This matters because millions of Americans only get their news from Fox and when reality becomes politically inconvenient, they're left in the dark. It's not just a failure of coverage. It's a deliberate editorial choice to protect power, not to inform people. When you see a market crash of this magnitude, it's front page news everywhere. But on Fox, it's buried under 21 other stories or,

or it's rebranded as look at the genius thing that Donald Trump is doing. It's going to fix itself. Authoritarian Media Strategy 101. So markets continue down. Fox doing what state controlled media outlets do, pretending everything's fine as long as their leader looks strong or is the right shade of orange. And that's the real crash we need to be worrying about the crash and our democracy and the crash in media reporting. Meanwhile, the MAGA civil war is growing very quickly. Elon Musk now referring to Trump advisor

Peter Navarro as Peter Retardo. Let's discuss what's going on. And this is more than just locker room talk and boys being boys as Caroline Leavitt sort of chalked it up during her deranged press briefing. Let me show you what's going on. First and foremost, Elon Musk on Twitter, I guess it's called X now, responding to a video of Peter Navarro talking about how this is all great. And at the end of the day, Elon Musk just assembles Tesla's with parts from Japan and China. Elon Musk responded, Peter Retardo, not language that we use on this program. That's a direct quote. Elon Musk in another reply excretion on X, Elon tweeting Tesla has the most American made cars. Navarro is dumber than a sack of bricks. And then also Elon Musk with a disgusting excretion on X saying Navarro should let me read the whole

thing by any definition whatsoever. Tesla is the most vertically integrated auto manufacturer in America with the highest percentage of U.S. content. Navarro should ask the fake expert he invented, Ron Vara. So let's talk a little bit about what's going on here. The most positive spin on this is that there are people working for Trump associated with Trump with different opinions. And that's a great thing. Trump's hearing from different people. And shouldn't we all be really glad about that? But that's not actually what's going on because there isn't an ongoing conversation where Trump is thinking, does this make sense? Doesn't it? How might I want to do it? No. Trump's decided that this is what he's doing. And what you are seeing now are different personal

priorities that are manifesting. Peter Navarro's priority is complete and total loyalty to Donald Trump. Trump and Navarro tied together through criminality, as you know, and Navarro's prison time and all of this stuff. Navarro is there to defend anything that Trump does and to attack anybody that criticizes what Trump does. Elon Musk, on the other hand, you can say a lot of bad things about Elon Musk. Elon Musk primarily is there not to be a loyalist to Trump. He's there to be self-serving. Elon Musk spent 250 million bucks on the presidential election with the idea that it would get him a seat at the table. He could start doing all sorts of stuff that would be good for his businesses. These tariffs aren't good for Elon Musk's businesses. And that's primarily

what he cares about. And so this is not about important disagreements that are being hashed out rationally and Trump will pick out, you know, what's the best idea. This is people trying to save themselves. Navarro needing to remain completely loyal to Trump and Musk starting to realize this is all starting to go in the wrong direction. And of course, this is why over the weekend, Elon Musk put out the video where he said he actually would want to go towards zero tariffs. He wants full freedom of movement, both for money, goods, uh, and even labor because Elon Musk's businesses do depend on bringing smart, qualified people from other countries to work

for his companies in the United States. This is all about what's good for me. And it is not some greater battle of ideas where we see whether the best idea wins out this MAGA civil war. It's going to grow and it's going to get very uncomfortable for some of these Trump clingers guys in my audience, I know you're tired of the chafing with traditional underwear. Our sponsor sheath makes the most comfortable boxer briefs I've ever worn. If you're sick of the boxers that are too loose or the briefs that are too tight, sheath is for you. Sheath underwear is designed with two special pouches in the front, keeps everything separate in its own compartment with extra confidence that you will feel throughout the day, keeping things separate and comfortable, no more sticking and chafing. I was skeptical about the dual pouch. I admit it,

but it is game changing. Everything stays where it is supposed to be extra useful when working out at the gym. And even if you don't want to use the pouches, you don't have to, it is still the most comfortable pair of underwear I have ever owned. It will blow your mind how soft and stretchy these are made with moisture wicking technology to keep you dry. If you were ready to take underwear comfort to a new place, a place you didn't even know it could go. Head over to sheath underwear.com slash Pacman and get 20% off with the code Pacman. That's S H E A T H underwear.com slash Pacman use code Pacman for 20% off. The link is in the podcast notes. Well, as is sometimes the case with libertarians,

they're occasionally right about something. I still don't agree with much of their worldview, but occasionally libertarians are actually right about certain things. One of these things is Senator Rand Paul on the issue of tariffs. He actually, you know, the thing about these libertarians is on the issues of trade. They don't recognize the need for regulation that exists. They don't recognize the limits to which trade solves problems, but they do tend to understand that blanket tariffs that restrict trade generally aren't good for economies long term unless they're very surgical and calculated. And that is, of course, not what the Donald Trump tariffs are. Here is Rand Paul saying he sees what's going on.

There's no logic behind it. And he simply can't support it. Even if it's a Republican do. I want to cut spending? I want to balance the budget. I support so many things, but I can't support a fallacy that is going to make us lose, you know, lose our wealth. I have a retirement account too.

I want my retirement account to stay there and I think tariffs is going to decimate it. He's correct. He's correct. He's correct. The only other option is that the tariffs are rolled back. But Rand Paul is right that there's no economic justification for what's being done here. He goes in specifically on some of the numbers and the calculations and most of what he says here is true. This is not ideological. Just check the facts. Fact check what Rand Paul is saying. We have to start from talking about the truth. One of the things they say with Canada is, oh, there's a 270% tariff on dairy products going from the U S into Canada. Well, you know what the real tariff is zero.

That's a big difference between what the truth is. So there's a certain amount of goods, dairy goods, that go to Canada every year, and they go at 0%. If we exceed a certain amount, there's this ridiculous 270% tariff, but we've never encountered it. And the USMC renegotiated it and raised the level that's under zero.

Trump should be congratulated for USMC raising the amount of dairy that goes in at zero. But we have to have an honest debate. We can't go around saying that there's a 270 percent tariff when that's not really the truth. One of the things I love about Rand Paul talking about this is that he's reminding us of another sort of wrinkle in this entire tariff fiasco, which is that companies that did what USMCA Trump's trade deal in term number one countries, uh, that did companies rather that did what that trade deal was meant to encourage them to do now will be punished for that by the tariffs.

And Rand Paul is completely correct that the 270 percent dairy tariff only applies above a certain level, a level that we have not hit. Therefore, why would we use that in calculating what the tariff should be? It doesn't make any sense. Finally, Rand Paul says that he is hearing from Republicans who quietly tell him this is a disaster. You are maybe getting some support and some some praise from from Democrats. But this support and praise from Republicans, you're saying that you're getting

it, but these are individuals that you don't even want to be on the record for saying that. Is that fair to say? It's a quiet whisper and people come up to me in the hall. You know how in Atlas Shrugged, they would come up and say, who is John Galt? They whisper in my ear, free trade is good. Keep going, keep going. But they don't want to say it because of the politics of it. And look, when I when I put free trade articles on my Twitter account, I get mobbed. I mean, I get what they call ratioed. I get more comments than likes, which they say isn't good. But we have to have this debate and people have to understand that trade is between individuals, not countries. And it's a false accounting. So I'm committed to this. I'll keep talking about it.

And there's one graph, if you look at it, and it has trade trade for the last 70 years went up exponentially international trade. But so did GDP per capita. We get wealthy with trade, not without trade. It's such a fundamental debate that it's worth having. I believe them and I'll tell you why I believe them because everybody's telling us this. When we interview a democratic members of the house, democratic members of the Senate, they all tell me the exact same thing privately. I'm hearing from Republicans who say this is not good. This is a disaster. I'm worried about this financially. I'm worried about this with regard to what it's going to do to my constituents.

I think this is bad, but most of them aren't willing to say it publicly. And Rand Paul is saying the exact same thing. If we're hearing from both Democrats and Republicans that Republicans quietly oppose this, but they don't have the testicular or ovarian fortitude to say it publicly. We might call them cowards, not exactly a profile in courage. And of course, the balance is going to start to shift as Donald Trump gets to the end of his presidency and the end of his political career. Maybe more of them will be willing to speak out. Uh, I wish they would now because it seems as though it's everybody but Trump that realizes

this is a disaster. I've given you the premise before that debates don't prove who is right, especially not when you're debating random college kids. Debates don't serve to figure out what is the best idea or what is the evidence say. Debates are fundamentally rhetorical contests about who's better at debating. We have a great example here. Charlie Kirk does this thing where he goes to colleges with security and debates college kids.

OK. And this is a video that was being floated around as Charlie Kirk just destroying this kid, crushing, brutalizing this kid on the topic of tariffs, except when you calmly and rationally without the pressure of an audience and going up against a skilled debater like Charlie Kirk, when you just evaluate the facts calmly, as I encourage people to do, you find that the things that Charlie Kirk says in his defense of Trump's tariffs aren't real. They don't make sense. They're not true. So tell me if this is useful. Let's dive in. I'd like for you to have a more principled position on tariffs and criticize Donald Trump for his tariff. I'm super pro tariff.

So why would I criticize it? Because they make us poor. OK, so let's let's let's play that out. If that is correct, how did China get so rich? Well, China has a free they liberalize their economy. They got a stock market. You are not allowed to import American goods in China. How are they so rich? This is already totally off the rails. He's using a couple of rhetorical techniques. One, he has a planned response, which is to bring up China and China getting wealthier. Second, he's simply repeating the question. China's growth was not primarily due to tariffs. The student here, this guy is actually correct. The economic liberalization of China, foreign direct investment, state led industrial policy integration into global trade networks like, uh, 2001 with the world trade

organization. That's really what happened in China. Now, yes, there were periods during that, during which China used some protectionist policies, but they were combined. This is the critical part, which Trump's not doing. Those protectionist policies in China were combined with export oriented industrialization. They subsidize domestic firms. They manipulate currency. They restrict imports selectively. That does not equate to China got rich on tariffs. Tariffs were not the driver.

They were part of a strategy that included market reforms and labor exploitation and urbanization and technology transfer from multinationals. Trump's just doing blanket tariffs, false equivalency. The student suspects that. But Charlie Kirk just repeats the same thing. Let's continue because they have developed capital. They've they have not. They're not liberalized.

So how they get there, they've become more economically free over. There's another incorrect claim from Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk claims they are not liberalized. How did they get rich? This is factually wrong. And it's harder to get to the truth than to just say it kind of sounds like Charlie Kirk was right here. It's harder to do the work of getting to the truth. But China underwent major trade liberalization in 1978. State owned enterprises

shrank in China. Private enterprise surged, international trade boomed. Now China still has non-market features, of course, but the transformation was undeniably toward greater market openness, especially in manufacturing and exports. Charlie Kirk just goes, that didn't happen. And he says it confidently. Oh, that's not debating. That's just repeating a lie. The last 30 years, they made an incredible transformation.

So why can't we do the same? Just because China is making a mistake doesn't mean we should make the same mistake. But China would be richer if they didn't have tariffs. Speaker 1 00 00 00 Speaker 5 Let's let's first of all, number one, the optimal goal is not just to improve GDP or be rich. Of course, number two, it's about worker well-being, middle class flourish. Yes. Speaker 1 00 00 00 Speaker 5 OK. Charlie says the goal isn't GDP growth. It's worker well-being and a flourishing middle class.

Philosophically valid. I would like for you to have the video just went nuts. We'll get back to where we were in a moment if they have not liberalized. OK, we're OK. Charlie says something which is philosophically valid. GDP is not the only metric. Sure. But tariffs don't help workers.

He's now distracting not the only metric. Sure. But tariffs don't help workers. He's now distracting from the real issue. And in fact, when Trump's tariffs just raise costs to consumers and hurt exporters, especially in agriculture and manufacturing, we know that it's not going to help the middle class flourish by Charlie's own metrics. It's not going to help. Studies find that the tariffs specifically on steel and aluminum already raise prices and they cost more jobs than the number of jobs that they saved. Look at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Look at Brookings. They did studies and they say Trump's tariffs in term one created job losses. All right, let's continue. So how'd they get so rich? They've

become more economically free over the last 30 years. They made an incredible transformation. So why can't we do the same? Just because China is making a mistake. And let me skip ahead because I know we already saw some of course. Number two, it's about worker well-being, middle class flourishing. Yes. Number three, can you point to times in American history where the middle class did great almost every time we had tariffs? Okay. But that's correlation, not causation. That's why.

But think no economist agrees that you're wrong about this. But the student is correct. Charlie says historically the middle class did great when we had tariffs. There are times when things were okay with tariffs. There are times when things were not okay. This is indeed a correlation versus causation fallacy. Tariffs existed during periods of American growth like the late 19th century, but so did industrialization.

So did immigration. So did resource extraction, which arguably are much more responsible for that growth. And then you have, of course, a counter example after World War Two, the biggest middle class boom, I would argue in American history, global trade expanded and tariffs dropped. Tariffs dropped the best middle class decades, 50s to the 70s, coincided with tariffs going down and global markets growing. The counterexample to what Charlie Kirk is saying.

I'm sorry. That's the first of all, that's not true. Some agree. Most do not agree. But a lot of these economists are bought and paid for by the corporate class. And they've been wrong about almost everything the last couple of years. They're the ones. OK, and this is where now this is where the argument it goes. He's losing on the substance. So Charlie goes to, oh, the economists are bought and paid for. It's an ad hominem argument, anti-expert populism, common, just don't trust the experts, sidesteps the reality that what he is suggesting is that there is a conspiracy to lie about what tariffs have done in the past, which doesn't make

any sense. Now, of course, economists are influenced by their institutions, but there is broad consensus here. The CBO, the IMF, multiple nonpartisan think tanks have shown tariffs, reduce economic efficiency and consumer welfare when done as a blanket targeted, limited time combined with subsidies. OK, but what Trump is doing has long been demonstrated by serious economists across the political spectrum to be bad for the economy. This is a clip that got let me see here. Hundred and twenty eight thousand likes. I don't even know how many views, but one hundred and twenty eight thousand likes, probably

millions of views because Charlie Kirk is just so good and so smart. But when you calmly and rationally say, wait a second, I know he repeated a lot of stuff. I know he spoke louder. I know he spoke more, but was he right? He wasn't. And this is why these debates do very little to prove what is true on the bonus show today. We're going to talk about a judge ruling that the white House cannot ban the Associated Press from the Oval Office and Air Force One. We will talk about Americans view on Russia in light of Trump's first 70 or so days in office. And we will talk about what's going on in the bond market as well. A story that, again, unless you really deeply look and understand, you may not recognize the significance, but it is significant. All of those stories and

more on today's bonus show. Sign up at join Pacman dot com. Remember that my book, The Echo Machine, is available for sale at least for now. At least for now. More on that soon. At least for now, it's available everywhere books are sold. The Echo Machine was an instant New York times bestseller, extraordinarily exciting. And remember if you've already bought the book, please do remember to review it on Amazon, Barnes and Noble and good reads. I'll see you on the bonus show. I'll be back here tomorrow.