The David Pakman Show - 6/19/25: Trump flips out on Fed chair as David Pakman deemed top recognized progressive commentator

Episode Date: June 19, 2025

-- On the Show: — Dr. Zachary Rubin joins the show to discuss pandemic prevention, vaccine policy, and public health communication under Trump — Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell calmly but clearly blames Donald Trump’s tariffs for slowing the economy, ignoring Trump’s insults and reminding the country that the Fed isn’t his punching bag — Trump lashes out over Powell’s refusal to obey him, calls the Fed Chair “stupid,” suggests appointing himself, and rants about inflation like a guy who thinks economics is just vibes — At a White House flagpole event, Trump teases an erection and asks if there are any illegal immigrants in the crowd—proving again that he can turn anything into a campaign rally freak show — Trump struggles through an incoherent press conference, misrepresents Kamala Harris’s interview with 60 Minutes, dodges serious questions, and lies about polls while preaching unity out of nowhere — Kayleigh McEnany accidentally diagnoses Trump’s entire movement as a national security threat while trying to describe someone else — Trump delivers maybe his worst historical brain break yet, confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Civil War and suggesting the South declared independence in 1776 — According to a major international report, David Pakman is now tied as the most recognized progressive commentator in the country—alongside right-wing giants and with no corporate backing -- On the Bonus Show: Karen Read acquitted in murder trial, Trump feuds with Tulsi, Trump admin closing LGBTQ+ suicide hotline, and much more... 🔊 Babbel language learning: Get up to 60% OFF at https://babbel.com/pakman 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.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

Let's start today with a discussion about the economy. Specifically, we're looking at the tension between what the White House wants and what the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell, says he is going to do. It's about economics. Yes, but it's also about intimidation. It's also about fear and authoritarianism, as is just about everything with this administration. So we're going to first look at what Jerome Powell said yesterday and then we will see the reaction from the White House.

And I think it's important to mention it might seem to you as though this is not an issue that affects you directly. Trump versus Powell on the federal funds rate. How on earth does this affect me? But the truth is that it affects all of us significantly. And we're going to talk about that in a moment when I get into what are the parameters for when the federal funds rate should go up or down. This is the rate at which banks can borrow money from the federal government.

Let's get to that in a moment. But we're going to start with really some very direct comment comments from Jerome Powell. He's usually sort of like a quiet technician in the back room. He has walked out front. He looked directly into the cameras yesterday and he said really what everybody on Wall Street's been whispering since Trump ignited this tariff war, which is we are seeing signs that the economy is slowing down and it is Donald Trump who is to blame. It's certainly not China. It's certainly not Democrats. It's

not the Fed. It's not immigrants. It's not the alignment of the moon and the stars or we're whether Mac Mercury has gone into retrograde or whatever they like to immigrants. It's not the alignment of the moon and the stars or whether Mercury has gone into retrograde or whatever they like to say. It is Trump's decisions that are starting to slow the economy. Powell didn't do sort of sanitized bureaucratic nonsense. He said it's the tariffs. They're going to raise prices. Trump's economic instincts are not better than reality.

And this fantasy from Trump about how great the tariffs are going to be was lit on fire by Jerome Powell. Take a listen at this meeting. So and those things are probably slow moving. So I think if you look at what's happening here since March, this is since March, right? You see a little slower growth, just a tiny tick up, a one-tenth tick up in unemployment, and you see inflation moving up three-tenths. And by the way, it was a similar move from the December SEP to the March. So that's what you see. You see the effects of tariffs. I think we learned in April, after the March

meeting, that substantially higher tariffs were likely. And then since then, the estimates of where the tariffs will be have actually moved back down, although still at an elevated level. So we're adapting in real time. And what you see is an accumulation of individual assessments. There's really two things here. Right. Number one, blanket tariffs on every country, on every industry, in every country that are

sometimes on sometimes, sometimes off, sometimes starting at midnight tonight or sometimes pushed back for 90 days. It's not good economic policy. But in addition to that, the on again, off again nature of it creates an even more difficult decision for the Fed to say what's really happening here and what should we actually do. So just what Powell has already said in those 45 seconds, it's a bad headline for Trump and it's the Fed chair saying Trump's fingerprints are on the weapon.

And now we have to see, has he killed anybody with it? Now the truth, of course, is Trump chose to start the economic war. He wanted tariffs. He bragged about tariffs. He put them on everything like a toddler spraying ketchup on everything. Right. And now that we're seeing these are small moves, we're taking the feds word that there's a trend starting.

But these are admittedly small moves around the 20th, 21st of the month. We always look at it. Little bit of an uptick here, a little bit of an uptick there. And Powell says this is because of Trump. Now, Powell was not done. He also went on to explain about Trump lobbying insults. Adam, you know, he's talking about firing him or can he appoint himself? Trump said he's not a smart guy. Powell simply said

his insults do not make a difference. We will not be bullied here. Your friend down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue continues to love insults in your direction. And I'm wondering, given now that the Supreme Court has maybe carved out the Fed from some of the legal implications of that. Whether this is just noise that the markets and everybody should ignore until your term is up or whether you worry that it could lead to more pressure on confidence on Wall Street on consumers about the outlook for the economy. Okay, from my standpoint it's not not complicated what everyone on the FOMC wants

It's a good solid American economy with strong labor market and price stability. That's what we want we think our policy is well positioned to right now to deliver that and and to be able to respond in timely way as the data lead us around the economy has been resilient and part of that is our stance. And again, we think we're we're in a good place on that to respond to significant economic developments. That's what matters. That is what matters to us.

Pretty much. That's all that matters to us. I need to ask, assuming you are not reappointed, would you stay on as governor when your term as chair? And I'm not thinking about that. I'm thinking. All right. He's just getting ahead of himself. So here's where history matters.

It's not new that presidents try to pressure the Fed. Nixon leaned hard in the 70s on the Fed. We got stagflation. There are examples of presidents wanting the Fed to take a certain action. But what Trump is doing right now is more than just pressure. It's really harassment. It's publicly ridiculing the Fed to take a certain action. But what Trump is doing right now is more than just pressure. It's really harassment. It's publicly ridiculing the Fed chair. And Powell lived through some of Trump's prior tantrums already.

He's kind of shrugging it off. You know, I've seen this movie before. I know the ending. I don't need to get myself all worked up right here. Now, if you're wondering what happens next, Powell's message is clear. The Fed is going to cut rates if the data say so, not because Trump insults him, not because Trump tells him cut the rates, not because of administration pressure and certainly not because Trump suddenly discovers economics after a lifetime of bankrupting casino, bankrupting

casinos. And he's like, oh, it seems that these blanket tariffs I'm doing that are sometimes on, sometimes off are not quite so good for the economy. Now, let's look at Trump's reaction and then we'll talk about what is the standard that the Fed uses when they decide what to do. So at this point, it's not even surprising. It's the next scene in the movie that Jerome Powell has seen before Fed chair. Jerome Powell says we're not going to lower rates just because Trump wants us to.

Trump throws a tantrum. Trump wants to be in charge of everything. Trump wants to be in charge of everybody. This is video of Donald Trump yesterday standing on the White House lawn before a crowd of loyalists and he just unloads a tantrum about Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell. It's not a policy critique. It's not a philosophical disagreement. It's a tantrum because Trump believes a lower federal funds rate will be good for him. And Jay Powell said we're only going to do it when the economic metrics say that we're going to do

it. And then because Trump is, you know, restraint is not exactly Trump's forte. Trump actually goes, could I appoint myself to run the Fed? Here he is with the very insults that Jerome Powell said. I'm not influenced by the insults saying Powell is not a smart guy, not a smart guy. I have a good you ever have a guy that's not a smart person and you're dealing with him and you have to do. He's not a smart guy. He's worried about inflation. I said, that's right. If there's inflation in six months or nine months, you lower the rates or you raise the

rates. You can do whatever you want, Brian, right? So let's say there's rampant inflation, which there's none. You know what? There is a success. I got a call from Congress last night, sir, there's a problem. I said, what is it? Money is pouring in.

We don't know how to account for it. I said, Check the tariffs. $88 billion came in from tariffs, no inflation, and it's going to get even more so. I know what I'm doing. So we have a stupid person, frankly, at the Fed. He probably won't cut today. Europe had 10 cuts and we had none. And I guess he's a political guy. I don't know, he's a political guy who's not a smart person, but he's costing the country a fortune. So what I'm going to do is, you know, he gets out in about nine months. He has to, he gets fortunately terminated. Biden, I would have never reappointed him. Biden reappointed him. I don't know why that is, but I guess maybe he was a Democrat. You know, I got great advice from a nutrient on this one. Great advice. But he's done a poor job.

So we have no inflation. We have only success. And I'd like to see interest rates get down now. All right. That's what Trump wants. And it's sort of like watching a rich guy scream at the thermostat inside his gilded penthouse because outside it's really cold. And he just goes, you stupid thermostat. Why can't Trump doesn't understand what's going on? But he needs somebody to blame. Now then, of course, as is often the case with Trump, he looks inward. Only I know. And he says, could I appoint myself Fed chairman?

And then he could do, I guess, whatever the hell he wants with rates. Too late. I come too late, pal, because he's always too late. I mean, if you look at him, every time I did this, I was right. A hundred percent. He was wrong. Maybe I should go to the Fed. Am I allowed to point myself?

Doug? I don't know. Am I allowed to appoint myself at the Fed? I do a much better job than these people. So anyway, we should be two points lower. Be nice to be two and a half points lower. We'd be saving eight hundred billion dollars, seven hundred billion. It's a lot of money. Thank you for nothing. For absolutely nothing. We'd save six, seven, eight hundred billion dollars. Now understand even the depths of Trump's misunderstanding.

When Trump says we'd like to be two to two and a half points lower, even when the Fed is in an environment of lowering rates, they tend to lower what are called in basis points, 25 or 50 basis points each time that they meet. So that means point two five or point five. Trump wants rates two or two point five lower. So what we're talking about is a process that even when the Fed is lowering rates is done over a period of years. If indeed, I mean, just hypothesize for a moment how disastrous would circumstances have to be

for the Fed to go? We need to lower two points right now. Two point oh, the two full points right now. Trump acts like that's what he wants, but only in an absolute emergency, which, of course, would have been precipitated by Trump in the first place. Would the Fed even consider doing that since most of their moves are a quarter point or half a point? So what we have here is a guy who thinks he can bully interest rates into submission.

It's sort of like yelling at a cloud. Trump's yelling at interest rates and he thinks that it all should have a sort of reality show kind of bent. And one day it's a problem. The next day it's not depends what's happening today in the stock market. And meanwhile, Jerome Powell, he's the same guy that Trump once appointed, tried to fire, insulted, praised, now wants to humiliate him again because Powell's not doing exactly what Trump wants, which, by the way, is the job of the Federal Reserve.

Federal Reserve was designed to be independent. It was intentionally insulated from whatever chaos is pouring out of the White House at any given time. And so you go back to the 50s, you go back to the Fed Treasury Accord of 1951. The independence of the Fed is a deliberate firewall between the political agendas of whoever might be in the White House and monetary policy. And so presidents might, you know, they might whisper, they might nudge. Wouldn't it be nice?

But they don't go on TV and call the Fed chair stupid because the Fed shares not doing exactly what the president wants. Now, when should the Fed lower the federal funds rate? Typically, the Fed will lower interest rates when the economy is slowing down, unemployment is rising or in certain inflation situations. Cutting rates is meant to stimulate growth. When you make it cheaper to borrow money, people are more likely to say, hey, you know what? Since it's cheap to borrow, I'll borrow and try something. I'll hire, I'll invest, I'll, you know, try something.

The in a sense, Trump, here's the thing that that that's sort of like the conflict or internal contradiction of what Trump is doing. Trump is arguing the economy is awesome, but is asking the Fed to do something that you would normally do when there are signs of trouble. And so I ask Trump to explain that he won't answer it. He'll come up with some way to disassemble and sort of run run us an end around that that answer.

But that's the point of lowering rates. The Fed won't cut rates just because politicians want it. They would look at GDP growth, inflation levels, job market strength, consumer spending. If you see inflation and all of those other metrics in certain places, they would look at cutting rates. If you cut rates too soon, it can be a problem. So if you say, who do I trust more, Trump or Jerome Powell? I trust Jerome Powell more. I don't trust anyone blindly. I don't trust anyone endlessly. But based on what we've heard from Trump and his understanding of the economy and Powell right now, it seems as though Powell is the one who's making sense. Now, after the break, what we just heard from Trump was part of an erection ceremony.

I know you're probably saying, David, what the hell are you talking about erection? Yes, I will explain after the break. You say you'll learn a new language every year, but few of us What the hell are you talking about erection? to for got a 20 day money back guarantee. So it is risk free to try. Here's a special limited time deal for my audience right now. Get up to 60% off your Babel subscription, but only for my audience at Babel dot com slash Pacman. Get up to 60% off at Babel dot com slash Pacman spelled B a B B e l dot com slash Pacman. Rules an audience supported program. An incredible new report finds that The David Pakman Show and Brian Tyler Cohen are the most recognized independent progressive media shows right now in the United States, which is a flattering and borderline, unbelievable

accolade. I'm going to talk more about that later. That reinforces that as independent shows, we really do depend on your support. And I would love for you to consider signing up at Join Pacman Dotcom. All right. This is really weird. Donald Trump teased an erection at a poll celebration. I know that that sounds extraordinarily odd. And I want to explain to you what I'm talking about. So as so

many different domestic and global crises are ongoing, one of the things that Donald Trump decided to do in his infinite wisdom is to erect a big poll, a flagpole at the White House, whether this is some kind of, you know, phallic psychological phenomena for Trump. We just don't know. But Trump turned it into really weird innuendo and also started threatening migrants during this event. It's just bizarre. OK, so let me first play this for you. Trump refers to the erection of the poll as a lifting. And then he says there's an E word that is also often used, but he's not going to say

it. OK, take a listen to this. This is, I guess, Trump being funny. I don't know. Have a good. They call it a lifting. They also use another word, but I'm not going to use that word. You know that is the word.

It starts with an E. Oh, you know what the word is. If I ever used it, I'd be run out of town by you people. All right. So enjoy it, Doug. You're going to get some good. He's going to win another Nobel Prize, I think, for this picture. So maybe the flag will be even more exciting. But this is pretty exciting.

That's some equipment. I'll tell you what, look at that. Trump's very impressed with the size of the equipment being used for the erection of the poll. It sort of writes itself. And then after being, quote, funny Trump, which is, of course, like never really funny, Trump starts sort of threatening. Are there any illegal immigrants here? This goes from celebration to threat in like 60 seconds.

I have a question on deportations, Mr. President. You said last week that changes would be coming for farmers. We've seen a lot of the workers they rely on taking away. But then DHS said this week that worksite enforcement would remain in place that it's a cornerstone. So what's your message to farmers? We got to get the bad people out of here first that we're doing that we're taking them out by the thousands murderers drug dealers People that are mentally insane from insane asylums what they gave, fellas, they gave, do we have anybody in here that's a member of the NIA? You've known all these people for a long time. Any illegal immigrants in here? If they were, they'll find out.

Right? They'll be checking you, you won't believe. Your whole life will be destroyed because of this press conference. What? They'll destroy these people. I didn't want to tell them that before this. They'll end up being off

Can you do you realize what Trump is doing here? Right? Is that so and so this one is from you know, where? Don't worry. I think you I think you're gonna be okay I'll be right behind you Far behind I'll be right behind you. Now. Look we have to take care of our farmers I'll be right behind you. Now, look, we have to take care of our farmers. We have to take. Oh, it's surreal.

It's Kafka esque in a way. It's like the perfect play to Trump's base. Poorly delivered sexual innuendo plus immigrant fear creates a spectacle that rallies people in his base sort of with zero policy substance. Now this was I kind of wanted to isolate these clips, but there was a broader kind of outdoor press conference that Trump gave at the poll erection ceremony. And I want to talk about that next. Donald Trump opened a series of questions.

I I hesitate to call it a press conference because that makes it sound legitimate in some way, where this is just Trump ranting with his latest lies and grievances. And whether we call that a press conference is sort of maybe more of a linguistic question than anything else. But Trump opened with another tired lie, disorientedly arguing that the doctored interview of Kamala Harris on 60 Minutes was an election threatening interview. And that phrase kind of hangs in the air like something pretty nasty. But but it's quite hollow in the end.

You know, Trump is obsessed with this argument that the 60 Minutes interview of Kamala Harris was selectively edited. But we've now seen the unedited material and it doesn't really change the general understanding of Kamala Harris's views on the questions which she was asked. So in any case, Trump can't let any of these grievances go. He holds grudges endlessly. And here he is making this claim. I'm going to try to answer the questions like like what holding that up? I hope so. Ellison's great.

They'll do a great job with it. So what they did is they interviewed 60 minutes, they interviewed Kamala. Her answer was horrendous. I would say election threatening. This is the day before the election. Her answer was election threatening or so incompetent. So they took the entire answer out and they took another answer to another question and put it up. And they did

that, I understand, a number of times. But you don't have to do it a number of times. The main question they asked and we caught them. And they're very embarrassed by it and they're working on a settlement now. But think of it. Did you ever hear of that one before? They took the entire every word, threw it out, put another answer. I think they do that for me. I think it happens daily. Well, I've never seen it. I thought I was saying everything that I've never seen.

And it's very embarrassing. And the head of 60 Minutes got fired. The head of CBS got fired. They're all getting fired. So listen, Trump's by the way, the leaf blowers or whatever just end the day. And the head of 60 minutes got fired. The head of CBS got fired. So listen, Trump's by the way, the leaf blowers or whatever, just endlessly and the scourge of leaf blowers. Trump's been making these claims about 60 minutes for a while now.

We've gotten the unedited raw material. It's been debunked. But Trump is insisting that this is just one of the great injustices of our time. And remember, he won. He won the election. The topic then comes up, although it's hard to hear because of the leaf blowers and all of it. Do you have any intelligence that Iran and Trump goes, I have intelligence.

We're doing very well. Thank you. And just another, you know, serious foreign policy questions. He's getting us into a war, et cetera. And we just can't really get any straight answers from the guy. He's talking to those around him, including his family members, his daughter, Ivanka Trump, her husband, Jared Kushner, after the swearing in ceremony for Charles Charles Kushner. I mean, listen, if you're going to get the United States involved in a war, an obvious question, especially if you're going to do it without seeking congressional approval

on the basis that it's an urgent, actionable emergency. Right. The whole thing. If you're going to do that, maybe you can articulate that the U.S. is actually under threat here, that Iran is targeting U.S. assets. Reasonable question. Maybe Trump has an answer.

But Trump just goes, we're doing very well. Thank you. We're doing we're doing really well in the war involving Iran here. A vague self-affirmation and a pivot. Thanks for coming here. It's like the I'm rubber, you're glue sort of thing. And then in a moment when clarity is really needed on why is the United States getting involved, he goes, well, you know, we're doing really, really well.

Trump citing imaginary polls were not not the one from the not the flagpole. We're talking about opinion polls, which he says claim that he's doing better than ever. There is no such poll. Trump's approval rating is in the toilet. I think what she might be alluding to is the base is going to stay with you regardless. And you've gone through different regardless. But some of the people in the base don't want a long-term war they're afraid that we're gonna get into a long time long time yeah we're looking it's only I only want

one thing Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon that's it I'm not looking long term structure and I've been saying that for 20 years I've been saying it is a civilian who got a lot of publicity people would cover it very simply Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon it's not a question of publicity, people would cover it. Very simply, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That's it. It's not a question of anything else. And if you did, you wouldn't have much of a country, because they would use it on us, and they'd use it

on other people, and there'd be a terror all over the world. So I may have some people that are a little bit unhappy now, but I have some people that are very happy. And I have people outside of the base that can't believe that this is happening. They're so happy. And there was a poll that just came out today that my approval rating is the highest it's ever been. All I'm doing is saying you can't have a nuclear weapon. And I tried to do it nicely. And then on day 61, I said, let's go because we can't let that happen.

And I've been saying it for 20 years. Okay, I'm going to leave. Thank you. So no citation, no source, no details. Maybe it was a poll conducted in the Mar-a-Lago dining room. Maybe it was something Trump imagined or dreamed. But like most of the things that Trump says lately, it's really not about conveying truth to the American people. It's I'm dominant. I'm in charge. Reality is optional.

And of course, the reality is that Trump's approval is in the toilet. The topic then turned to Gavin Newsom. Trump was asked another good question. Are you potentially going to withhold relief money from California because of your personal conflict with Gavin Newsom? And Trump goes, yeah, maybe I just might do that. And with the rail from in California, will you recent dustups with Governor Newsom impact additional wild wildfire relief out there?

They've requested 40 billion. The men's incompetent. You shouldn't have fires like that. You clean the floor of your forest and you won't have any forest. You know, Austria has very, very flammable trees. They don't have forest, because they clean the floors. They maintain their forest. Good.

In fact, you know, I'm not sure if you know, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm facts, because they cleaned the floors. They maintained their floors.

Good effect. You know, hatred is never a good thing in politics. When you don't like somebody, don't respect somebody, it's harder for that person to get money if you're inside. But he's done a great job. How long has it been since you've had a war? I'll tell you one thing, if I didn't bring in the military to Los Angeles.

You wouldn't even have a seat. You probably wouldn't be. So then he goes back to I actually saved Los Angeles. If I want to deny Gavin News some relief funds because he's been mean, I saved Los Angeles. And this is all coming from a guy who spent the last decade in politics, weaponizing hatred for political gain, mocking a disabled reporter, calling veterans suckers, implying his enemies should be sailed, jailed. Now he's saying, oh, we should unite.

We should really just be unified. This stuff is mean. And then finally, Trump's favorite, when he gets a question he doesn't like, who are you with? Sadly, for the reporter, the reporters with CNN Trump goes, oh, what a disaster. The US response to who knew it? CNN. There's a split though. Fake news, fortunately nobody watches.

Is anybody watching CNN nowadays? I haven't seen it in a long time. Some of your supporters are wary of the US getting involved in another foreign mall. Do you ever ask a positive question? My supporters are more in love with me today and I'm in love with them more than they were even at election time where we had. Trump gives it up there. He gives up the game.

CNN isn't serious to him because they don't go, sir, how do you do it? How do you deal with all of the fake news criticizing you? And yet you still manage to have the most successful first four months of a presidency. Tell us, sir. Tell us. I'm sobbing. How do you do it? That's what Trump wants from CNN.

He doesn't get it. Therefore, CNN is fake news. Donald Trump's former press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, she admitted to the whole thing except she wasn't talking about Donald Trump, although she should have been this. This is I love this clip. Kayleigh McEnany was on Fox News. She was Donald Trump's former press secretary. She is Donald Trump's former press secretary working for him during his first term. And she inadvertently acknowledges while being interviewed by Jesse Waters, why Donald Trump is so dangerous and why MAGA is so dangerous.

The thing is, she's talking about the left. But if you actually listen closely, this is a perfect description of why this MAGA movement is so dangerous. She says it, by the way, with no realization as to what she's saying. Take a look. This is so good. You combine fanaticism, no care for self-preservation and radical religious belief with nuclear weapons.

That is a danger. President Trump, she's talking about Iran. She says that Iran is emblematic of fanaticism, no concern with self-preservation, radical religious belief and nuclear weapons, which they want, but don't yet have. And she says that's dangerous. And you know what? That's true. And I would apply that to any country that meets that requirement. But it applies to Trump.

She has no realization of what she just said. She's trying to describe someone else, but she's describing the movement which she is a part of and has been promoting for years. She described Trump. She described the cocktail of chaos that keeps the rest of the world up at night. Fanaticism. Check. That's MAGA. No care for self-preservation. Ask anyone who's watched Trump sabotage his own advisors mid-sentence. He's in a spat with Tulsi. MAGA is collapsing under the weight of its own bullshit. Radical religious belief.

Well, I don't believe Trump's actually religious, but he pretends to be and he's coalesced and weaponized radical religious belief. It comes to the people who want the abortion bans, the apocalyptic rhetoric, the whole thing. And then, of course, the United States has nuclear weapons and as president, Donald Trump has control or at least influence over how and when and if those nuclear weapons are used. Kayleigh McEnany didn't mean to confess, but she actually does confess.

You don't need to be a political analyst to connect the dots here. You just have to listen. And what she said isn't hypothetical with Iran. It's hypothetical. Yes, fanatics, religious extremists, no concern for self preservation. Imagine if they got a nuclear weapon. But in the United States, MAGA fanatics, religious extremism, no concern for self preservation. And Trump's got the nuclear weapons and it's happening right now in Trump's second presidency.

So she's not wrong. a in the to It's great to welcome to the program today, Dr. Zachary Rubin, board certified allergist and viral science communicator helping millions quite literally to navigate their health in a world that is sadly quite full of medical misinformation. His book is now available for preorder. It's called All About Allergies, Everything You Need to Know About Asthma, Food Allergies, Hay Fever and more. You know, the timing of this interview is fortuitous in a sense that there is a national story about an allergy that I want to ask you about.

You know, yesterday we talked about the news that Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem had been hospitalized because of an allergic reaction. News reports didn't say, oh, it was a food allergy or it was an exposure to something else. It's been more than a day now. No article saying she's been released from the hospital as a non allergist myself. To me, it sounded we're not hearing what the allergic reaction was to you. From what I researched would typically only be

hospitalized, especially overnight for a reaction if it was relatively serious as an allergist. What do you make of what we've been told and what we haven't been told? Maybe as well. Yeah. Thank you so much for having me, by the way. It's really nice to talk with you today. Um, there's really not a lot of information that we can go off of with this story and as far as I know I believe she was released from the hospital. Okay. Which is good, which is good. Now a lot of severe allergic reactions do require hospitalization because you may need monitoring for a little while because sometimes when you experience

this episode of potentially anaphylaxis, which is a systemic allergic reaction, sometimes hours later you could have a secondary reaction, we call that a biphasic anaphylactic reaction, so two phases, so to speak, even if you're not exposed to that particular substance that initially caused the allergic reaction. And that could take anywhere between four to six to eight hours on average, sometimes it's even longer,

or there can be situations where you need multiple doses between four to six to eight hours on average. Sometimes it's even longer. Or there can be situations where you need multiple doses of a life-saving medication called epinephrine. A lot of people take that in the form of an injectable medicine like EpiPen or OVQ, and now there's a nasal spray containing epinephrine called Nefi. So sometimes one dose is not enough.

You may need two or more doses. There's only really speculation at this time as to what's going on with her. And I saw some people trying to connect dots that I think is a little inappropriate. You know, she was at a lab facility through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease the day before with Secretary of Health and Human Services, R.F.K. Jr. There's really nothing we can glean off of that at all. Usually with an allergic reaction, you're going to see symptoms within a few minutes

to maybe an hour or so, except for some odd, unusual situations like something called alpha-gal syndrome where you're allergic to red meat or dairy because of a sugar molecule that's found in there. And those can have delayed reactions by four to six hours, but the vast majority of the cases aren't going to happen 24 to 48 hours after the exposure if we're going to call this an allergic reaction. So until we hear more. That's the thing. I think the you know, we did that story. And I think, of course,

if you believe that it's an allergic reaction, then it wouldn't make sense about the day before visit. I think because of some of the lack of transparency that this administration has exhibited. It led to some of that speculation. But certainly we don't know anything that would would confirm that. Speaking of this administration, you've talked a lot about some of the cancellations of or defundings of or reductions of various committees, notification methods, panels, et cetera, that that we've seen under Secretary of Health and Human Services, R.F.K. Junior.

Now, one of the things I often hear in response is, listen, just because they're not studying something the way they were before doesn't mean access is being taken away to anybody. Just because the list of recommended vaccines might be getting smaller doesn't mean that that affects anyone's ability to get the vaccine. And in other words, sort of, yes, there are some changes informationally, but nothing tangible and tractable is really changing with people's access. What would you say to someone defending the actions on that basis? On that basis alone, it's not really rooted in reality, unfortunately

Because there's actually issues related to access that has been happening. I'm going to give the classic example So for a while we were talking a lot about a measles outbreak that started in Texas and We have ballooned to over a thousand cases. This is the most that we have seen essentially since measles declared eliminated in the United States in the most that we have seen essentially since measles declared eliminated in the United States in the early 2000s, and there were various vaccine clinics especially in like the Dallas-Fort Worth area, they had to shut down because they lost funding. That's a clear example of how when people say, you know, the information may be changing but you still have access, that's just not

true. And when we look at vaccines specifically and the significant changes that have happened to the advisory committee on immunization practices, which is an outside advisory group to the CDC to make specific vaccine recommendations, when they gutted the 17 experts from that and then pointed in with RFK juniors, handpicked people who are eight of them, many of them have been very staunchly against vaccines for many years and have a track record of this. If they make recommendations in next week to say that, you know, we're going to limit the COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant people or for children or, you know, we're going to remove certain criteria for influenza vaccines, whatever it may end up being.

Right. Those recommendations then go to health insurance companies, and they have to make a decision on whether they're going to cover those vaccines. So while it's still technically available, if they're not covered, then people who are very vulnerable, especially those who have lower income, they're not going to be able to afford getting vaccines, and then that's going to disproportionately affect certain groups of individuals and we're gonna see more and more vaccine preventable diseases over time coming back like we're already seeing with measles. We've seen people with pertussis

or whooping cough at higher rates getting sick and this is not going to necessarily happen overnight but something that I suspect will over the coming years become increasingly problematic. I want to do a brief diversion to measles specifically because it is sort of timely. I have a friend who's a pediatric ER doctor that works in London. And he said for the first time he had some measles cases in the last few months. It was four cases. He said all four were unvaccinated kids.

One of the things that he said is he really doesn't worry about getting it himself nor bringing it home to his family because he's vaccinated and everyone in his family is vaccinated. Is the measles vaccine that effective when you know you hear 93 to 97% that leaves a three to seven percent chance that that's there. But he really said it just, he doesn't even think about it because the vaccine is, is so effective. How effective, how confident can we be in that vaccine? Even as more cases may be around us.

So the unfortunate nature of it is even though you say 93 and 97 percent, I want to just kind of parse that out a little bit for our listeners to understand. So, when we talk about vaccine effectiveness, we're comparing the chance of getting infected if you're on a vaccine, if you've been vaccinated compared to if you're not. So, it's a little bit of a nuanced difference in that sense. And there are going to be people who get vaccinated and it doesn't work. There's a small percentage. That's why you have that there, especially people who are immune compromised. So you may be generally healthy, get a vaccine and never know that it didn't work. That's rare.

But what if you have family members that can't get vaccinated because they are immune compromised, right? This is a live attenuated vaccine, meaning it's a virus that is weakened, but there's a theoretical risk that if you get vaccinated and you're immune compromised, you can end up getting infected. So there's gonna be small groups of individuals who are gonna be a little bit more concerned about this. Also, if you have infants in your family,

those who are too young to get vaccinated or they've only had one dose, you really don't want children getting infected because we know that there's a relatively high risk of getting severely ill. It's not just, you know, one in a thousand die from this virus, despite having modern medicine because viral infections, there's not really great treatments available for them. And there's a lot of misinformation about vitamin A, which really does not have a place in treating most patients in the United States

because people are nutritionally competent, right? If you were deficient in vitamin A, that's a little bit different. So that's different depending on where you are, right? Antibiotics and steroids that are used are more secondary measures to support and basically treat the secondary bacterial infections that wreak havoc because your immune response is weakened because of the virus.

You may end up with immune amnesia where your immune system forgets all of the other previous infections it's encountered, and then you're at risk of getting those infections again and getting sicker and sicker over time, and people can become deaf or have brain swelling called encephalitis. So the vaccine is very effective, but it is still a case where we would all be better off never being exposed to measles in the first place. Correct. I feel at this point, it doesn't make sense

that we're going backwards when I've never seen a case of measles personally. My dad's a general pediatrician and he's seen cases and he was one of the only ones in the mid early 2000s who saw a case of measles when there was a mini outbreak in our community at that time and so he was able to help out. It's one thing to read about a condition in a textbook, it's another to actually live it, see it and and treat it in real time. They're very different. So most young doctors like myself have never seen a case.

Now we're having to learn in real time, which is not a great proposition for our public health system. One of the things I worry about is if we were to have another covid like crisis, but maybe with a higher mortality rate, for example, whether we now have a population that after everything that happened would be extraordinarily obstinate and unwilling to really do what would be medically indicated in such a scenario. And in a sense, it's it's it's I want to be sensitive when I say the number of people that died of covid is an absolute horror.

And also, the fatality rate was much lower than what could have been or has been with other viruses in the past. And so I'm curious to hear from you. Are you concerned about if and when the next one comes that the population is now going to on principle or at least large swaths of it, just resist being team players. Period. It's something that I think about on a regular basis that I'm very concerned because early on in the code 19 pandemic, things became highly politicized unnecessarily. I think

what people forget is that when we are trying to combat a novel virus that's highly infectious, that doesn't always necessarily show symptoms right away and has variable severity. Some people have mild symptoms and don't have a problem. Other people have lingering effects called long COVID that last for a long time, if not indefinitely, and other people get hospitalized and die. We have over a million people in the United States alone die from COVID. Right. It is something that became politicized to the point that it almost becomes part of your moral compass,

so to speak, your mantra. And quite frankly, I think a lot of people are tired of having to take all the proper mitigation strategies. I think we're all susceptible to that. I don't think any one individual wouldn't think, oh, it would be nice to go back to what it was. And unfortunately, we can't, especially because this virus

has evidence of causing a relative amount of immune suppression or dysregulation. So it does increase the risk of developing other conditions. And so we're at the point where if something does happen, like we look at H5N1 bird flu, this highly pathogenic avian influenza virus, it is something that's been knocking on the doorstep for many years, but has really come to the forefront

with how many birds have been culled and died, millions of them over the last couple of years, to the point that egg prices have been going up and has been influencing politics, unfortunately. And because of the fact that we dealt with all of the problems that we did with COVID and we didn't always get it right, I think it's going to be harder for many people to necessarily follow public guidance. And I'm seeing where our public health institutions are going.

And it's quite concerning with how they're replacing really good experts with people who are not necessarily the most qualified to be handling these positions. That's what I kind of wanted to, to get to at the tail end of this conversation, which is if we zoom out a little bit and look at Robert F Kennedy jr.'s agenda, the concept of Maha make America healthy again. There is stuff in there that makes sense to me wrapped up and presented in a package that overall to me sows distrust and kind of distracts from the things we definitely know. You know, food dyes, for example, I try to just buy ingredients, keep my consumption

of highly processed foods to under 10 percent of my daily calories. Cook at home. Sure, I want to avoid food dyes. Fine. But at the same time, the way in which ridding ourselves of food dyes that actually may be completely fine in other countries under different names. We've seen how, oh, Europe bans this.

But actually, just some of these things just exist under different names. The confusion there. Right. Oh, what about beef tallow? Well, true. Let's go have fast food every day. As long as it's cooked in beef tallow, then we're good, even though the problem is actually a different one.

It feels like a mishmash that is more of like a marketing and branding campaign around health than it is really a cohesive set of principles. How do you see the whole make America healthy again thing? I agree that there's certain aspects that are important, the most being highly processed foods because these types of foods are highly dense in calories and don't necessarily make people feel full or satiated, right? So that aspect of it, which the food industry is plagued with, is definitely a contributing factor to rising rates of obesity and metabolic syndrome. But I think we're not really looking at it from the full bird's eye view.

The real underlying problems that I think faces our health as a nation, which has to do with what we call the social determinants of health, which are these issues related to how do we make sure that people are living in a safe neighborhood? How do we reduce the amount of toxic stress that's going on? The air pollution, you know, it's surprising to me how much, you know, RFK Jr. used to be an environmental activist and he's seemingly ignoring the bigger issue about air pollution and the heavy metals that are in our soil, which are going to be very hard to get out of, you know. You could talk about microplastics as an issue, but we're not also in a society where healthcare is universal, right? So people

don't always have access to healthcare when they need preventive health screenings. We live in a society where everything is all over the place and you have to drive everywhere, so you're not necessarily walking like you do in Europe. The portion sizes are really large here, right? So these are overarching things where we live in a very stressful society that's driven on productivity and not much room for breaks, So we're highly stressed out.

And when you have a lot of stress that changes your immune response, you're gonna be more likely to be inflamed. And that contributes to the overall health that's also disproportionately affecting different populations in our society through systemic issues, right? So I think we're ignoring those bigger picture issues

and focusing on these microcosms like food dyes, which quite frankly, if you take that out, it's not necessarily going to give you the kind of big impact that you would hope for. And like you said, beef tallow really has no business in improving people's health, because if you're trying to promote steak and shake or any fast food chain that has fried foods

that are high in calories. I mean, that's not going to make anybody healthy. Yeah, it seems, you know, it's one of these things where I would always opt for the option without the food die. But I also want to make sure I'm walking 10,000 steps a day, getting enough sleep and water, making sure that I'm not eating too much ultra processed food, not over consuming calories. And when you contextualize it, maybe in that broader environment and the air pollution

and can is there lead in the water and that sort of thing, the food diet becomes a little bit secondary, although sure, get rid of it. But you the lower hanging fruit seem to be these other things that are not adequately, in my opinion, being dealt with. Yeah. And also also I want to point out something that I think people forget You know, they made the announcement that they're trying to get rid of food dyes But they didn't actually put in any type of real rulemaking process, right formally for this to happen So basically they're just asking nicely and some people Are choosing to remove it and it's gonna take time for that to happen

are choosing to remove it and it's going to take time for that to happen but you will it will not surprise me if these food dyes go away and then the consumer is going to stop buying some of these products because it's not as appeasing to the consumers right you know we see that with certain cereals that if you compare it in Canada versus the United States they look very different like like Trix as an example and and so there are certain preferences that people have that are related to how things look and when you change that you will see from a business standpoint food manufacturers are not going to necessarily like that so we'll see in time what ends up happening with that but I think that's such a small sliver of an insignificant issue that if we're

not addressing health care, the rising costs of medications in this country, the toxic environments that people are living in, the overall pollution we're putting in the air. I mean, as an allergist, I see the rising pollen counts, and that's a direct result of rising global temperatures and more CO2 being put in the atmosphere. We're not really addressing those things. Instead, the EPA is rolling back regulations. So it's really counterintuitive to how we really want to, quote unquote, make America healthy again.

We've been speaking with Dr. Zachary Rubin. You can find him on really most social media platforms. And his book now available for preorder is all about allergies, everything you need to know about asthma, food allergies, hay fever and more. Um, so appreciate your time today. Thanks so much. Thank you so much for having me. You know, every time we call out Donald Trump's authoritarianism, the right calls it media hysteria. But I want to remind you that Trump admits he's looking for ways to defy the constitution and maybe even pursue another term.

Now if you don't know the bias behind your news, you might believe, Oh, Trump's just teasing us. There's nothing here. Go to ground.news slash Pacman and see how media bias influences more than your perception from Trump's policy and ability to understand and undermine constitutional norms. I've been with ground news for years now because this is what they do. They expose the hidden agendas behind reporting sources and make it easy to compare coverage

and understand critical issues. Even better, if I'm reading a story on another site, the ground news browser extension will and So you get their top tier plan for just five dollars a month. Go to ground dot news slash Pacman. The link is in the description or scan the QR code. Donald Trump suffered what I fear might be his worst brain break ever yesterday. Trump seemed confused as to the Declaration of Independence in the context of the War of Independence against England, in other words, the Revolutionary War versus the Civil War, which, of course, was civil between the north and south. I'm going to give every charitable opportunity for this to make some sense.

But Trump seems confused and says the Civil War, the Declaration of Independence, could we have avoided the losses of the Civil War and still gotten the Declaration of Independence, which of course came in a prior century? I don't know how to charitably interpret this as anything other than Trump doesn't seem to realize that the Declaration of Independence had nothing to do with the Civil War. He seems to be mixing up centuries. And meanwhile, Jake Tapper's going, let me tell you what was going on with Biden a year ago.

I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven't made a final. I like to make the final decision one second before it's due, you know, because things change. I mean, especially with war, things change with war. It can go from one extreme to the other. War is very bad. There was no reason for this to be a war. There was no reason for Russia, Ukraine. A lot of wars, there was no reason for, you know, you look right up there, I don't know,

I see the Declaration of Independence that I say, I wonder if you know the Civil War always seemed to me maybe that could have been solved without losing 600000 plus people. Trump seems to be saying, could we have avoided the death of the civil war and still gotten the Declaration of Independence out of it. I'm trying to be charitable, but I don't think Trump knows what's going on. Trump seems to be fusing the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. I don't know how else to say it.

And meanwhile, nobody seriously wants to consider that this guy doesn't seem to be playing with a full deck, that his faculties are limited. Now, I think maybe there's another charitable interpretation, which is Trump's just ignorant, not demented. Right. I mean, it's like he might just be stupid and and ignorant and confused about American history. And it's not an issue of cognitive decline.

I'm being charitable by assuming that at some point he did know that the Declaration of Independence came out of the Revolutionary War, not the Civil War. I just don't know. I just don't know. We have a couple other clips here. Here is Trump weighing in on the whole Tucker Carlson fiasco, part of the building civil war. Speaking of civil war, the building civil war within MAGA, the Tucker Carlson Senator

Ted Cruz interview. It seems like this issue on whether or not the United States should strike is kind of dividing a lot of your supporters. No, my supporters are for me. My supporters are America first. They make America great again. My supporters don't want to see Iran have a nuclear weapon. Tucker's a nice guy.

He called and apologized. I would love to know whether Tucker did call to apologize to Trump. And if so, for what? Because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong. And I appreciated that. And Ted Cruz is a nice guy nice guy I mean he's been with me for a long time I'd say once the race was over he's been with me ever since right but very simple if they think that it's okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon then they should oppose me but nobody thinks it's okay people that don't want I don't want to fight either.

I'm not looking to fight. But if it's a choice between fighting and them having a nuclear weapon, you have to you have to do what you have to do. Did Tucker Carlson really call Trump and apologize? Is that something that genuinely took place? I hope that Tucker will weigh in on it. And then finally, and this part, again, you be the judge. Cognitive collapse or just ignorance. Trump again, he still seems to think that when we

talk about stealth planes, which are, of course, undetectable by radar, Trump still seems to believe that these planes are invisible to the naked eye, like a Calvin and Hobbes strip where you paint Hobbes with invisibility paint and he's invisible to the naked eye. Trump still seems to think that's what we mean when we talk about stealth. Yeah, we have the best military equipment in the world. You see that with this fight. We have planes that are undetectable flying around.

Like, you know, nobody's nobody's able to see him stealth. You guys want to be stealthy tonight. You know, you can be stealth. You'll never lose. Right. They're flying around and nobody's able to see them. Now, I know you might be saying, David, of course, he's talking about invisible to radar, right?

Well, go back and look at the last 10 times Trump has talked about this. He never utters a single word that suggests invisible to radar. It's been believed for nearly a decade that he believes stealth planes are invisible to the naked eye, like they're doused in some kind of invisibility liquid. And yet, where is the investigation into Trump's cognition? Where is the concern every time he does one of these things the way there was with Joe Biden? Joe Biden was declining. We've long acknowledged it. But where's the story on Trump? We don't get it. You know, sometimes when I'm doing this show, I start to wonder, am I having enough of an

impact? Am I doing enough? Could I be doing more? And sometimes I know I hear from people in the audience who say, you know, David, I'm supporting independent media to the extent that I can. But is it really enough? Well, this is just unbelievable. According to the twenty twenty five Reuters Institute Digital News report, this is just. This is unbelievable. I was tied with Brian Tyler Cohen as the most recognized and seen left leaning political commentators in the United States. We showed up. This is the section we're looking at here and we'll link to the whole study proportion

that saw each discussing or commenting on losing the lot on news in the last week. So people were asked, we're going to give you a list of people. If you have seen them talking about the news, check the box. Rogan led with 22 percent, almost a quarter of people in the study said, yeah, I've seen Rogan talking about stuff. It's Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, all right wingers. And then it's Brian Tyler Cohen and David Pakman. Seven percent of respondents suggesting seven percent of the country saw each of us in the

week prior to participating in this study commenting on the news. OK, this is a massive media study. They're not just asking people in our circles. This is public awareness across the country to even be in this study is humbling. And it really says something about the power of independent audience supported media. Now it's not lost on me. I was texting with Brian about this. The other names, number one, have major backing at this point. Rogan's got a multi hundred million dollar deal with Spotify.

Tucker and Megan are our network people. Candice Owens was blown up by the Daily Wire, although now I guess she separated Ben Shapiro part of the huge I think it's nearly 100 million or more organization, Daily Wire. And then you've got Brian Tyler Cohen and David Pakman. We don't have the infrastructure or the corporate deals or all of it. We're doing it with a small team and with a community that you're a part of, I hope, unless you're going to send me a nasty email, part of a community that believes this content is worth it.

So I don't even I'm humbled. I don't even know what to say. If you're already a member, thank you. You're the reason we're showing up in this report, because it generates the revenue so that we can hire and then we can grow and we can produce more content. If you're subscribed on YouTube or you're on my sub stack or getting my podcast on Spotify or Apple, there's so many free ways to support the work that we do. But I have to thank you.

It's because of you that we're on this list and very few others are. So we see media still dominated by the big money and mostly by the right. But every subscription, every share, every like every view, every person on our substack newsletter or signing up at Join Pakman Dotcom or subscribing on YouTube, it really does matter. It really does matter. So these are not vanity metrics. These are hey, USA, here's a list of people who are you aware of? Who have you

seen talking about politics? And Brian and I are on this very small, quite exclusive list. So it's proof that we're reaching people. It's proof that this and independent media really experiment is worth it. And we've now got to keep pushing. We're up against some very serious stuff. The downside of being on this list, you all know what it is. It's hey, you know what? Now the Trump Twitter rapid response account pays attention to what we do. And sometimes they publish clips meant to antagonize, meant to attack. This means that we are closer to a group that might be targeted if and when, if and when we start seeing the administration go after independent media. So there's upside to this and there's downside.

But I am humbled. I can't thank you enough. And please do any of the free ways that you can support us. And of course, if you can become a member at join Pacman dot com, that's why we're on this list on the bonus show today. We are going to talk about the impending explosion with Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump. We will talk about the closure of the LGBTQ plus suicide hotline program, an important program. They're shutting it down. And we will also talk about Karen Reed's acquittal.

This is a trial I know many in the audience were interested in. And it looks like it is finally being put to bed. All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Don't miss it. Sign up at join Pacman dot com. I'll see you then