The David Pakman Show - 7/11/25: Elon is scaring Trump, top exec nukes Trump to Lara’s face

Episode Date: July 11, 2025

-- On the Show: -- David hosts a Substack Live with Jessica Craven -- Trump is panicking that Elon Musk’s potential third party and Epstein-related conspiracy bait could splinter his MAGA base -- Rand Paul reveals that JD Vance nearly broke with Trump over pork barrel spending, exposing cracks in MAGA’s supposed unity -- Despite all the tough talk, Trump is deporting far fewer immigrants than Obama did—and he’s furious his own promises are collapsing -- A top Ford executive embarrasses Lara Trump by calmly explaining that Trump’s tariffs and deregulation are actually killing American jobs -- The Friday Feedback segment -- On the Bonus Show: Trump visits Texas flood site, Andrew Schulz turns on Trump, Newsmax host says Trump's uncorruptible, and much more... 🪙 InvestingPro: Get 50% off + extra 15% off your subscription at https://davidpakman.com/invest ⚠️ Ground News: Get 40% OFF their unlimited access Vantage plan at https://ground.news/pakman 💻 Sponsored by Aura: Try it free for 2 weeks! See if your data is safe at https://aura.com/pakman 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.com/pakman 👍 Save 20% on LUCY nicotine gum by using code PAKMAN at https://lucy.co  🩳 SHEATH Underwear: Code PAKMAN for 20% OFF at https://sheathunderwear.com/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

Welcome to the show, everybody. A lot of the recent conflicts between egomaniac billionaires are now coming to a head. And if I had to handicap it right now, I think Elon Musk is out on top of Donald Trump here. Let me tell you what's going on. There's a really interesting piece in the bulwark by interestingly written by Bill Kristol called The Enemy of My Enemy is My Elon. Not a phrase I would typically say on this show. Interesting piece from Bill Kristol.

But the piece points out that Donald Trump's sort of shift recently from insulting Elon to saying he's dangerous really seems like a signal that Trump is terrified. And there are two reasons. Number one, Elon Musk's third party, the America Party. And number two, what Elon Musk knows about Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, even though that, I don't think is what you think. So let me lay it out. The America Party.

If Elon Musk is serious about this third party, the America Party, the big if he might not really be serious about it, it could do real damage to Donald Trump's coalition in November of twenty twenty six, which is now just 16 months away. The Epstein stuff is less about, oh, Elon knows the truth about Trump and Epstein's debauchery. It's more about if Elon can convince MAGA people that Trump is now covering up the Epstein stuff. They spent years saying Trump's going to uncover it. Trump's going to disclose it.

Trump's going to expose it. And if Elon can convince MAGA people, Trump's part of the cover up now. He could potentially get MAGA people to abandon Donald Trump. And that's how his third party might be useful, which is, hey, I have something for you to abandon Trump to signs that Trump is worried. Well, Trump is posting stuff like the following on Truth Social. Quote, I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely off the rails, essentially becoming a train wreck over the past five weeks.

He even wants to start a third political party despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States. The system is not designed for them. The one thing third parties are good for is the creation of complete and total disruption and chaos. And we have enough of that with the radical left Democrats who have lost their confidence and their minds. Republicans, on the other hand, are a smooth running machine that just passed the biggest

bill of its kind in the history of our country. It's a great bill. But unfortunately for Elon, it eliminates the ridiculous E.V. mandate, which would have forced everyone to buy an E.V EV in a short period of time. I've strongly been opposed to that from the beginning. People are now allowed to buy whatever they want. Gas powered hybrids, which are doing very well, or new tech as they come about. No more EV mandate.

I have campaigned on this for two years. And quite honestly, when Elon gave me his total and unquestioned endorsement, I asked him whether or not he knew that I was going to terminate the E.V. mandate. It was in every speech I made, blah, blah, blah. OK, so he's sort of laying out instead of just insulting Elon, which is what he does to people that he doesn't think are a threat. He's laying it out calmly and rationally for Trump. And that is a sign that Trump's actually scared.

Then Trump, when asked about this on video, said the following. Starting a third party. I think it's ridiculous to start a third party. We have a tremendous success with the Republican Party. The Democrats have lost their way, but it's always been a two party system. And I think starting a third party just adds to confusion. It really seems to have been developed for two parties. Third parties have never worked so he can have fun with it.

But I think it's ridiculous. Eli, aside from the fact that it's not true that the country was really developed, developed to be a two party duopoly. That's not true. We used to have more parties. It's basic American history. Trump sees Elon as dangerous. Trump sees him as dangerous.

Now, I'll tell you, Elon Musk is not an ally to liberal democracy. He weaponizes conspiracy theories and you know, they might incidentally be ironically useful in weakening Trump's grip on the authoritarian, right? But Elon is not our friend for sure. But to the extent that this might end up being a strategically valuable disruption to Trump's loyal coalition, Trump's right to be scared about what Elon Musk is doing. And I say, I hope it does create a big problem for Donald Trump. Do you think it will? Let me know. Info at David Pakman dot com. This one sort of flew under the radar. Did you see this? This is

a little window into how shaky things are behind the scenes. Senator Rand Paul, of all people, a Republican, said something that should make Trump squirm. Rand Paul was on CNBC and he was talking about the recent spending bill that was signed into law by Donald Trump. And let's listen carefully. But what I believe is being said here is that J.D. Vance was thinking of being on the no side with Rand. I mean, it almost seems inconceivable. But let's listen to what Rand Paul had to say.

My note, my note would never have sunk the bill. And the reason it wouldn't is they were negotiating with me. If my vote were going to be the deciding vote, they would have negotiated. They were negotiating. Well, they were negotiating that morning. The vice president was very, very close to going with me versus the subsidies for Alaska. They eventually chose the subsidies for Alaska, which shows you something that subsidies for Alaska and more money out there was actually easier for them than having to vote on the

debt ceiling again in three months. So I guess what Rand Paul is saying is that at least on the topic of goodies for Alaska for Murkowski versus having to vote on the debt ceiling on that issue, not on the entire bill, but on that issue. Supposedly, J.D. Vance was on the verge of siding with Rand Paul. Why? Well, because Trump and his allies jammed the bill with goodies for Alaska to buy Lisa Murkowski's vote and to avoid a debt ceiling fight before the election.

And Vance, according to Rand Paul, was almost out of that way that they bought their way into passage of the bill. Rand had him supposedly until Trump's team decided, it's easier to throw some money at Alaska. We don't want the fiscal showdown. So think about what that means. Trump's handpicked loyalist running mate was nearly ready, if we believe Rand Paul to buck the White House on one of their biggest economic priorities over pork barrel spending.

We were told it's an ironclad MAGA administration and coalition. And if you believe Rand Paul and I, you know, we can say a lot of things about Rand Paul. I don't think he would make this up. He's out here bragging, oh, the vice president almost joined me in this rebellion. I don't think he goes on national TV and says this unless it's true and unless he's trying to send a message. So I believe that this is a signal. Trump's coalition is not as unified as it looks.

And the fact that it only took some Alaska subsidies to keep it from falling apart speaks to me of more of a desperate situation than a situation of strength. We know the coalition wasn't strong because they had to go negotiate senator by senator to get them the goodies they needed to come out and support this bill. So very interesting in particular for what it means for any other legislation that Donald Trump may try to push through. We're going to have more of this. By the way, we have a daily hour podcast that's free.

If you're used to listening to clips or watching clips, you can get The David Pakman Show on Spotify or Apple podcasts in full, usually much earlier than the clips come out. So I invite you to do that. We'll have more on this topic there. I've talked before about how I have allocated a portion of my assets to individual stocks. And when it comes to individual stocks, how do you get the information that is going to help you meaningfully decide what makes sense for you? And that's exactly why I've been testing out investing pro. This is the new flagship platform from investing dot com.

And the whole idea here is it's a tool to find stocks others may be missing. And the feature I've been using is called Warren A.I. It's kind of like chat GPT trained on up to the minute market data. So you can ask it what happened to Nvidia yesterday? What might be moving? at David Pakman. this week. You know, for weeks now, discussions have focused on Trump's big, beautiful bill and its potential Medicaid cuts. However, a far more dangerous overlooked provision in the bill exists at ground dot news slash Pacman. You'll discover what Maga lawmakers quietly included, a provision

that could block federal judges from enforcing court orders unless a bond is posted. And if this passes, it could render Trump above the law. This is a critical detail. It's largely unknown and it really exemplifies this flood the zone strategy of the Trump administration. Now, this is why ground news is essential. It really is the best way to uncover buried information by showing you not just the story, but its origins across the political spectrum.

You can see bias ratings, credibility scores, coverage timelines and their browser extension also will flag potential bias when you're on a news site sort of guiding you to more reliable sources for fact checking. Ground News gives you a smarter and more reliable way to stay informed. I'm partnering with them to give you 40 percent off their unlimited vantage plan, which makes it just five dollars a month. Visit ground dot news slash Pacman. Scan the QR code or use the code Pacman in the app to start. The link is in the description.

I had a conversation on Substack Live with activist Jessica Craven. Jessica is awesome. We're going to listen to that conversation now. You can watch these substack lives when they are live as a free subscriber on my substack substack dot David Pakman dot com. Jessica Craven, let's check it out. Well, we are live. It is great to welcome Jessica Craven and also to say hello to your audience, Jessica.

This is so cool, you know, we are on some, it sounds very ominous, but signal chats, but we've never talked to each other directly. I see you in passing and then I follow you on Substack as well. But I was really interested in talking to you because in a sense, there are similarities in what we do. But in a sense, there are some really important differences and I'm really interested in the way that you're doing it. So like for some context, I have a podcast, it's Monday to Friday, I do an hour a day,

I do eight to 10 stories, right? There's this structure kind of to what I do. And I'm newer to Substack and building what I see as a sort of less concrete audience in a way. At the same time, I spoke to someone like Aaron Parnas, who he does instant reactions. It's less structured wherever he is, whatever news is breaking sort of thing. So I'd love to just hear a little bit from you about like your approach and how you got started with all this.

Sure. Well, and first of all, thanks for having me on. It's nice to see you here because yes, we are in like other groups. There's a million groups, right? But it's nice to see you here. It's nice to see, you know, people I know, people I don't know. Yeah, so Aaron, first of all, so great. I love his sort of like walking down the street and shooting the news while he's like going to get coffee. What I am, so I was an activist first with a newsletter. So when Trump was elected the first time, I started with a newsletter.

And that was not even really intentional. I was just like, I'm so upset about Trump. I have to do something. And I'm going to share it with some people I know, because they want to do something too. So I started sending that out to a couple people. And then more people asked to be added to the list. And that became a newsletter, which I moved over to Substack in like, I don't know, maybe 2020, 2021. But I'd been doing it since 2016. So, but always I was like, first I'm an activist. Like I'm out, I'm phone banking, I'm canvassing, I'm, you know, teaching people how to do that stuff.

And then I've got this newsletter which tells other people how to take action. And I started doing content creation in 2020, but really just because I thought I could recruit people to activism during COVID when I couldn't go out. And it was very accidental that that took off the way that it did. So now, and then when Donald Trump was elected the second time, my substack, which built slowly over the years, but it exploded. I think a lot of the people who had been doing action-related things stopped after the first Trump term.

They were like, okay, we're good now. I'm going to stop. Yeah. And I just kept going. So literally like a crazy explosion of new subscribers after he first started doing all of his... like when the coup started, basically. So now I do the newsletter. I do a once a week podcast called the Practivist Pod.

And then I, so the newsletter comes out really six days a week, to be honest. It's supposed to be five, but it always ends up being six. And then I make, you know, usually two or three pieces of content a day. So that's what I do. It's very, it's tiring. I don't do probably quite as much breaking news. Occasionally I'll grab something when it's breaking, but I will generally do more of sort of like, wow, look at this ridiculous. Like today I did a piece about Ted Cruz cutting funding for flood warning and weather warning, going on vacation and then coming back from vacation

just to say like, oh, we really need to have a better warning system. And then calling people, you know, saying that people were being inappropriately political when they called him out for that. Like I'll make a video sort of putting all of those pieces together and talking about how that is emblematic of the Republican Party. So I guess it's a little bit more, it's less rapid response, but I do respond to what is happening in the news. So that's-

One of the things I wanna dig into a little more deeply that you said, and actually, does it look like our stream is working on your end? Because I see no one chatting and it says zero people watching. I just wanna make sure we're like genuinely live. Oh yeah, no, I see people chatting

and we've got 531 people here right now. Okay, good. So all that's broken is the indicator. You, if, if the, you want the thing to be working the indicator I can do without, but that's fine. That's totally fine. I just wanted to make sure we were really live. Yeah.

So one of the things that I think distinguishes what we do in all of the formats from what legacy and corporate media do is that if you ask, if they're honest, what do you want your audience to do? Legacy and corporate media are like, we just want them to be in the audience, watch, so we get ratings and then we can sell ads to advertisers. Cool, that's what they want.

With us, there's all these other layers where some creators want to create activists, right? Let me tell you what's going on in the world so that then you will go and be an activist in the world. Others want to encourage other people to become creators, right? So creators who say, hey, we need 10,000 or 100,000 of us rather than whatever number like we sort of have. And then there's sort of like other iterations of this. Based on your writing, I know that getting people to be activists seems to be an important part

of what you do and your motivation. But what else, what are the actions that you think are most useful for our audiences to participate in? Right, that's a great question. Well, yes, I do wanna get, what I want really more than creating activists is I want people to get engaged in their democracy. So that's, it's a fine distinction,

but not everybody is gonna go out and knock doors, for example, or make phone calls. Some will, some won't. But what I want people to do is to pay attention, to do things because it'll make you feel better as well as make you feel more empowered. But also to watch, I was just reading something today about how people who pay attention to the news voted for Kamala Harris by 15 points, and that Trump wins or won overwhelmingly with people who don't pay attention to the news.

And so part of the problem in America as I see it is just people who are literally like, I don't know what's happening because I don't understand it. That is the thing that I know there are some people who just don't want to know, but there are some people who I think would want to know if they understood it, but they're afraid to ask. So can I give you a, can I interject a MAGA counterpoint to that? Cause I think it'll be really interesting. If we presented that statistic to a lot of the MAGA folks, they would go, David, Jessica, what's going on is when you watch the news, you are

lied to and tricked into voting for Kamala Harris. Like they would, they might acknowledge the statistic, but they would say it's part of the problem. You and I might say, well, the more informed you are about the world around you, the more likely you are to say the better choice is Kamala Harris. They would say, of course, you let yourself get indoctrinated by news media, you're gonna vote for the wrong person.

And that's like a structural problem we're up against right now. It is a structural problem we're up against to a certain extent, but there's also this huge portion of the population, what was it, 90 million people who didn't vote at all. And these people are different. So I'll give you an example.

When I was in physical therapy, like a year ago, I was talking to my physical therapist week after week. I was in there for a while. Nice guy, mid-20s, super nice, slowly started to talk about politics a little just because I mentioned I worked in politics. We didn't talk about it for the first five sessions. Then slowly it came out that he had not voted. Oh, sorry, this was after the presidential election. So he had not voted. And when we started to talk about it, I didn't say, that's so bad that

you didn't vote at all. We just started talking, and I started talking about state legislatures and how it's really important that we participate because of the book bans that are going on. And he said, wait, there are book bans? He had no idea. And so I started talking a little bit about just what happens, like what state legislatures control as opposed to what national. And I kind of went on a little thing about it. And at the end, he said, you know what?

Nobody in my entire life has ever explained what you just explained to me. I literally did not know that. Thank you for telling me. He didn't know the basics of how our government works. So yeah, there's definitely the people watching Fox News, like I never argue with those people. There are, I mean, hats off to people who want to, I don't. I am looking for the people who are actually genuinely nice people, but who are just checked out, don't know what's happening, and are afraid that they shouldn't weigh in on politics because they don't understand politics. So it's those people as well as the people who are already engaged. And I mean, I'm not gonna argue with Fox News viewers or

Trump voters about what is facts, because you can't, again, like you just can't. But that's really interesting. So there's a couple of things there that might be interesting to dig into in a little more detail. One is one of the things I try to do and I think can be effective is a lot of people don't consume news or politics at all. As a creator in news and politics, I have a glass ceiling that is lower than for entertainment creators or sports because there's a category of people large in the US that just goes, I don't consume that stuff. One of the techniques I think is important

is when people go, I'm not into politics. What they often mean is I don't understand how who we vote for affects my life. That's like Coke, right? So if we can show them how that is, and it might not be at the presidential level as much, there are people in situations in certain states where it actually might be the state government or even the municipal, but if we can draw the line between, oh, the complaints you have about your life

while you say I'm not into politics, directly relate to the politics of your municipality, your state or the federal government. So that's one thing that I think is really potentially effective at motivating some of those people. 100%, 100%. And I mean, so going back to the physical therapist, he had been talking about how eventually he wanted to work

with senior citizens in nursing homes to help them with physical therapy. And so we started talking about Medicaid and how important it was that that's defunded. And then I just mentioned in passing that Kamala Harris had also wanted to extend Medicare to cover long-term care and that that was stuff that Trump was going to cut. Now, at that point, he hadn't actually done what he has now done. But again, he did not know that and he was interested because it would affect him directly. And I think you are so right.

When I've gone out and knocked doors or phone banked, the thing I get all the time over and over, I don't do politics. Oh, I don't pay attention to politics. I'm not interested. And so then you got to find out, so what is interesting to you? What are you interested in? Because I challenge people. I can connect almost anything to politics, right? I mean, you just can. Almost anything goes back to politics. So then you have that conversation. Oh, you care about your health and you're into food. Do you know that like right now, all the food inspectors are being fired?

Like we're now eating food that is like categorically less safe than it was before Trump was elected or whatever it is. So that yeah, we talk about the unseen parts of government that are the things keeping us safe. And unfortunately, we are getting an object lesson in it right now. So instead of like shaking a finger at people, it is part of what I do to just sort of say, like you see, this is why we fund the NOAA, right? It's not because we're like libtards, it's because that science is important during an emergency. And you're not gonna persuade everybody.

There's some people who just can't hear it, but you will persuade some people. I hope, I mean, I have to hope. So this gets to the broader kind of political reality where every election, we get to a certain point in the election cycle where it's, hey, if one side can turn out one and a half percent more people, then they win. If we convert the non-voters to voters, people with our sensibilities who aren't voting,

we win. Every election, it's such. Yeah. My belief right now, and if you have kind of contradictory knowledge about this, I would wanna hear it. My belief right now is that really the only person who genuinely did that in the recent very many election cycles was Trump in 2016

in the sense that he created, Republicans before Trump, there were like three categories. There were like your pro-business, low-tax, Mitt Romney style Republican. You had your libertarian Republicans. And then you had your religious right Republican. So like a Ted Cruz type or something like that. Trump kind of actually activated people

who did not really follow politics before. They were drawn in by Trump's populist rhetoric, his celebrity, and, and this is where I give him credit, even if he was offering wacky solutions that would never work, identifying pain points for people. You've got a job where you can't save anything and cost of living is high. Oh, that's China and trade, which I know, and or it's brown immigrants from Latin America. He was wrong on the fact,

but he connected to some pain points. And I think that more than any recent presidential candidate, Trump actually activated prior non-voters in 2016 in a way that arguably won him the election. What's your sense of that? Oh, no, I think it's absolutely true. And I think he did it in again in 2024, to a certain extent. And actually, you know, it's something I think that Barack Obama also did. And I think it's something that we're seeing right now with Zohra and Mamdani. So I think,

and Bernie Sanders, I think it may be that it's not so much about the party as it is about the person and what they're talking about and They're in a weird way their authenticity now Trump of course lies when he opens his mouth, right? But people perceive him as not giving a fuck what people think about him, excuse my language and And being who he is unafraid and that's something that people really crave right now, but I'm not sure that people actually crave what he's actually delivering at all. Exactly. I think people are really drawn to that thing.

And I just was reading something about this today, about where do we find a, it doesn't have to be another Trump, it can be a Mom Donnie or it can be an Obama or someone who just excites those young voters and typical non-vot someone who just excites those young voters and typical non-voters who just are not excited by your Chuck Schumers and your Hakeem Jeffries who frankly, I'm not excited by either and at all, like at all.

So I think there is a solution out there, but yes, there is like, we definitely have to let go of some institutional stuff that for whatever reason, the Democratic establishment has a really hard time letting go of. And that is unfortunate. But, yes. I want to get back to the Schumer-Jeffreys thing, because there's something really interesting there. I'm curious about your audience. One of the things that you reminded me of, I don't know if you saw this interview Trump

did. It might have been like September, August, maybe October, with these guys called the NELC boys. Does this ring a bell? I probably didn't watch it. I have a hard time watching Trump. So I will typically totally understandable. It's basically this podcast of guys hanging out, they do pranks, they've got products they sell, they're sort of socially on the right. Okay, so Trump goes and he sits with them for I don't know if it was an hour or two. right. Okay, so Trump goes and he sits with them for I don't know if it was an hour or two. And he told a lie a minute. He promised things that are impossible. All of the stuff that Trump does, but it appeared unscripted because it almost certainly was. It appeared

as though there were no limits on what they were allowed to ask Trump because there probably were no limits and came off as genuine and authentic in a way that has totally divorced from what are you gonna do with the tariffs right didn't matter didn't matter it generated an environment that I don't see the left with very few exceptions really generating right now and I think it helped him very clearly yeah right but and you by the way I sorry, I've got tree cutters outside. I hope it's not too noisy on this video. So maybe AI can cut it out. You look at this video, and I'm sure you've seen it, I don't mean to keep returning to

Mom Donnie, but this video of him that came out yesterday of him walking down the street trying to make a campaign video, and people keep coming up to him to talk to him and get a selfie with him because they love him so much people of all stripes and the kind of genuine response he has with them again That is what people are looking for right now. They just want someone who is authentically themselves. And yes, I think that Trump Manages to communicate that even though to me I just see total fraudulence all the way through, but it gives that to the people it needs to give it to. But I think that also people are willing to see it somewhere else as well.

The people are open to seeing it in other people. Not all people maybe, but a lot of people. So yeah, interesting. So on Schumer and Jeffries, I'm going to give you kind of the lay of the land of my audience's view on Democrats right now as I understand it. And if I'm wrong, I know my audience will correct me. But for the most part, my audience kind of hates just about every Democrat right now. And over the last month, I've interviewed Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Jamie Raskin, a variety of people.

Gavin Newsom is another example. Phil Murphy, governors. Okay. Yeah. For the most part, my audience hates all. And I am curious as to where your audience is on the Democratic Party. And my view on this is as follows. I don't think Chuck Schumer is an exciting elected official.

I think a lot of these folks like Cory Booker and others have a lot of the right sensibilities, some good ideas, but are part of a machine that is not really exciting or motivating anybody right now. Yeah. And also I all, I recognize, or at least I think that to get some of the six, some of the systemic change that I'd like to see that might get us better candidates. I don't know if it'll happen with Democrats, but I know it's not going to happen with Republicans.

And so I end up in this prisoner's dilemma situation almost, where I go, listen, in the two-party system we have, with the campaign finance system we have, first past the post-elections in most of the country, I've gotta go with the better option. Yeah. And usually that's a Democrat. Yeah.

I don't know, that's kind of where I am. What's your sense of where your audience is on Democrats right now? Oh, yeah. I mean, I look, I am an elected member of the Democratic Party in California. So I'm a delegate to the state party and I hate it. I hate the meetings. I hate most of the shit I hear at the party. I can't stand party talking points.

I just don't like that stuff. The reason I'm still there is, first of all, it's a four-year term and I ran for it a while ago, but also because if everybody walks away from the party structure, the party still exists and it's still generating politicians who are going to run in races, but there's no one there going, hey, wait a minute, you need to be talking about climate change more or whatever. So having said that, I really, I feel antagonistic towards Jefferies and Schumer. And I feel bad about that because they're probably both like super nice people.

And I think that under normal circumstances, maybe they'd be fine. But we're not under normal circumstances. So I see them as an obstacle to our progressing. For me, if we want the party to get back some of the people who have left, they need to resign. It's just straightforward. It's like a corporation. If you're failing and your sales are down and your brand is damaged, you replace the people at the top.

It's so straightforward to me. But power clings to power, man. It's really hard to dislodge power. If you're a student of history, you know anybody who gets power, becomes addicted to having power, and it's hard to get them out. So I don't love a lot of the people that you listed. On the other hand, I do love Elizabeth Warren. I think it's dangerous to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have some people who are great legislators who are working their asses off. Elizabeth Warren stayed up like three nights in a row

to try to block this bill. And when they failed and it passed, she got into her car and made a video where you could tell she had just been crying her eyes out. She looked exhausted. If people are like, that's not good enough for me, a person who is literally fighting for consumers all day, every day, then I don't know what people want. Like at that point, I get very annoyed with perfectionism because the best

is the enemy of the good that we can actually get. So you know, funny anecdote about Elizabeth Warren. And so I've been interviewing her off and on since before she was ever Senator, interestingly, and I just interviewed her two weeks ago in DC at the Senate. And I've always liked Elizabeth Warren. And I remember back in 20, did she, it's a time warp, she ran in 2016 to be the Democratic nominee, right? Or was it 20? No, 2020. She ran in 2020. It was 2020. It's a time warp. So I remember saying to my audience,

hey, you know, I'm a Bernie guy. Elizabeth Warren's my second choice. And a lot of my audience said, David, how dare you? Elizabeth Warren, she's part of this wing, or she made her money in this industry. And I said, guys, listen, I look at the voting records and policy positions. She's the second most progressive Senator at the time.

Bernie was the first. He's the second. So I'm telling you, she's my second choice. And there were people who understood that and got it in my audience. But there was also like a loud contingent that was sort of like purity testing a little bit. And that's what sometimes worries me about the movement that I think we're kind of loosely a part of here, which is the right is really good, at least for the purposes of winning elections, at saying, everybody come on in. Differences? Forget about it.

You don't like Kamala? Come on in. Or you're questioning, come on in. And sometimes I think that a little bit of the litmus testing hurts us when it comes to winning elections. Oh, beyond. I mean, I think that the purity testing is the single most destructive thing in our party. And in our giant tent, I do. I mean, I think that, you know,

the decision that Kamala Harris wasn't good enough because fill in the blank, so I'm going to vote third party or I'm not going to vote killed us. And I could see it coming a mile away. I saw it a year before the elections. I was like, there are outside issues that are going to kill us. And they did. And they're worthwhile outside issues. They're things I believe really passionately in too. But lots of people on our side don't have the ability to say, like, the good has got to be good enough right now if we can't get the best. And obviously, I have to think about what will be best for the most marginalized people who we're now seeing suffer in ways that are absolutely catastrophic because Kamala Harris

wasn't quite good enough on every issue. That shit is going to kill us. So in a certain sense, I have a lot of sort of the, I want the best, but I also want what is attainable and what politics is the art of what's achievable, right? We have a lot more work to do to get people on our side to understand that. And unfortunately, the voices that refuse to accept that are often the loudest. And I feel that they are in their own way, although they are claiming to be for this thing that is the best, it's actually very cynical. It's very, very cynical to destroy what is actually possible because you can't have what you demand. And it's been, you know, I live in Los Angeles,

I'm watching lives ruined every fucking day and a lot of them. I'm watching families be tortured. And to say that that makes me wish that people could have just voted for Kamala Harris instead of demanding perfection is really an understatement. It's heartbreaking what's happening here. It's sickening what's happening here. Yeah. Maybe we could talk about that briefly in the last few minutes we have. I mean, I'm seeing a lot of speculation, I guess, that what's happening in Los Angeles is maybe a test case for how would communities react if Trump went for the martial law under whatever pretense might happen. And on the one hand, it sounds hyperbolic and exaggerated.

On the other hand, I don't know. I mean, you're there. What's your assessment of it? I don't know. I mean, I don't know. With Trump, you just never say never. Like everything we thought maybe he would do, maybe he wouldn't do, like he's doing all of it.

So I try to stay in the day that we're in. Right now it is directed at, you know, almost exclusively the immigrant population. And so what I'm looking for and what most people living here are just like, it's very reactive right now. How can we help? Oh God, they're in MacArthur Park, let's go.

You know, who needs, people are literally texting me every day like I have an undocumented, you know, house cleaner and she can't leave her house. Like, how do I help her? What do I like? So that's what we're doing right now is trying to help people eat when they can't safely leave their houses. So what Trump is going to do? Yeah, I think he's definitely pushing the envelope to see how far he can get. And that's why it's really, really important. You know, people went out to MacArthur Park yesterday and like Karen Bass showed up there and they did leave. I mean, there was no need for them to be there.

There was nothing to invade. But it feels like their force is overwhelming. So what's the point? But actually, I feel that resistance is still really effective. And, you know, we just have to do it. It's literally the question of like, what would you have done in Nazi Germany? Like right now we are being asked to stand up for the immigrant community. And so we'll stand up for the next community when that time comes, if it comes.

But right now that's who we're standing up for. So. I really want to thank you. We've been speaking with Jessica Craven. If you are a follower of mine on Substack, make sure you're subscribed to her. If I'm new to you, I would be humbled if you are one of Jessica's viewers, if you also subscribe to my Substack. Really appreciate your time and your insights and really just keep up the great work.

Thank you. I'm so glad to be here. It was really nice to talk to you. I enjoyed it so much, David, and thank you everybody for being here. All right really nice to talk to you. I enjoyed it so much, David. And thank you, everybody, for being here. All right. We'll talk to you soon. Take care. See you later.

Bye. These days, sadly, it's less a question of if your personal information will be leaked. It's more a question of when will it happen. And this is why I use Aura. Our sponsor, Aura, monitors the dark web, your financial accounts, your credit, and we'll let you know with real time alerts if any of your personal information has been exposed or if someone tries to use it to steal your identity. Could be your social, could be bank logins, your credit file, or keeps an eye on all of

it 24 seven. So you're not blindsided by fraud. It's like having a digital bodyguard with aura that never sleeps, scanning for threats, able to warn you before real damage is done. Or also includes award winning antivirus software to protect your devices from malware, phishing and ransomware. And aura also gives you a secure password manager, U.S. based support or or a for free for 14 days at aura dot com slash Pakman. That's a u r a dot com slash Pakman to try it free for 14 days. The link is in the description.

Your personal data is everywhere and you might not even know people search sites and data brokers are quietly publishing your name, address, phone number, even things like property records, political views. It is not just creepy. to for there are 250 plus sites where removal is automated. But if you find your information anywhere else, you can custom submit that and they will have it removed manually. This is serious protection using incognito can cut way down on the spam calls and the messages that you get fewer risks, more control over your identity. Try it risk free for 30 days and get 60% off an annual plan. Well, this is very awkward for Donald Trump. Trump's the guy who promised the largest deportation program in American history. He's deporting way fewer people than Barack Obama.

And it's reportedly driving him insane. Now, this is the type of story where I should upfront disclaim. I don't think mass deportation is a mark of success. I think it's often inhumane. It's disruptive to families. It's disruptive to communities. It's really something that riles up the base more than it solves any real problems. But Trump does believe that deportations are the metric.

He's made that clear over and over again. He's promised to deport more than anybody. And by his standard, he's failing badly. Now, let me give you the numbers. Obama deported more people in a single year. Obama. Yeah, that guy over four hundred and thirty eight thousand in 2013 than Trump has ever come close to. Trump tried to ramp it up during his first term. He's trying to ramp

it up against now in twenty twenty five. But he is falling very, very short. In April, deportations were around 17000, more than under Biden at the same time last year, but nowhere remotely close to Obama levels. Trump would need to more than double the current pace and sustain it and make up for lost ground. It's not happening. And Trump knows it. Now, let's talk not about who gets to brag about deporting more people, but let's talk about the underlying reality here. Trump launched these flashy immigration raids

across the country. California deployed the National Guard. He's involving the IRS. He told half a million immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to voluntarily self deport, sort of like the landlord saying, I'm kicking you out, but only if you want. It's not working. And Trump is furious. And now Trump wants more money for immigration enforcement because when your plan fails, apparently the answer is more money and more cruelty. Now here's the kicker. Trump recently admitted on Truth Central that after talking to hotel and farm executives, he's sort of having second thoughts about the deportation of longtime workers because

he says it's hard to replace people in those jobs. So think about the big picture of what's going on. Trump is furious that he's not deporting enough people. He's worried that if he deports more people, it'll be bad for business and bad for some of his donors. And this is the supposed stable genius immigration strategy. And the real question we need to be asking here is what would work if we wanted a more sensible and logical immigration and deportation policy,

given that countries have a right to enforce their borders and immigration policy and they have a right to deport people. If we were serious about actually addressing this holistically rather than just I want the biggest deportation numbers, what would you do? Well, you would do a few things. Number one, you would once and for all finally put in place serious pathways to legal status for long term undocumented migrants. Millions of undocumented immigrants have lived and worked in the U.S. for decades, legalizing their status through a fair process that doesn't allow violent criminals access to that process, which I don't know anyone on the left that is pushing for that.

It'll keep families together. It'll strengthen the economy. It'll reduce the fear that is palpable in immigrant communities. Trump doesn't want to do that. Number two, streamline legal immigration. We have such a backlog for visas and green cards that the bureaucratic nightmare encourages people to do it illegally. If you speed up the process, raise the caps, make the system more user friendly. You'll reduce the incentive for illegal crossings.

Three, target the smugglers and the traffickers. Don't go after the workers and the families. Focus on enforcement, on organized crime and human trafficking, not the day laborers and the parents dropping kids off at school. It's smarter, it's safer. It's also more effective. Number four, you got to rebuild trust with local law enforcement, because when you use the aggressive tactics of Trump,

you make cities less safe because immigrants stop reporting crimes. Community policing models are something to look at. Number five, we've got to deal with the root causes abroad. As I've said before, people don't flee their homes for fun. If you can make money and be safe where you have community, you will almost certainly stay there. And so poverty, violence, political instability, all of that stuff. The U.S. can help reduce the need for people to say, I'm going to chance going to the U.S. illegally if we stabilize the source countries. And the number six, you got to create some real labor protections instead of deporting exploited workers, hold the exploitative employers accountable because not only do we focus on

the workers, not the employers. Very often, the undocumented workers face wage theft and other circumstances that they don't feel comfortable reporting because they know that their status is, of course, undocumented. Now, all of that stuff Trump's not interested in. It's just that he doesn't really care about solving a problem. He wants outrage, fear and performance. So he wants to create a crisis, point fingers, fundraiser, ask for accolades. He promised the base mass deportations. He bragged that Biden had open borders and he can't even out deport Obama.

So instead of more raids and more guards and more bad ideas, try something humane and sane that will work. But that's not going to make as good of a truth. Social post is it? This is wild. A top Ford executive nuked Trump's economic policy right to Lara Trump's face. Lara Trump full time maga hype woman. She thought she was tossing a softball during this feel good segment, a one on one with

the C.O.O. of Ford Kumar Galotra. And she says, what would you ask Trump for? And he doesn't miss a beat. He goes, don't do the tariffs. No, no, no, don't do the damn tariffs. If there was one thing that you would ask President Trump, maybe Congress to do right now that would allow you maybe to create even more jobs than Ford already does, what's one thing they could do?

Well, maybe I'll ask for two. One would be the parts tariffs, as I said, because we can't make all the parts here. And if the tariffs are high on the parts, including steel and aluminum, that actually hurts our economy. So that would be one thing. The other thing would be one national standard for fuel economy, greenhouse gases. The administration is already working towards it. We're working with the EPA and other other agencies to get that done. That would be great because it's very complex for us not to have one standard nationally. In the end, we're one country which have one national standard.

You can practically hear the gears grinding in Lara's head as she realizes this guy is saying Trump's primary economic policy, his core economic talking point is bad for American car manufacturers. Wow. Now I think it's important to do an honest review. Right. The tariff program bad for American businesses and manufacturers. The emissions rollback of Trump bad for efficiency, bad for the environment, increasing costs. Trump's entire America first thing is making it harder for Ford to create jobs in the US. What's great about this

is it really wasn't a partisan hit. This was a business leader chief operating officer actually is dealing with the nuts and bolts metaphorically and literally of running Ford says the trade war, the deregulation. These are stunts. These are bad for business. These are bad for our jobs, the jobs that we create or don't create. And therefore, it's bad for the economy. And it happened right with Lara Trump, who was probably expecting some kind of canned answer about tax cuts or patriotism or whatever the tax cut the talking point of the day was.

But here is an executive at one of the most arguably important or notable companies in the United States saying these policies aren't good for us. These policies are costing us money. And this is what happens when you run the government like a reality show and you treat economic policy like a press release. The people who do the building end up saying, hey, this is going to cost us. This is going to cost jobs. It'll raise the cost of our finished product. That will be bad for American consumers. It will be bad for the workers. And Lara Trump just sits there. Oh, OK. Oh, I see. What more evidence do we need that the entire economic framework that this president has

put together is bad for America than American corporate executives telling us this is bad for our companies. Does Lara Trump care? Probably not. She going to tell Donald? Probably not. But at least the guy from Ford is saying it. Today's show is sponsored in part by Lucy Breakers.

This is a tobacco free nicotine pouch with a capsule that can be broken to release extra flavor. this this has Warning, this product skin on skin. And that means everything stays separate, comfortable, dry and cool. You will have a boost of confidence when you're out and about. I've known so many people who were skeptical about those compartments, friends who say, I heard that ad for sheath. What about those compartments? And then they try it and then they're amazed at the comfort and breathability when they finally try it. You will thank yourself. Plus she has brand new materials like bamboo and mesh for even more cooling comfort. They will be the most comfortable pair of boxer briefs you ever put on. No more sweatiness and chafing and readjusting, especially at the gym.

It's a lifesaver. Give she thunderware a shot. I've had a great experience. I think you will too. Head over to sheath underwear.com slash Pacman and get 20% off with code Pacman. That's S H E A T H underwear.com slash Pacman. Use code Pacman for 20 percent off. Spotify, you never know, but you can always email info at David Pakman dot com. Delac on our subreddit wrote Trump will start a war because he thinks it will boost the economy he's ruining with his tariff war. I think Warhawks in Trump's circle are feeding him the idea that starting a war with Iran

will boost the economy and in turn improve his approval rating. Why is he so pro war now? Without solid evidence, Iran has near term nuclear capabilities. There has to be something in it. You know, here's the thing. On the one hand, the idea of a war to unite and rally behind the president is not a crazy idea. It's not a foreign idea.

It's not an unusual idea. At the same time, I don't know that early public opinion about the Iran engagement suggests that it really would boost public opinion. And so even if you believe that a war with Iran would help the economy, which I think is a question mark, I'll come back to in a moment. Even if you believe a war with Iran would help the economy, the American people a couple of weeks ago seemed so definitively against such an engagement that it might counteract whatever benefit Trump thinks he might draw economically. Now on the question of what a war with Iran helped the economy, here's the thing.

There's often this idea that when you go to war, if you're the United States, because you have this big military industry, it's great for all of the contractors, the Raytheons and Northrop Grumman and all these companies. But it also generates significant economic instability, stock market instability. It can lead to shortages or price spikes in related or affected goods, oil being one that comes to mind in the context of Iran. So even the case that that would boost the economy is less salient or clear to me. It wouldn't be unprecedented to start a war for reasons other than just we need to go

to war. But I do think it's relevant to consider all of the ways in which it might not go so well. And then it becomes less clear that that's something that Donald Trump would necessarily do. I think if Trump wanted to start a war for some reason other than this war really makes sense, it would be just as a distraction, not because it would boost the economy or whatever the case may be. All right. Justin wrote crazy how you sound like your. This is the wrong you're, of course, crazy how you sound like you're this is the wrong you're, of course, crazy how you sound like you're betting against the US and rooting for any news you can spin too bad for this

country. You know, this is sort of like the quintessential patriotism as a cudgel critique. If I point out that the government is screwing some stuff up and that the orange guy in charge doesn't have your best interests in mind, I must hate the country and be betting against it and hoping that it fails. But I see this as totally backwards. When I point out bad policy, that's not un-American. It's pro-American.

It's, hey, you know what? I'm not OK with things that are bad for the average American. The opposite would be covering it up, right? Allowing unchecked executive overreach, not highlighting errors and failure. So here's the deal. I root for the U.S. to live up to its ideals and what's in the law and due process and what the founders intended. OK, when you say I'm betting against the United States, you're assuming that criticism is disloyalty.

And I see that as a completely false trade off. You can say the U.S. has done good things. And also, here's some stuff that's not good. And here are the people who are doing it. It's hard to think of a more pro America thing than that rooting against America. Give me a break, dude. All right. This me a break, dude. All right. This is a good one.

Gil Gorn, 71 on Reddit, jokingly asked, why hasn't David covered the Ace Bailey situation with the Utah Jazz? The silence is deafening. Star forward Ace Bailey from Rutgers hasn't reported to the judge. OK, this is about basketball. All right. This is a joke. If you don't understand the joke, why would I be talking about NBA and college basketball

stuff? The joke is that it's very popular to go on the David Pakman show. So it's very common and see posts about why haven't I weighed in on this? Why haven't I weighed in on that? Why haven't I taken a position on X, Y, Z? And as I've explained many times before, the show is just what I feel like talking about. That's all it is. You know, I don't have layers of editors telling me what to do.

I don't have executives saying what the show needs to be. It's just what I feel like talking about. And if you don't like what I feel like talking about, you can go to a show where you do like what they feel like talking about or what they are told to talk about by executives or editors. But I love the joke. The idea is this person wants me talking about Ace Bailey and I'm not talking about it. How dare I? Very often, a better use of time is instead of making a post on my subreddit,

it's just going and finding someone talking about the thing you want to hear about. All right, guys, please. OK, Corwin Kratsman wrote on Spotify, listen, it listening to Elizabeth Warren. It clicked. What is wrong with Democrat versus Republican messaging? All the things she said are great. But what's the overall saying? The big idea? I don't know. She had a bullet point list. Republicans don't do lists. Make America great again. They've used it a bunch of times. Build the wall. Each of these are big ideas that excite people.

I think that's part of why the no king's protests were successful. Two words meaning end corruption, wealth inequality and money in politics. This is an analysis not unlike the one that I have made for a long time You know Democrats often over index on details let's publish a white paper and put in place a five-step plan read from bullet points and Then you lose people in minutes and then Republicans come in with this vague But emotional and repeatable make America great again build the wall This is why populist slogans stick. They appeal to feelings.

Now that's a good and a bad in a way because you can make emotionally salient talking points stick, but they don't really lead to follow through. And that's a problem with the populist rhetoric. They don't necessarily point to a particular policy. So I do think there is a lesson here from Corwin, which is for the left to compete, we need simple frames and big ideas that are emotionally resonant, break down complex proposals into memorable mantras and corruption, health care for all, whatever, right.

Repeat it relentlessly. Policy depth does matter. But if you don't have like a clear, unifying narrative, you're just not going to cut through the noise. And Republicans absolutely understand that. Jim Cook wrote on Spotify, Hey, David, why don't you point out that if old establishment Democrats didn't move aside, we wouldn't have empty seats and we could block this thing. I suspect you are with the establishment purely for ego relevancy and access.

What do you actually stand for? So if I'm honest, I don't know what Jim's talking about. Why don't I point out that if old establishment Democrats didn't move aside, we wouldn't have empty seats and could block this thing. I know it's about the big, beautiful bill, but I don't really know what Jim's talking about. But let me let me kind of give you my take to the extent that I understand this. What do I stand for?

I stand for accountability, transparency and policies that expand opportunity while protecting rights. That that's what I stand for. OK. My core audience knows I've never been a Democrat. Often it's Democrats that are the better choice and I'll vote for them when they are. I criticize Republicans when they overstep. I criticize Democrats when they over underperform.

My establishment, Bonafides, amount to I've been doing a show for two decades. If the fact that I've been doing a show for two decades and now have over six and a half million followers across all platforms, if that grants me access, then that's why I've been granted access, because I've earned it based on doing this. It's not about placating power. Now, as far as the whole move aside thing, you know, you've got to come to me and tell me about a specific person that you're talking about. There are procedures, there are rules, there's internal politics,

there's primaries. If seats are empty, that can happen in different scenarios. As far as that goes, I don't really know what Jim's talking about, but I hope I've made clear kind of where I stand. Hieronymus wrote on Spotify, the reason corporate media is refusing to report on Trump's cognitive decline is because they are terrified. He will either sue them to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, just ask ABC and CBS, or he will sick his FCC on them to potentially revoke their broadcasting license. This is a very good comment.

Hieronymus is tapping into a real fear. It's an authoritarian environment that causes this. Trump's legal threats and Trump's regulatory powers intimidate outlets into silence. And I believe there is validity there because Trump has targeted all sorts of networks and publishers. And if they start going after Trump and saying we need answers about the cognitive decline, they will probably get targeted to. Now, the bigger story is why are outlets self censoring?

Is it just that fear? Part of it is a risk assessment. Maybe we under report on it instead of facing a billion dollar lawsuit. At the same time, if you believe that serious reporting about that issue could diminish Trump's power and make it harder for him to manufacture consent around, for example, suing media outlets, then you would be well positioned to do it and say, hey, I might actually be protecting myself by covering such a story. Gogol Devon said, how do I get through to my MAGA family members? My father in law is under the impression that the bill only kicks immigrants off of Medicaid, illegal immigrants off of Medicaid.

He refuses to accept that he may be wrong. I'm afraid he's beyond help. But what would you do? Well, here's the thing. It's heartbreaking, but it's familiar. Your father in law may be beyond help. It's possible. Not everybody is is savable.

He may be trapped in an echo chamber where facts and reality, you know, bend to deeply held beliefs. You cannot force someone to see the truth if they've already decided they don't care. So if you go and show your father in law charts, I just don't think it's going to make a difference. Now, what you can do is maybe to shift from here are the facts. I'm going to beat you over the head with them to tell me why you believe this. Use a genuine curiosity sort of wrapped up with a Socratic method of questioning.

Create a conversation. Why do you believe this? Who did you hear that from? Most people agree. No one wants fraud. Most people agree. Seniors deserve health care. Frame these conversations around areas where there is agreement and then use the questions. How did you learn that? Where did you hear that? All right. Shay wrote in and

said, David, no joke, but you should seriously leave. Why even bother to find out if ICE or DHS target you? Do you really want to take a chance on going to El Salvador or somewhere else? You have a family and a child. I wouldn't even entertain the possibility of this happening. They are literally building the camps and literally telling you guys is going to happen. I wouldn't chance it. Leave while you freely still can. Your family is more important than the risk.

Much love. What do you think? I'm a citizen here. Naturalized. Yes, but I am a citizen. Do you believe that I am in an imminently risky situation to the degree that Shay is pointing out? Let me know by emailing info at David Pakman dot com.

And of course, leave a comment on the sub stack sub stack dot David Pakman dot com. We've got a great bonus show for you today. Sign up at join Pakman dot com to get yourself a membership or to gift a membership to one of the three thousand people currently waiting for a gift membership. If you would like a free membership, go to David Pakman dot com slash free membership register and you will get memberships for free in the order that you register. And finally, remember to get on my Substack. Substack.DavidPackman.com.

We'll see you on the bonus show. Have a great weekend.