The David Pakman Show - 7/3/25: Triggered Trump tantrums while Republicans admit he owns them

Episode Date: July 3, 2025

-- On the Show: -- Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat from Massachusetts, joins David and Jesse Dollemore to discuss her opposition to Trump's "big beautiful bill" -- Republican leaders openly say they're supporting bad legislation solely because Trump tells them to -- Republicans privately criticize Trump but publicly enable him out of fear -- JD Vance once warned Trumpism would collapse when voters felt the pain of failed promises -- CNN attempts to create false equivalence by pressuring Democrats to offer praise for Trump’s spending bill -- Trump launches misleading boasts and personal attacks on Truth Social instead of defending his policies -- State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce’s religious-style praise for Trump highlights the cult-like devotion around him -- New reports show independent creators like David and Brian Tyler Cohen are now key news sources -- On the Bonus Show: Nancy Mace's pajama stunt, judge strikes down Trump's attempt to suspend asylum status, Denmark lets people copyright their features, and much more... 🍓 Strawberry.me: Get a $50 credit when you sign up for coaching at https://strawberry.me/pakman ⚠️ Ground News: Get 40% OFF their unlimited access Vantage plan at https://ground.news/pakman 🎙️ PLAUD AI: Use code PAKMAN for 10% off at https://davidpakman.com/plaud 💻 Sponsored by Aura: Try it free for 2 weeks! See if your data is safe at https://aura.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. We talked yesterday about really the sort of inevitability that if Republicans want to pass this tax bill, they are going to pass this tax bill. And as happened in the Senate, my expectation over on the House side where the bill finds itself back today is that there will be goodies and amendments and modifications handed out to the critical Republicans until such time that they get the votes that they need. From a strategic perspective, the best we can do is can we get some good stuff into the bill and can we get some of the worst stuff out of the bill? But I believe that the bill is ultimately

going to pass. There's this idea that's pushed to a great degree by MAGA media that the reason that the Republicans are ultimately going to do what Trump wants, that the reason that Trump leads the Republican Party is because he's a strong, bold, intelligent deal making businessman. But a lot of that right fill in the blanks with whatever words you want. But it's some version of that. But what we actually are seeing over and over and over again is something that's way more pathetic, which is that Trump owns them and they are afraid of Donald Trump.

That's actually what the evidence shows. It's not that Trump is a clever political chess master. It's not that Trump meets with the Republicans and explains to them, oh, you're misunderstanding the economic principles at play. And let me explain to you supply and demand that. I know you didn't think that that was the case. But what it actually comes down to is we will do what Trump wants in some shape or form,

even if it's nonsense, because we're afraid and because it's what Trump wants. So that is the case that I'm going to make to you here, because over the last 24 hours, we have three, four examples of this that we can look at. That's the whole explanation. There's no over the last 24 hours, a number of Republicans have gone and met with Trump, went in skeptical about the bill and came out saying, I think the bill is going to be good. The whole explanation is Trump owns them.

There was no new data presented in these private meetings with Donald Trump or phone calls. There's been no revised analysis from the Congressional Budget Office or economists. There have been no improvements to the actual policy. Here's an example. Congressman Ralph Norman appears on CNBC and he is asked, it seems like you were persuaded by talking to Trump. What is it that's going on here? And Ralph Norman goes, he's going to do some stuff for me by executive order. That's all it took.

Take a listen to this. So what I don't understand is you had a view that was negative about this bill yesterday. Is there something different about the bill today? Yeah, it is. We met with President Trump and, you know, he. What's different about the bill from yesterday to today? Well, we met with Trump, did a master job of laying out how we could improve it, how he could use his chief executive office, use things to make the bill better. So there's going to be, so there are big distinctions between, I guess what I'm trying to understand is the bill that was sent from the Senate back to you is fundamentally different from

yesterday to today? Because then the Senate would have to... It's fundamentally different and... No, it's... We accepted the bill as is. What's different is President Trump is going to use his powers to, like on the subsidies, to make sure that it's... a lot of these subsidies won't remain in effect, you know, from here on out. If you're listening for the philosophical, economic, technical, logistical, moral changes that made Ralph Norman go, ah, here was my interpretation yesterday. Here is my new interpretation today.

You're not going to get it because the translation is the bill's bad. We're going to pass it anyway because Trump says that we should and he's going to sign some executive orders for us a little bit later, which, by the way, isn't how the law is supposed to work. I don't even want to get derailed on that. But this is not the way that we are supposed to be making law in the United States. When you are in a cult, the facts never matter. The dear leader said it's fine.

The dear dear leader said he's going to get you some goodies. And that's all you need to know on the question of growth and the idea that this is a bill that is going to generate economic growth. That also came up. Let's listen to another clip. It sounds to me in some way that you were saying that the president persuaded you by saying that he is going to to some degree override some of the provisions in the bill. Is that right?

No, he's not going to override it. He's going to he's going to on the permitting. He's going to drive a hard bargain on the permitting. He's going to have accountability is the best way to describe it. And he assured us he was going to do that. And I think some executive orders you'll see come down the pipe, which will be good. My concerns about the bad things in the bill. We're not actually dealt with. They're going to still be bad, but Trump will pass some executive orders.

Wow. What a brave philosophical consideration. Now, here's an interview between it's also on CNBC between Andrew Ross Sorkin and Congressman Tom Emmer. And Tom Emmer was asked, you know, these growth numbers about how this bill is just going to stimulate so much growth, actual economists, serious analyses of the bill, they don't show, they don't conclude that the bill is going to generate this growth. How did you get that number?

And Tom Emmer goes, oh, Trump, Trump, just Trump told me the number. Why are we currently not getting two point eight percent growth today with the assumption if the CBO is at one point eight and the administration's at two point eight. And part of what we're talking about here is extending the tax cuts that are already in place. And yes, you're gonna capture no tax on tips, and maybe that'll drive some of this, but what is gonna get you to the 2.8 number? Donald Trump.

Donald Trump in this legislation. Keep in mind, we've had four years of disaster under Joe Biden. Donald Trump has only had a little less than six months to try and fix this thing. And already you've seen enormous changes in the CBO, by the way, one point eight percent growth is what they projected over the next 10 years. This country has never had less than two percent growth in any 10 year period. So be careful of the numbers that these insiders put out, because bottom line is, we've seen

it all throughout history. Now understand that the CBO is only a group of insiders who can't be trusted when their conclusions and their analyses are inconvenient to Republicans. When the CBO comes up with something Republicans like, there is no better and less biased entity that could be analyzing the bill. But you really need to understand how to listen to what these people are saying. There is no actual plan. There is no actual model that says growth is going to explode thanks to this bill.

There's no investment strategy. It's that Trump said the bill will generate huge growth. And so Republicans have to come and say the bill is going to generate huge growth, even if there is no such analysis. What calculation leads you to believe that there is going to be growth that the CBO doesn't believe there will be? Well, we've had growth in this country in the past. We always have growth over 10 year periods that's above two percent. Now understand that even if you want to rely on that historical metric, two percent is much closer to one point eight than it is to two point eight.

And so even if you say to Emma, hey, you know what, Tom, you're right. We've always had 10 year periods in this country where on average we end up getting 2 percent growth. That's pretty close to what the CBO is saying. The CBO would have to be only off by a little bit to make you correct. Trump has to convince us that the CBO is off by a lot to get to his number of 2.8 percent growth. Anyway, the point here is the numbers don't really matter so much as this is worship.

This is worship of a cult leader. And the dangerous part is that they are now just acknowledging the policy doesn't matter. They don't need a way to justify economically what they claim is going to happen. They don't need a way to justify logistically what they believe is going to happen. The economic models don't happen. Don't matter. What matters is Trump wants it. We are watching a major political party, not just influenced by Trump, but reduced by Trump. Their autonomy and sovereignty as a party and as lawmakers has been taken by Trump because they're not even really legislators anymore. They I'm so sorry.

Trump's cucking them. I am so sorry to use the word that some consider to be in poor taste. When Trump says abandon your views, I'm going to tell you what to believe, what to say and what to do. Forget the math. Forget logic. Forget economic basics. They proudly do it.

They go, I met with Trump and he told me that this is what's going to happen. So at this point, Republican governance is sort of like you have you have a magic eight ball and the answer is always whatever Trump says. That's it. Doesn't matter what the bill is. Doesn't matter if the numbers add up. Doesn't matter if they believe the opposite yesterday. The man has spoken and so they are going to obey.

And the bigger part of it is the the impetus is that they're terrified. And that's where I want to go next. Can anybody explain this to me? This one's going to piss some people off. OK, if you're still pretending that the Republican Party is full of courageous patriots who simply have disagreements on policy with us, sometimes with Trump, whoever, then you got to watch this and wake up and understand that fear is the primary emotion and consideration right now on MSNBC.

Congressman Boyle, I forget his first. Brendan Boyle, Democratic Congressman Brendan Boyle, was interviewed. And he said on MSNBC the same damn thing that every lawmaker is telling me when I talk to them, which is that a lot of these Republicans, they don't believe what Donald Trump says is going to happen to the economy. If the bill passes, they believe what the CBO says. They believe what economists say. What Doyle Boyle argues here is many Republicans know the truth, but they're afraid to say it because they are afraid of what Trump will do to them.

Take a listen. I really wish that what some Republicans say in private could become public because it's always, you know, in a whispered hushed tones. I don't agree with Donald Trump. I don't think this is good legislation. I'm concerned about deficit and debt. But then they always look around and say, shh, don't tell anyone that I said that.

The reality is so many of my Republican colleagues are deathly afraid of Donald Trump. Just yesterday, or I'm losing track of what day it is now, but maybe about 36 hours ago, there was a markup in the rules committee and you had a couple of self-described fiscal hawks on the Republican side vote against this legislation because of its massive increase in the deficit and debt. Well, now here they are about to vote for the bill, even though not one word of the bill has changed. They're afraid. That's what this is really about. And we hear this from every Democratic member of the House or Senate that we talk to.

Here's my interview from days ago with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who told us the exact same thing. Can you explain the behind the scenes of are there colleagues of yours in the Senate on the Republican side who come to you and privately say, listen, subsidies for coal? This doesn't make sense. But look at the position I'm in. I mean, do do do they acknowledge the absurdity of some of this? Yeah, I'll say two things. One of them, they're just scared shitless of Trump. Is that what it is? Yes. At least summer Kowski said it. She set it up in Alaska. She's one of the bolder ones, you know, the ones who are more able. So this is not a new story. We have heard for years now that behind closed doors,

Republicans think Trump's reckless and dangerous. He might even be unfit. But in public, they turn into these little bobbleheads where they just. Yes, sir. No, sir. Three bags full, sir. This is not virtuous. This is a pathetic reality. And it's really a profile, not in courage. It's a profile in cowardice. They're not being strategic. They're not protecting the country. They're not waiting for the right moment to say we've come so far, but we're not going any further. They are cowards who know Trump is a threat, but they're too spineless to say it when it counts and they're too spineless to vote that way when it really makes a difference.

Now, the thing about governing by fear is that it only works for as long as everybody plays along. If you actually had 10 of them that said this man, Trump, is a criminally negligent demagogue who understands nothing about basic economics. I am done enabling it. If 10 of them got together and did that, they would shift the dynamic. But there's sort of a game theory prisoners dilemma equation here. Look that up if it's an unfamiliar term to you.

But there is a prisoner's dilemma sort of thing here where because those 10 or however many are thinking this aren't sure that the other nine would go for it. They don't want the risk of putting themselves out there in that way because they might lose their seat. They might get mean tweets. Trump turns against them, encourages primary campaigns. They end up with a nickname like, you know, little Marco or whatever. And so instead, what happens is that Trump wins by default, not because they love him, not because they respect his views, but because they're terrified of him. And so we now find ourselves in a situation where a former president can be convicted

of felonies, get himself elected as president again, despite that float everything from suspending habeas corpus, you know, muse about authoritarian crackdowns, go after the media, ignore law and order. And the only thing Republican officials can say is, I don't like it, but please don't quote me. Don't don't say I'm only telling this to you off the record. And that gets us to sort of like the big issue here. If you're afraid of the guy that you're supporting, maybe you shouldn't be supporting him. And the irony is that the moment Trump starts to fall and at some point he's going

to write the very same people that have been whispering, I don't like it, but please don't don't help me. They will they will all of a sudden go, I had concerns all along. I didn't think this made sense all along. They have a platform. They're choosing silence. And Trump's rude awakening isn't going to come in the way we would want because he has nothing left to run for. And so these really are some of the biggest cowards that we have encountered in politics. You know, you got to say something about the Tea Party people in 2010.

I disagreed vehemently with their political views, but they were at least willing to say, hey, I have different views at this point than the bulk of the Republican Party. We might win. We might lose. Some did win, some did lose. But they were at least willing to say this is what I believe and this is what I'm going to say publicly. This flavor, this brand of Republicans that we have right now, pathetic cowards. So we're going to keep telling the truth about

what's going on. Make sure you're subscribed on the YouTube channel. Make sure you're signed up for my sub stack newsletter. Now the 12th most quickly growing political newsletter in the country. 12th. Can you imagine thousands? That's thanks to you. Go to sub stack dot David Pakman dot com. It's free. some They can help. This is not therapy. This is not bogus generic advice. These are certified trained professionals who work with you to create a personalized plan that aligns with your goals and your values. You can clarify your challenges, build a strategy, and maybe most importantly, they'll hold you

accountable every step of the way. So if you're ready for the next step, visit strawberry dot me slash Pacman. There's a short quiz. It'll match you with the next step. Visit strawberry.me slash Pacman. There's a short quiz. It'll match you with the right coach. Sessions are virtual, flexible and also designed to work with your schedule. So stop guessing and start growing. Go to strawberry.me slash Pacman to get started. And the link is in the description.

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. is David Pakman. Well, the good news is that there is finally some recognition for progressive independent media. Later, we'll talk about a new Columbia Journalism Review piece that cites the David Pakman show and Brian Tyler Cohen as rapidly growing voices on the independent left. That's the good news. The good news is the audiences are growing. The good slash risky part is that since we don't have the funding apparatus of the right

wing, we actually do depend on our audience to fund the work that we do. And so I invite you to get yourself a membership at Join Pakman dot com. You'll get the daily bonus show commercial free audio and video feeds of the show and so much more. That's website membership at join Pakman dot com. We also on the writing rather than the audio visual side have a daily newsletter and there is a premium version of that newsletter on the substack side. This is separate.

This is two different things. You can pick which one you like best or subscribe to both. You can find the substack at substack dot David Pakman dot com. If you're subscribed to one, I would love for you to subscribe to both. And both are really direct ways to support the work that we do. This you have to see. J.D. Vance, the current vice president, predicted the demise of Donald Trump eight years ago. This is a very different looking J.D. Vance, a much younger looking J.D. Vance.

There are other differences here as well, which may be less politically correct for me to comment on. But this is J.D. Vance. And here he is predicting, predicting the downfall pre eyeliner. J.D. Vance, take a listen. And as we've been talking about, this is not just a policy problem. There's obviously a significant issue of folks potentially losing access to their health care.

But if you think of the political problem, you know, folks have always asked, what is it that's going to drive Donald Trump's voters away from him? Well, losing their health care may actually be the answer to that question. Wow. And unfortunately, the Republicans, who I think have been very smart and frankly correct in the fact that Obamacare hasn't solved a lot of the core problems of the American health care market, now own the problem. They're going to learn very quickly unless they craft a better bill, that it's not just

enough to critique the bill that has failed in the past. You have to actually offer a better alternative and we're going to see if the Senate is able to actually put forward that alternative. Democrats have. So listen, that was years ago. That was not coming from from some, you know, left wing bomb thrower. That was not Democratic messaging. That's the guy who is now Trump's vice president.

And it is the guy who may potentially also bear some of the brunt of people losing their health care under this bill that is currently under consideration. And the thing is, in a sense, J.D. Vance was right. One of the few things that can cut through political loyalty is personal pain. So you can show up with the flags on your boat. You can chant the slogans. You can rage at immigrants or at Harvard. But when people start losing their health care, when their parents can't get prescriptions, when the medical debt piles up, it hits, it gets real and they want someone to blame. The thing is, and I know many of you know where I'm going with this. The thing is, a lot of American voters have a penchant for blaming the wrong entity.

Obamacare passes, includes an optional Medicaid expansion. Their Republican governor says, I don't want to do the expansion. They go, well, why did Obama do this to me? And then they vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 rather than Barack Obama. So J.D. Vance is absolutely correct. But it only works if the blame is placed correctly. Now it's also stunning how far we've kind of drifted since J.D. Vance seven years ago. Vance knew in 2017 that Trump's policies might end up alienating his base.

You fast forward to now. The Republican Party's gone all in on loyalty. Economics don't matter. Analyses don't matter. Trump can gut benefits and push corporate tax breaks and tank basic services, lay off government employees and the whole thing. And his voters mostly will just cheer it for now. Now the irony is that J.D. Vance wasn't just predicting a moment.

He was predicting the unsustainability bigger picture of Trump ism, because at some point you do run out of scapegoats. You run out of excuses. People start noticing my life, my our lives, my life has not improved. And in some senses, they've gotten worse. If jobs don't come back or factories don't reopen or the health care doesn't get cheaper, right, as the promises all fail, people realize they've been duped. But to the extent that the Republican Party can shift the blame to Democrats and go, oh, you

didn't get anything from my tax bill. Well, that was Joe Biden's fault. For example, Trump's in power. He's still trying to blame Biden. And so the question is, who is going to get blamed? This term is Trump's last. And so in a sense, the idea that it's going to end Trump if he takes health care from people, it's now actually J.D. Vance, who is more at risk.

Can J.D. Vance remain a potential heir apparent in MAGA? Or is the con and the grift and the personality cult going to fail? J.D. Vance as Donald Trump's presidency ends. So I don't think the goal here is really to wait out Trump. The goal has to be to end MAGA because Trump's going to go. And so this is not just about the man anymore. This is the hollow ideology that came with it. And if it's effective, why wouldn't J.D. Vance try to take it and run with it in twenty twenty

eight? The faux populism, the rage and grievance politics, the deflection from real issues and actual economic analyses. Trump's done after this term that's baked in. The question is, can the rest of us make sure that the MAGA movement dies with the end of Trump's presidency? Not just fades, not it's modified 10 percent by J.D. Vance, who then picks it up. But it has to be exposed and discredited so thoroughly that people don't ever fall for

this again. Funny enough, J.D. Vance saw it coming before he sold out to Donald Trump. You've got to see what CNN did. Sometimes it's not the Republicans who are bending over backwards to try to say nice things about Donald Trump. Sometimes it's legacy and corporate media. And this clip is a perfect example of that. Here is a CNN interview.

Here's John Berman interviewing Congressman Lloyd Doggett. Lloyd Doggett is on the Budget Committee. And despite the disaster that just about every aspect of this tax bill is, John Berman really wanted Doggett to say something nice. Every aspect of this tax bill is John Berman really wanted. Dog it to say something nice. Can you say a little something nice about the bill? Take a listen this morning. So Russ vote from the White House said that there are a number of things in this bill

that he believes are very popular. Some of those would include, I imagine, you know, a reduction of taxes on tips or reduction on taxes for seniors on Social Security, an increase of the child tax credit. How do you feel about those measures? Well, I think the Senate accomplished a near impossible task. They took an ugly bill and they made it even uglier. So I'm concerned about the 17 million Americans who lose their access to a family physician, the 17% increase in energy costs that we will have, and the largest cut in food assistance, as well as the fact that after they do all that, they leave us with trillions of dollars of new debt. These little

flourishes that were added, like no tax on tips, are issues that are designed to cover the horrible job that they're doing. And I think you need look no further than the comments of some of the Republican senators. Senator Telus calling it a betrayal by Donald Trump. Lisa Murkowski saying that this bill's not ready for prime time and the House should make more changes in it. And of course, their buddy Elon Musk condemning it as the largest increase in our nation's debt in history. So the increase in the debt is one thing. The question of whether or not it will benefit

some say in the middle class is another. What benefits do you think would be accrued by the middle class in this bill? Very little compared to the cost of this bill. I love that. You know, CNN, CNN is doing that thing again. They're trying to find the both sides narrative that they can push. And this is a situation where objectively one side is pushing a dumpster fire of a bill down the street and the other side is saying this is terrible for the country.

And CNN is like, well, doesn't it do some nice things? Can't can't you say something positive about Donald Trump's bill? You know, sure, the legislation legislation was rushed. It blows up the deficit. It has corporate giveaways. It mostly benefits the one percent. But isn't there something here that sparkles like a ginger snap and a rainbow, Congressman, that you could just praise in order to be nice to Trump?

This is the desperate pursuit of balance in a world where the imbalance really should be the story. The bill is garbage. Even Republicans are admitting, as we looked at earlier in the show, we changed our minds because we met with Trump and he strong armed us. We changed our minds because we're afraid of Donald Trump. That's what this is really about. And CNN is trying to manufacture the illusion of consensus and that there's good things

in this bill for everybody. And if they can get a Democrat to say something vaguely positive, then all of a sudden it's a debate instead of, hey, this is a reckless, unvetted disaster of a bill that Trump is strong arming his way through. So I wouldn't just call this bad journalism. As I've talked before, there's neutrality and there's objectivity. John Berman, right. He cannot take a position on the bill, meaning he is neutral in terms of his public presence on it. But he should be able to be objective and to say, hey, the vast majority of the benefits accrue to the one percent in corporations. Trump said he would decrease the deficit.

But the nonpartisan analyses of the bill say it will increase the deficit. And by the way, Medicaid is going to be cut. The paperwork requirements are going to kick people off. Rural hospitals with close will close. That's being objective. And Berman can go, I'm not taking a position. Maybe you like that. Maybe you don't.

But that's what it does. Lloyd Doggett didn't take the bait. And that's good because the job of Democrats right now shouldn't be to pretend that Donald Trump's disaster of a bill has redeeming qualities. It should be to just say it's a disaster, plain and simple. And this all set Trump for a loop. Donald Trump went all night long again. Lionel Richie would be proud, wouldn't he? When Donald Trump doesn't get his way,

he stays up all night rage posting, you know, where truth central. That's right, the truth social. Let's start with Trump making up border statistics and then we'll get into the analysis as the unhinged meltdown continued overnight. Trump posting, quote, Congratulations, America. The June border statistics are in. And once again, they are the lowest recorded numbers in U.S. history. The Border Patrol reported zero releases of illegal aliens into the country. In addition, Customs and Border Protection only had twenty five thousand two hundred forty three nationwide nationwide encounters throughout the whole month, which is absolutely staggering considering the Biden administration was encountering tens of thousands of people every single day.

America's borders are safe and secure and the entire world knows it. All we need to do is keep it this way, which is exactly why Republicans need to pass the one big, beautiful bill. We still have radical left judges trying to open the border and defy the Supreme Court, which is why Republicans must be smart, strong and never let these crazed judges turn us into a third world country. The men and women of Border Patrol, ICE and CBP are doing an amazing job, but they need their

accounting on Republicans to get it done. So just lies. OK, CBP. These were not the record low numbers from Customs and Border Protection. We saw much lower monthly figures in the early 2000s and before some of them under Obama, just making it up. Also important to note that the context really matters here. And the numbers dropped after Donald Trump's Supreme Court backed asylum ban.

So once you limit who can claim asylum, it's not really a sign of success. It's a consequence of shutting a legal door. So it's extraordinarily misleading. And then the other thing is when he talks about nobody was released into the country, what he's talking about is border patrol direct releases. But the majority of these releases aren't from Border Patrol. It's ICE, as we talked about the mass roundups. But then a lot of the people are just released with a court date or HHS for unaccompanied minors in some cases. So it's all a distortion.

And when you actually have a zero release policy, the conditions that result are absolutely inhumane and unsustainable. So just lies all the way down. Trump continuing to attack Jamie Raskin. Congressman Jamie Raskin, a third rate Democrat politician, has no idea what is in our fantastic tax cut bill, nor would he understand that if he did, this dope has been consistently losing to me for years. And I love watching his ugly face as he is forced to consistently concede defeat to Trump. And tonight should be another of those nights. Raskin is a bad politician and a total loser.

OK, so first of all, there's no policy here. It's just a personal attack. But Trump seems to always go after the people whose intellect he's intimidated by. As many of you know, Congressman Raskin is a constitutional law professor, former impeachment manager. If there's anyone who understands the laws, Jamie Raskin, and to suggest that he wouldn't understand the bill is just hilarious. And of course, Trump offers no defense of the bill. It's just name calling.

When I see name calling, I see a pathetic bully. I don't see strength. OK, Trump continuing. The USA is on track to beat every record on growth. Go Republicans beat the crooked Dems tonight. Pro growth tax cuts never fail. Make America great again. So it's just lies.

And I know that this gets a lot of people. But as of this year, the US GDP growth is modest and slowing and went down in Q1. That's just those are the facts. Economic analyses of the bill don't say that the bill will generate great growth. They say it'll very much do the opposite. Trump continue in getting more agitated as we went through the night and it became clear the bill was not going to be passed overnight. Quote, largest tax cuts in history and a booming economy versus biggest tax increase in history and a failed economy. What are the Republicans waiting for?

What are you trying to prove? Magda is not happy and it's costing you votes. And then finally, frustration boiling over for Trump, who said for Republicans, this should be an easy yes vote. Ridiculous. When Trump doesn't get what he wants, he flips out and he tantrums like a little kid. But you've got to hand it to him. But you've got to hand it to him. He has them living in fear. And so how can we I criticize the strategy because I find it to be a pathetic and cowardly way of getting things done in politics.

But if you're Trump and you can make them afraid of you, at least in the short term, governing by fear can work in the long term. It's a disaster for the country, but I get why he's doing it melting down overnight. He doesn't like it when he doesn't get his way. Now, I do believe the bill will ultimately pass in some version of what Trump wants, but at least as far as last night goes on a bender as usual. All right. as far as last night goes on a bender as usual. It's one of the most impressive AI tools I've tried. Plod Note is a credit card sized AI gadget that sticks to the back of your phone. It'll record your calls and in-person meetings, transcribe them automatically, summarize,

and then even create visual mind maps so you can review the takeaways later without scrambling for notes. You can even talk to it and brainstorm ideas. that ready In my recent conversation with Senator Elizabeth Warren in Washington, D.C., we talked about the big, beautiful bill. We talked about how we should even be seeing such bills and what should the goals be. And it was a really great conversation. So let's check out my conversation alongside Jesse Dalamore with Senator Elizabeth Warren. All right.

We want to start by talking about the tax bill, the potential tax bill. It may be big. It may be beautiful. It may be, you know, we can add adjectives as necessary. What is your sense right now in terms of what it would take to put something together that makes sense for where the country is, for where the average person is, understanding everything from median income, debt, the responsibilities people have, what things cost, et cetera. In terms of what came to you, what do you want to see?

Okay, so let's start with you've got to stop this bill. Because this bill takes hardworking families and just moves them backwards. Because the bottom line on this bill is that it cuts healthcare, cuts assistance on food, drives up costs for middle class families, for working families, and gives all that money to a handful of billionaires and drives up the national debt. That is like saying to a middle class family, bam, bam, bam, three times over. So you wanna wind all that back.

And the key way I look at it, if you'd let me sit down and write mine from scratch, I'd start with two things. The first one would be, where can the government play a good role in helping all families have an opportunity to succeed, to build? I think that's government's role. Child care. We are 35th out of 37 richest nations in the world in terms of what we spend trying to help with child care. Families

are spending a third of their income if they have little babies and what that does is that keeps mamas and sometimes daddies at home. It means people are struggling. People have to take, they can't take jobs that have more responsibility because they can't stay late. You know how all this goes. So making a big investment in childcare would be making an investment not just in those babies, although it definitely would,

not just in those mamas who could go to work and strengthen their families, or dad to work and strengthen their families or daddies who could strengthen their families, not just in those child care workers who would start to see this as a professional job that could stay in, you could earn a living, but an investment in our entire economy. And the reason for that, I was just talking about this morning with Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Sometimes you borrow money, you take tax money, and you invest in things that will grow GDP because that ultimately makes us all richer.

So make that investment in childcare and you know what? It even makes folks like me who don't have little babies at home anymore, it makes all of us wealthier because it makes our nation wealthier. That'd be my number one. My number two would be housing so that more families have an opportunity to buy their housing so that rents are not so high, so there's housing for seniors, housing for people with disabilities. We at the federal level should be investing in that.

That helps grow America's middle class and make people more financially secure going forward and on into retirement. So those are my two biggies to get started. And where are the largest impediments, not necessarily a granular level, but obviously it's not just Donald Trump. Where are the impediments within the body that are putting up the most resistance to those things that most Americans

absolutely fundamentally agree with? Yeah, so you start exactly the right place. Dang, we're in a democracy. How come those two things haven't happened, girl? Because after all, if you do any of the polling or just shoot, go out on the street and talk to people. Most Americans are behind that, Democrats or Republicans. The answer is Republicans in Congress. Their view is they are here for their donors, big time donors. And that means it's about tax cuts for the wealthy.

It's about sometimes you can get a little something going, investments in roads and bridges because we've got some contractors that are gonna work on that, although not always. But boy, investments in families, no. In fact, back to the bill that is on the floor now, right now, the one we're working on, what does it do? It takes away healthcare from 16 million Americans.

In a democracy, I mean, just stop and think about that. How does an elected representative say, hi I know all you guys been getting your health care and we've been helping subsidize it so you can get this health care. Old people in nursing homes who don't have any savings and don't have anywhere else to go and can't work. People with disabilities, people who need that wheelchair, that home health aid, those folks, that's how they get to live independently and don't get put in an institution. And those little tiny babies,

the ones when they're born that run up a million dollars in medical bills before they ever make the first trip home. The Republicans are saying, cut money to those folks. Why? So that we can give billionaires a bunch of money. That's just not who we are as a country, and it's not how we strengthen our democracy going forward. Right now, I can no more get a Republican on a sound bill or even a pretend bill around childcare. They don't even want to be seen

as people who try to help us support our families with babies and support our economy. So this is a real, I get it, not everybody wants to play politics all the time, but I'm telling you, the difference between Democrats and Republicans on this one is night and day. You said, you know, if you could draw it up from the beginning, the way that you would do it,

if you could draw it up from the beginning, what would you want the top tax rate to be? And anticipating you may not give me a number, because I don't always get a number when I ask this question, why won't you give us a number? And why is it a common thing that when I talk to folks, if you could just build it from the ground up. Okay, so first I'm gonna tell you why

I don't give you a number, nobody gives you a number. Nobody wants to give away the negotiation point. Because, you know, people really do listen to these podcasts. And at the end of the day, you don't want somebody somebody's like you've already said you'd go for you know 14 why on earth should I be believing you when you say you need 16? But here's the pitch I would be. You know what I want even more than a particular number. It's I want to stop the business of all the loopholes so that there are people who don't

care what the top number is. I was reading a thing not long ago, in fact, an interview with a billionaire who said, who cares what the top number is? I'm not paying it. They're paying nothing. Jeff Bezos. Go Jeff Bezos. He pays a tax rate lower than a Boston public school teacher.

And they can do that because it turns out when you have a bazillion dollars, you don't actually need to earn a paycheck, you can simply borrow money against your bazillion, you know this, watch your bazillion continue to grow, no taxable event. Right. And then at death, the bazillion even as it has grown into a mega mega bazillion passes to your heirs at that new level and no one ever pays taxes on it. So here

we have you know little family farms, They go to pay taxes when things pass. Folks who have a really nice house got it paid off, pay taxes when it goes to the grandchildren, but not Jeff Bezos. What happened to Mark Zuckerberg, not Elon Musk? That's the stuff I want to fix in our tax system. So what can we do? What could we do?

What can you do, someone in power? What can regular folks do? From a messaging standpoint of convincing their aunts and their uncles and their kids and their families and their acquaintances and their pastor, people, what can we do better to message on this? I like that question. For me, taxes- I'm known for super good questions. You are, super good. You should do that for a living. Yeah. I think that the whole heart of this is to remind everybody,

a budget, taxes is not, you know, please. A budget is a statement of values. That's all it ultimately is. Don't tell me who you love and who you don't love. Let me see your budget. Let me see who's getting the money and who isn't getting the money. And so for me, it's to always link those together and to ask people, do you believe that millions of little babies ought to have to give up health care so that Jeff Bezos can buy a third yacht. Do you believe that your neighbor who counts on home health aid to be

able to live independently ought to give that up so that Mark Zuckerberg can buy a second Hawaiian island? Do you believe that old people ought to be kicked out of nursing homes so that Elon Musk can take a rocket ship ride to Mars? And I say it that way because those are the choices. And you know, I just picked a part of it, but that is exactly what the bill right now is all about. It's about the bill right now in front of us on the table, and it's about the whole direction that Trump and the Republicans keep pushing our tax system. We've got to face this question,

who do you think government should work for? Do you think it should work only for that handful who can make the contribution so they get invited to sit in the front row at the inauguration? Or do you think we ought to be making the investments, childcare, housing, so that this country works and it's not that everybody's guaranteed success, but everybody gets a shot. Everybody's telling me we have to wrap. Absolute last thing, when you do the CNBC and you mix it up with them, which I love,

do you like doing it or is it just like an exercise in frustration? Oh, I love doing it. You do like it? Yeah, totally, totally. Partly because sometimes the questions are really good and partly because the questions give me an insight into what they're talking about all day long. And so I'm not only going to talk with these guys, I want to talk to the guys who listen to these guys and a chance to do that.

I think it's important. I enjoy it. Thank you so much. Really great to see you. Thank you so much. Really great to see you. Thank you. Appreciate your time. You bet. Thanks. 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 will let you know with real time alerts if any of your personal information has been I'm 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 that's always

available and up to five million dollars in identity theft insurance. If the worst were to happen, one app does the work of several. And for me, it's worth it for the peace of mind for my family and for myself. You can try or a for free for 14 days at aura dot com slash. This is what it looks like when you have left the real world and you have entered the world of cults. I am, of course, talking about Tammy Bruce. Tammy Bruce is the State Department spokeswoman and she is really challenging Caroline Levitt. She challenges the legacy of Kayleigh Maganani.

She challenges and she challenges North Korean propaganda anchors. This is the kind of rhetoric that really marks the total collapse of honest political discourse. She delivers a stream of authoritarian devotion so intense that it would sound a little ridiculous even in an actual dictatorship. She thanks God quite literally. Thanks God for Donald Trump. Let's it. You know, I don't know how tuned your lie detector is, but mine was just beeping like

crazy when I watched this. What I think we all have noticed and this this is not giving away anything, is that the Middle East changed a couple of weeks ago, very dramatically. It changed forever. And the work of the president of the United States, thank God for him, is going to make sure that this is not a lost opportunity. We can say this simply by having watched him most of his adult life in some capacity, but certainly with what he's given up and sacrificed to be the leader of this country.

So the Middle East changed dramatically. This is an opportunity in the midst of this new world to make a different kind of decision. He is optimistic. The president is very honest. Sometimes he's pessimistic, and he'll let people know it's it's again, he's a transparent man, which sometimes can be unusual. We're not used to always hearing it, but it's extremely helpful. So while I don't know the detail of what makes him optimistic, I know to trust him. I don't really know any of the facts on which Donald Trump has come to conclusions. But what I know is,

since I thank God that Trump is president, I know to trust anything he says and anything he does. It's a bizarre mashup of 1984. Jonestown and North Korea is the way I would I would put it. This is not normal political support. This is the language of submission and of cults and of unquestioning loyalty. It's also historically familiar. This is the part that really is is terrifying when public figures start saying we must never second guess the leader. Tammy, tell us what

are the sort of analyses on which Trump has? I don't know any of them, but I know that I thank God for Trump and I trust anything he says. That's the language of cults and of authoritarianism. And when you look at history, it's terrifying. Where else you saw this level of performative devotion? Right. We don't know whether Tammy Bruce genuinely believes this crap, but at least that's what

she's willing to say. You are in a personality cult when this is how you talk. And it really echoes the forced reverence that we've seen in totalitarian regimes. And it's not because Trump's a totalitarian genius, but because his enablers speak about him in terms that strip away accountability and elevate Trump to a pseudo deity, untouchable type of figure. And they wrap it in religious language. Not all totalitarian authoritarian dictatorial regimes wrap up the leader as a pseudo religious figure. But the thank God for Donald Trump.

This is messianic framing. It's not enough that he's president. It's not enough that she trusts anything he says or does. He is divine. And the implication is very clear. If you oppose a divine deity type figure, it's not a political disagreement. It's blasphemy. It's blasphemy.

Then one more. Tammy Bruce clip serves up an epic word salad about Russia, Ukraine. Just take a listen to this. I'm talking about the president from the get go. I made it clear that he's an American first for policy objective. It comes to Russia-Ukraine war is to end the killing. And these are defensive weapons that Ukraine used for that very reason, to end the killing

of Ukrainians by the Russians. How do you square that circle? Well it is, it's not, one doesn't need to complete the circle or square it. Our commitment hasn't changed. The nature of how we're able to make that commitment is going to be based on what is best for America first. It is the president's point of view, his guiding hand about the nature of what needs to occur. And it is certainly two nations at war. And America has made a huge difference in that regard. And the president still has worked to have

people at the table that this can only be solved diplomatically. That, of course, is the State Department's wheelhouse. And that that's what he wants. He has made several remarks returning to this now with the Israel Iran situation at least managed. And this is not something that the president is not not addressing. It is clearly on our plate all the time.

There you go. It's not something he's not addressing and he knows what he's doing and he gets his ideas. There is no serious analysis here and no policy rationale and no debate over outcomes. It's just obedience and linguistic gymnastics. Now I know that some of you, when we criticize the statements of people like Caroline Levin and Tammy Bruce at the end of the day, these are spokespeople. That's right. But they are spokespeople to give us the rationale for the policy.

That's the whole point. I know they're going to defend Trump, but it's not obligatory to defend Trump by making him a pseudo deity. It's not obligatory to defend Trump by saying, I don't know anything about the decision other than I trust everything he does. Give us Trump's rationale and we can then decide whether we accept it. But these linguistic trapeze artists things to justify anything Trump says or does, it's

the worst I've ever seen in the time I've been covering this. And again, this is how authoritarian movements function. They don't rely on arguments that are logically consistent. They rely on faith. So it's really more of a theology than it is a political philosophy. And if you're wondering how democracies slide into authoritarianism, sometimes it's jackboots and coups, but sometimes it's televised loyalty oaths dressed up as political commentary like Tammy Bruce.

Sometimes it's a pundit looking into the camera and saying, I know, never to second guess this man. I'm grateful to God that he's in charge. This time it's not a pundit. It's a State Department spokeswoman. So none of this is Democratic engagement. They have surrendered completely and they want us to be the worshippers on our knees for Trump. Not me, not me. All right.

Something big is happening here in the span of just a few weeks. Three major reports and analyses from the Columbia Journalism Review, from Reuters, from Pew Research Center have all landed on the same conclusion. Old media and the old media order is breaking down. And independent creators like me and Brian Tyler Cohen are no longer fringe alternatives. Now, you might be saying, yeah, David, you've been arguing that for years, right? But it is not just me saying it anymore. OK. And that's what matters here. The mainstream for a growing segment of get analysis that I value. The Columbia Journalism Review piece puts us on a short list with names like Joe Rogan

and Tucker Carlson, not ideologically, obviously, but in terms of influence. There was a Reuters report which found that Brian Tyler Cohen and I are the most frequently cited independent left voices who people say, yes, I did come across their content over the last week. And beyond that, there's this additional digital news report which also included us. Now, these are increasingly let me put it this way. This is affirming in the sense of what I'm doing, but it's also sobering. And there's an aspect of it that's terrifying. And I want to get to that in a moment. The reason that seeing Brian and seeing myself in these three reports is affirming is because I've tried to spend years building trust, staying independent, trying to offer something

real. You'll always know where I stand. I don't contrive opinions. I don't sanitize them. They're not corporate approved. I have no editors. I have no executive producers. We haven't focus grouped ourselves into oblivion.

And so it's affirming that that's a model that has become recognizable. It's sobering because this is a shift that raises some real questions. As I become someone that people are relying on, my sense of responsibility only goes up. And so my ethics make me say, what do I owe my audience? What are the limits of the trust that I've built? And the Pew report puts numbers to what many of us have been sensing, which is Democrats and Republicans don't just disagree on policy, they do disagree on reality.

They consume different news. They trust different sources. They live in parallel, rarely intersecting media ecosystems. The right has this closed circuit. Fox, Rogan, Daily Wire, Newsmax, Tucker. OK, on the left, it is far more fragmented. There's this patchwork that exists. Independent creators speak, I would argue, more directly and more authentically, more

relatably, which we will get to, but not united in the same way that the right is. And I think that that's a factor here as well. What these reports hint at when they say, hey, look, there is a growing population that actually wants the more direct seeming relationship with someone like me, Brian or whoever else. This is something that I think legacy media often misses for better or worse, which is the power of the parasocial relationship. I don't think people just watch the independent left wing shows or just listen to them. There is some sense that we all know each other and people are, you know, on their commute at the gym, on the elliptical, right, the elliptical.

And as they listen, as they watch, there is a level of connection that's created that I don't think is typical with like a CNN anchor or the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. Oh, the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal has endorsed this or that. All right. I don't even know who those people are. Never mind having any connection with them. And so I do think that the parasocial relationships that are developed through independent shows,

they are powerful in how they connect us to our audiences, but they're also potentially precarious. There's a double edged sword here. And as real as that parasocial appeal can be, it's why audiences grow. It can be why they stay. It's why people sometimes support this show financially. It's also something I think we have a responsibility to check ourselves with and make sure that we don't become captured by our audience.

The line can start to blur between audience and community and host and news reporter and the whole thing. And so I think it's important not to slip into a contrived personality or performance. We know that some do. I think I've done a relatively OK job at avoiding that. Now, this all brings us to the real questions that these reports raise about the growth of the independent space. If legacy media is giving away and we're sort of trying to help build what comes next, I

do think that it's important. And I apply this to myself and I think all independent creators should be saying these things to themselves. For example, what are the standards we hold ourselves to? Even if we don't have the executive producers and the lawyers and the editors breathing down our necks, what standards do we hold ourselves to? Are we being transparent about our biases and opinions or are we becoming versions of the ideological silos that we criticize when they are on corporate media?

When there is criticism of the show, when there is disagreement, am I engaging in good faith or am I feeding the algorithm by leaning into the outrage? I try to avoid, you know, the the personal battles with other creators and the outrage porn and this sort of thing. Am I fact checking as rigorously as I would expect a legacy or corporate media outlet to do? Given the resources that we have as independent creators. And then finally, if there is a slice of media consumer out there that trusts me more than they trust, fill in the blanks, right, whatever corporate outlet, what sort of responsibility does that place on my shoulders? And I don't really see this as a rhetorical exercise.

This is the terrain where we now are. Creators need to figure it out and audiences need to figure it out. And this digital news report really kind of seals the deal. Younger generations, especially 18 to 29, many have bypassed traditional news. Older viewers have come here from legacy and corporate media. A lot of the 18 to 29s were never there. They just came straight to YouTube, tick, tock, Tick Tock podcasts, et cetera. And I think that there's a huge opportunity here.

There's risk and there's responsibility. The line between here's some here's content and here's news and here's media. The line kind of starts to blur. And when the trust is placed in individuals, the other downside is that bad actors can do really well. Right. Andrew Tate, daily wire people. And so the question is less about whether independent media is the future.

It's going to be a part of the future, although I think legacy and corporate media are always going to be a part of the future, although I think legacy and corporate media are always going to be there. The question is, are we building a future that is going to persist as being a better alternative to the problems of corporate media? Because I don't want to end up recreating the same problems we criticize to begin with. So if you've been watching or listening for years, thank you. You have helped build this thing. If you're new here, welcome. I'm glad that you're here.

We are really in a transitional phase right now. And as some futurists say, when you're in the middle of a big change, it can sometimes be hard to notice it. But over the last 12 to 14 years, the change in the media and news landscape has been dramatic. So we continue to be in this turning point. We are a lot of the tougher work is starting now as the audiences grow to levels that start to become very, very interesting. So really cool reports.

Great to hear from so many folks who saw them. We've got a great bonus show for you today. We're going to talk about Nancy Mase's pajama stunt. We will talk about a federal judge striking down Donald Trump's order, suspending asylum access at the southern border. We're going to talk about how Denmark is tackling deep fakes by letting people copyright their face, essentially all of those stories and more on today's bonus show. All the bonus show where you want to make money.

Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. I also want to invite you to join my sub stack where I have done lives with Brian Tyler Cohen, Aaron Parnas doing one today with Midas Touch next week with Jessica Craven. I think we're going to do one with Carlos Eduardo Espina, a friend of mine. Get on the sub stack as well. Sub stack David Pakman dot com. See you on the bonus show. If you want to feel more connected to humanity and a little less alone, listen to beautiful anonymous each week. I take a phone call from one random anonymous human being. There's

over 400 episodes in our back catalog. You get to feel connected to all these different people all over the world. Recent episodes include one where a lady survived a murder attempt by her own son. But then the week before that, we just talked about Star Trek. It can be anything.

It's unpredictable, it's raw, it's real. Get Beautiful Anonymous wherever you listen to podcasts.