The David Pakman Show - Brutal economic news dumps as White House becomes UFC arena

Episode Date: May 28, 2026

-- On the Show: -- Tom Steyer, businessman, philanthropist, now running for Governor of California, joins us to discuss the campaign -- Fox News personalities and conservative commentators attack James Talarico with insults about masculinity, sexuality, and his personal life -- New GDP and income data undercuts repeated promises from Trump officials that the economy would soon reach explosive 6% growth -- Trump is overseeing major White House construction projects that have transformed the complex into a spectacle-driven branding operation -- Prosecutors open a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, in the latest example of Trump using his DOJ as a personal tool for revenge -- Donald Trump delivers rambling comments and appears confused during a cabinet meeting -- Gavin Newsom proposes a 100% California tax on payments tied to pardoned January 6 defendants connected to Donald Trump -- New polling shows Donald Trump performing worse than recent presidents during some of their most difficult political moments -- On the Bonus Show: Ex-judges want Trump's IRS case reopened, more Americans are going hungry now than during the pandemic, Trump appointees push for a $250 bill with his face on it, and much more.... 💳 PDS Debt: Get your free assessment & find the best option for you at https://pdsdebt.com/pakman 🤖 Sponsored by Venice: Use code PAKMAN for 20% off a Pro Account at https://venice.ai/pakman ✉️ StartMail: Get 50% OFF for a year subscription at https://startmail.com/pakman 🥐 Wildgrain: Use code DAVID for $30 off & free croissants FOR LIFE at https://wildgrain.com/david 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.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 (00:00) Start (01:32) Republicans are terrified of James Talarico (09:46) GDP data undercuts Trump's economic claims (15:19) Trump is tearing up the White House grounds (24:34) Trump DOJ investigates E. Jean Carroll (32:41) Trump rambles during cabinet meeting (45:29) Tom Steyer interview (1:05:48) Newsom wants to tax Trump's slush fund at 100% (1:12:48) Trump's approval rating is historically low Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Maga Media is melting down over a Democrat that they are suddenly terrified of. You've got fox hosts spiraling into bizarre attacks about masculinity and veganism and girlfriends. And they're obsessed with James Talariko because they're terrified of James Talarico. We also have brutal new economic news, months and months of promises of 6% GDP and we got 1.6. Are they ready for a Maya Kulpa? You know that they're obviously not. And then we'll look at the transformation of the White House grounds from White House grounds to a UFC arena and a construction pit.

Much of it with your taxpayer dollar and my taxpayer dollar at play. And then one of the most disturbing stories that I've maybe ever covered after Donald Trump sexually assaulted her, he is now having his DOJ investigate her. I'm talking about E. Jean Carroll. And we will get to Governor Gavin Newscum, nasty guy, planning to tax Trump slush fund proceeds in California at 100%. This is triggering a lot of people. And you know why.

All of that and more today. Plus, Tom Steyer will join me. He's running for governor of California. Well, my friends, the self-professed alpha. the strongest, manliest people in the world and certainly in the country are terrified, terrified of this guy, James Talarico, who's the Democratic candidate for Senator in Texas. He's going to be facing off against Ken Paxton because Ken Paxton won his runoff Republican primary election against John Cornyn earlier this week.

And if you ever question the power of getting involved, consider that a very important. that a year ago, Tala Rico was a barely known state legislator in Texas. And now the Republican establishment is about the poor, is it millions of dollars? Is it tens of millions of dollars into defeating him? So what we do does matter. Look at what Fox News is doing. They're going with he's gay. This is the best you've got guys.

He's vegan. That's what you're going to beat him with. He's vegan, which he's not, by the way. As far as I know, he's neither gay nor vegan. But that's what they're going with. Here is Jesse Waters, pulling the old, do you think this guy really likes girls' routine? And, you know, maybe this has an impact in Texas. I don't know.

But I'm skeptical. He's also 37 and not married. I love that single stupid. stupid laugh in the background. They know this is so. They're like, oh, dear God, are we going in this direction? Yes, they are. So 37 and not married.

Let's get into this. He says just recently that he has a girlfriend and they've been together for four years. And he called her his best friend. And she was his rock. And he's not revealing her identity because he wants to respect her privacy and keep her safe during the campaign. Well, that I understand. The last thing you want is Jesse Waters doing segments about Tala Rico's girlfriend.

In Canada. Now, if the campaign has only been going on for less than a year and they've been dating for four years, why haven't we ever seen this woman before? Basically what I'm saying is that she exists. We're going to find... Isn't this funny, guys? Now, because if he wins, Are they going to have a coming out party or is she's still going to stay the secret girlfriend?

And is this totally not fake girlfriend also a vegan? This race, this is a- Remember that Tala Rico has said, I'm not vegan, but who gives a damn? They have nothing on Tala Rico. They are panicking that he is going to beat Paxton. And by the way, I don't even know if the panic is warranted based on the polling. We'll get to that in a moment. But they are terrified.

And so they're going with, I don't know if he really likes girls. I don't know if he really eats meat. Here is Kennedy, sort of like Madonna. Kennedy wants to be known just as Kennedy. Kennedy on Tala Rico. He's a baby lotion soft child beta male. Be seal. Like those are the only kind of Democrats that are going to succeed in Texas.

It is not this baby lotion soft. A child. He does. He looks prepubescent. He looks like such a beta male. He was, he was, Beta O'Rourke was his big brother in the after school program. They'll say, but he's a seminarian. How dare you not? He put the semen in seminarian. As in. Oh, boy, this guy might beat us. Oh, boy. They're scared. All right. And they should be scared because Because the polling in a state that should be just overwhelming for the Republican is kind of tight. They are suffering from really serious brain rot.

Here is Jesse Waters with more analysis of James Tallerico. This is not the head space you want to be in where you're trying to prove your normal. You are then operating in your opponent's frame. Now, I'm new to the Bible, Greg. Good for you. You know, Harold, even I know it's God the father, gave his only son. It's not God the mother. It's not God the trans.

God is the father. There you go. And therefore you should vote for alleged criminal Ken Paxton. I guess that doesn't really make a lot of sense. As the segment went on, they built momentum like a runaway train on this prepubescent concept. They feel as though this is strong. So take it away. Correction.

It's Talafriko. Okay. And they nominated someone more effeminate than Beto, and I can't wait for this race to get underway. Did you know that he looks prepubescent? Did you guys know that? These are the notes you took? Did you know that he looks like the guy that leaves an apple on the teacher's desk? That's this guy.

Now, the major factor in this race, Greg, is whether Talafriko, I would even go further. It's whether he prefers Nashville style barbecue or Texas style barbecue. That's really the key issue here. So they're all freaking out. Here's Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas. One of the worst governors in the country. And he goes, Tala Rico's a poor man's Beto.

Beto. As you guys were talking about earlier, Tala Rico is a poor man's Beto. He doesn't have the charisma or the capability that Beto has. And Beto read a losing campaign. So with Talarico's record, he's going to get buried in this campaign very quickly. Yeah. And then finally here is Benny Johnson again playing up the, I think Tala Rico may be gay. How about that guys?

Even though Benny Johnson has his own scandal about apparently being, you know, one of these anti-gay, gay guys. Put that aside. I don't really care. But here he goes in with, does he really have a girlfriend? Tell us her name, please. But we're stuck with James Tala rico. and I'm no political consultant, Jesse, but here's three things you could ask him to defeat him on a debate stage.

He says there's six genders. Well, why don't you name them? You say you have a girlfriend. Why don't you name her? And you say that Jesus is pro-abortion. So how do you square that with thou shalt not kill the Ten Commandments, something I'm pretty sure that Jesus wanted you to uphold. So once again, the reason why Democrats are failing is because they've given up on masculinity. They've given up on testosterone. Right. And Benny Johnson is the guy who is really going to teach us a thing or two about masculinity. By the way, I looked for this whole thing of James Talarico six genders to see what did he actually say. And I guess that at some point he did say something about six genders. I don't know the context. But I also wonder whether some of these right wingers think he's saying six genders when he says that he's. gender. I don't know. In any case, if anybody doubts the power of getting involved, Tala Rico went from basically unknown a year ago to millions or tens of millions of dollars pouring in urgently as they panic to try to defeat them. So we can make a difference.

Now, as far as the polling goes, if we look at actual election polling, Paxston v. Tala Rico, Tala Rico is up about a point and a half. And the latest poll is almost a month old. If we look at the betting markets on Kalshi, who is now expected to win this Texas Senate race, it's tight, but the odds have shifted slightly in favor of Paxton since he officially won that runoff two days ago. We are in this thing. This is potentially very doable. And I recommend people get involved in this race. Donald Trump's economy is collapsing under brutal new economic data. Remember when they promised us 6% GDP? Trump talked about it. Besson, Kevin Hassett, Howard Nutlick, all of them talking about it's going to be 6% GDP. Well, we have a little old report from Fox News this morning

And it came in just a little short of 6%. Let's start with what we saw with GDP for the first quarter. We're coming in with a read of 1.6%. Uh-oh, wait a second. There is a 6 in the number, but it is not 6%. So this is a revision down for first quarter GDP. The first read was 2%. Now we're coming down with the second read of 1.6%.

And that is actually below the range. of 1.7 to 2. Oh, we know. Oh, we're aware. Don't worry. We know that it's below the range. Remember the promises that they made. And every single time I said to you, it is not going to happen. It is simply not going to happen. Here's Lutnik. So now everybody knows their tariff, right? So now you're going to see factories can build in America at a scale that you have never seen before okay 10 more than 10 trillion dollars of factory build coming all right and so there's huge amount of construction jobs so i would say the first quarter of next year will be the best

quarter of construction jobs this country's ever seen and that's going to roll all the way through 26 so i think you're going to see GDP growth next year over 4 you do 4 percent turns out that that is not the way things are shaking out now could there be just a completely insane second, third, and fourth quarter that somehow gets us there. I guess maybe, but so far every single one of these people is wrong. Remember Maria Bartaromo asking Kevin Hassett, what sort of GDP number would you expect this year? The election. So what kind of economic growth number would you expect for 26 and beyond then? Let's assume that we do get out of this war fairly soon. What kind of GDP growth number would you expect for the U.S. economy? Yeah, and that's the thing that we've been

work it a lot on lately because of the capital spending boom, remember that. Maria, I've spent a long time figuring out how to most effectively lie to you about this. And I'm going to do that right now. In March, capital spending went up by 3.3 percent, not at an annual rate. So multiply that by 12. And you're looking at historic capital spending numbers because President Trump with his tax cuts, which are in, you know, getting people to expense, but also on-shoring activity is giving us the capital spending boom, unlike anything. It's random words we've ever seen. If you look at how fast the capital stock is growing, that's sort of like how much stuff that we make stuff with. It's between 5 and 8% right now.

If you divide that by three, that's about how much GDP growth you get out of the- You guys following these numbers? Out of just capital spending, we've got productivity growth at two and a half. I think we really could be looking at numbers north of four, north of five, north of even six, because there's so much capital stock growth right now. Swing and a miss, Kevin, swing and a miss. And they say it, it's interesting to look retrospectively because they speak with some of the confidence about things that number one, they don't seem to know much about. And number two,

they're very obviously wrong about. Back to Howard Lutnik. Remember, he didn't just stop at 4% as we saw him say on CNBC. Here is Howard Lutnik talking about six percent. Those of the U.S. economic underpinning remain, right? The war changed that model and created fear and uncertainty. But the growth rate in the United States will hit 6% of Donald Trump's leadership. It will hit 6% annual GDP growth under Donald Trump's leadership. But not this year. Well, let's see. Let's see. I mean, you know, you have today, if the Straits of our moves open. There's always a ban with like the Lutnik thing at the top and then like you got treasury down here and the Democrats down here. But you're holding it at 6%. I am because I am. He's holding it at 6%. I don't know what he's holding,

but it doesn't have a 6 on it. That's for sure. Bonus little clip. Income is also pretty bad. This is from this morning's report from Fox business. Mark, I want to get your take on this. Income, yeah, so April income came in flat. We were looking for a gain of four-tenths of a percent. But spending was up a half a percent month over month. What do you make? Yes, because everything costs more.

So, I mean, when income is flat and you are spending more money, that's the impact of inflation. That's, you know, an extra $100 per vehicle at the gas pump. Like, that is, that is hopefully, We solve that problem very quickly. But the law. Yeah, hopefully. They are lying to you.

And I think the American people aren't going to fall for it. Because like this gentleman says, you go to the gas pump and you see that it's more expensive. You go to the grocery store. An old fashioned word groceries, nobody ever heard it before. You go to the grocery store and you spend 120 bucks and you go, I barely got anything. And it is impossible. I believe to convince people that things are different than where they are. So 4% GDP growth, 6% GDP growth. All right, well, got an uphill battle in the rest of the year because we're at 1.6 based on the first

quarter of 2026. Donald Trump has destroyed the White House in a physical sense. I know that morally he has destroyed it. I know that ideologically he has destroyed it, but Trump is in a literal sense tearing apart sections of the White House grounds while simultaneously turning part of it into a UFC arena for a fight in a couple of weeks. Look at this imagery where you now see the version of the White House that was there before and you see what is there now with a pit for construction in this boondoggle quagmire project, which we really need a new ballroom for. And then construction for a UFC fight at the front of the White House. This is disgusting and embarrassing.

And think about how this would have sounded even 10 years ago in American politics before Trump completely rewired the brains of 30% of this country. You've got construction equipment tearing up parts of the White House grounds for the ballroom that supposedly donors were going to pay for, but now they need a billion because it's got to be secure and a bunker and this and that. A vanity project that Trump is obsessed with. Are we going to have black onyx as part of the project? Give me a break.

And then on the other side, you've got the preparations for Trump's UFC spectacle, which is a total handout to his friend Dana White. It's a form of a no-bit contract, really. And it looks not like the executive branch of the United States government. It looks like a strange hybrid of Mar-a-Lago, reality TV, and some kind of back. reality show that has gone completely off the rails even from what it was supposed to be. And that's kind of emblematic of this presidency of Donald Trump.

Over these years, it's become spectacle and performance. And there's no better way to embody that than quite literally setting up for a performance, a spectacle, a sporting event at the White House. Now, I'm not obsessed with symbolism in any particular way and I don't really have these sacred cows that I obsess about. But the idea of the United States government goes hand in hand with the idea of the White House, which is it should symbolize stability, governance, diplomacy, continuity, institutional legitimacy, whether it's a Democrat or a Republican that's in control of the presidency. And I think to an extent it matters because it does it

It does matter how countries project power. And some countries choose to project power through military strength, others through economic output, others through a standard of living for their people. But there should be a seriousness and a credibility to these institutions. When you knock down part of the White House and then have a completely stalled construction project that even your initial architect goes, this is a crazy idea, I can't do this, I quit. And then on the other side, you've got a spectacle designed around the Fight League owned by Donald Trump's friend Dana White. It just feels like a joke.

And it makes the United States appear to be a joke. And that's the macro. Now, if you look at the micro, you see, you know, the cosmetic redesigns of the Oval Office with the gold leaf and the gold paint and Trump's obsession with aesthetics. And he wants the strong man imagery of tanks rolling down the streets of Washington, D.C. in the style you would expect in Russia or China or North Korea. The rallies are really not policy events. They're kind of propaganda events with theatrical conflict generated out of nothing. It's part of the same thing.

It's all part of the same transformation, I guess I would call it, where governance is, I don't even know that it's secondary. It's sort of tertiary. It takes a backseat to can we get attention? Can we brand stuff? What are the optics? Let's do something emotionally charged. And there are some Trump supporters who love this crap. Someone I know I mentioned this. I think it was last week personally on his Facebook. He goes, listen, I don't love Trump, but I do think we need the ballroom and that it's a good idea. And I didn't

get involved. But fortunately, a lot of other people in this guy's comments were like, why do we need the ballroom? What are you talking about? How does the ballroom help the average person anywhere in this country who's struggling to afford the cost of their daily life? It doesn't. But there are some Republicans who like it is the point. But to a lot of Americans, they see this and they go, the White House is being turned into a personal branding project. Now they're talking about a $250 bill with Donald Trump's face on it. Trump's putting his name on all sorts of stuff. So there's the aesthetics, but then there's the internal questions that surface about is the United States declining institutionally and globally. Is this level of political instability going to be the new norm in

the United States? Is this Democratic? backsliding going to be a new norm? Does the country still even take governance seriously? Or is it all about UFC fights and MAGA hats and this sort of thing? And then you see these whacked out images of what's happening at the White House. And it's embarrassing. So you don't have to be a big symbols person. I'm not a big symbols person to recognize. Symbolism does shape perception. And perception of the United States shapes our perceived political legitimacy around the world. And whether the United States is seen as legitimate impacts our ability to work with other countries. It impacts geopolitics.

It impacts foreign policy. That's the issue. So is it embarrassing at a practical level that we are seeing a UFC cage, a UFC octagon built on the White House long? Of course, it's embarrassing. Is the bigger concern what this does for the perception of the United States around the world, that's really the bigger concern. We are doing everything we can to fight back against this stuff. But the administration's ire has even turned against independent media.

So I am going to be running a one day membership drive on Tuesday, June 9th. We are going to dramatically discount annual memberships all because independent media. is now under attack. It's under attack algorithmically. It's under attack judicially. So I'd love for you to participate in this membership drive. All you need to do for now is get on my free newsletter. That's how we'll notify everybody when the membership drive is live. Go to David Pakman.com slash substack. Type in your email address. That is it. Debt has a way of getting out of control even when people are trying to manage it responsibly. High interest rates, constant fees, compounding balances.

This can all turn credit cards, personal loans, and medical bills into something much more difficult to escape. And the longer it drags on, the more expensive it becomes. That's why I want to tell you about our sponsor, PDS debt. PDS debt helps people with unsecured debt by creating a personalized plan based on their real financial situation. There's not a minimum credit score required. They just focus on reducing what you are.

owe paying it off faster and stopping the waste of money on interest and fees. They are A plus rated by the Better Business Bureau. They have thousands of five-star reviews and have already helped hundreds of thousands of people get out of debt. Every month you wait costs money. The best time to start was yesterday. The second best time is right now. So don't wait another month.

Take back control in 30 seconds. Get your free personalized assessment at PDSdebt.com slash Pacman. The link is in the description. Think of how much personal information you put into your favorite AI chat bot. They track everything you say on the app. Many of them sell the data to add companies and they use your personal info to train the AI so your personal life lives inside the chat bot forever. Creepy stuff, which is why I recommend Venice.

It's sort of like a VPN for AI. Our sponsor, Venice, gives you access to all the best and latest language models, chat GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grock, deep seek, as well as leading image, video, and music generation models, all in one place, but you can use them privately and anonymously. And it's completely uncensored. On Venice, you can ask the AI for anything, and it won't say no. Nothing is tied to your identity because your prompts are encrypted. They never even leave your device.

so no corporation or government can spy on you and those conversations. Access the world's leading AI models privately. You'll get 20% off any plan when you go to venice.a.i slash Pacman and use the code Pacman. The link is in the description. Donald Trump has sicked his justice department against the woman that he was held civilly liable for sexually assaulting. We're talking about E. Jean Carroll and Trump's Justice Department is now investigating her criminally. Remember that she accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in the Bergdorf Goodman department store, defeated Trump in court

multiple times, won a multi-million dollar judgment against Donald Trump after he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. And now she is being investigated by Trump's DOJ. Here's a report from CNN. Exclusive and breaking news right now. The Justice Department, CNN is learning, has launched a new criminal investigation into one of Trump's enemies, E. Jean Carroll. Now, E. Jean Carroll was the former magazine columnist who accused President Donald Trump of sexual assault. Ended up being that he was liable for sexual abuse. The source is telling CNN that the investigation now is focused on whether Carol committed perjury during her two civil lawsuits against the president.

Paula, Reid, is breaking the story and she's out front. And Paula, what else are you learning about this? I mean, there was obviously a verdict here. That's right. And here, Aaron, this is the latest move by the Justice Department to take action against one of President Trump's. long-standing foes. Our sources tell us that this investigation is focused on a 2022 deposition that Carol gave, where she said that she had not received any outside funding. Now, her lawyers later told the judge that she had, in fact, receive funding for legal fees

and expenses from billionaire Reid Hoffman. The judge overseeing this case ultimately said there were no issues with her credibility and blocked Trump lawyers from asking about this at trial. Now, Carol currently has multiple legal battles with Trump currently pending, including- All right. So they explained there what the alleged legal basis for this is. And what they want to look at is when Jean Carroll said, I have not received outside funding for legal fees and litigation in a deposition.

The idea is that she knew she was lying, therefore it's perjury, therefore she must be investigated. Now, there are kind of two questions here. There's the legal question and there's the political question. On the legal question, as we've talked about before and I talked to a couple lawyers this morning, it is really difficult to prove perjury. You would have to prove that E. Gene Carroll knew and was aware in that moment that what she was saying was untrue. Now, I have no idea. Might E. Jean Carroll have been knowingly lying when she said she didn't have outside funding for her legal actions? Maybe she, maybe she was lying or maybe she didn't know. Maybe she didn't remember. Who knows?

Very, very difficult to prove. Okay. But that that would be the alleged legal basis. Politically, you are found liable for sexually abusing a woman. And then you launch your justice department against her for alleged inconsistencies about legal funding. from a 2022 deposition, I don't know that that's going to impress too many people. And I know that Trump's hardcore base is loving this. You look at them on Twitter. They're like, we're finally going to get justice. This is why we elected Trump. He's going to go after the people who lied and who did this and who did that. That's the hardcore Trump Maga base. A lot of people

who see a president with the power of the Justice Department, weaponizing the Justice Department against a woman you victimized sexually. That's not going to look very good. And if you think, oh, is this law enforcement? No, this is not law enforcement. This is the very same weaponization of the Justice Department that Donald Trump claimed to be a victim of. They spent years saying Biden's doing this, even though Biden had no involvement with anything that his DOJ was doing related to anybody associated with Trump. And it's another example of they are accusing others of the stuff that actually they would do. All those years when Trump was like Biden's weaponizing the DOJ, what Trump meant was, if I were in his position, I would be weaponizing the DOJ.

And if I'm ever back in Biden's position, I'm going to weaponize the DOJ. And he did. That's exactly what he has done. And it was every rally, every interview, every speech. There, Biden is sitting there directing prosecutions and investigations. No, that's what Trump is doing. Trump constantly said Biden was using the Justice Department to target political enemies. Trump's using the Justice Department to target political enemies and critics. And Trump claimed I'm going to end that behavior, but he actually took something Biden wasn't doing and started doing it. And the second that Trump started giving speeches about how the Justice Department would never again be used against political enemies, the alarms went off for me of,

oh, that means Trump has a plan to use the Justice Department to target his political enemies. It's almost always projection. And the truth is almost always the opposite of what Donald Trump claims. When he says, we need unity, expect that it will be the opposite of unifying to have Donald Trump in power. When he wants to depoliticize political institutions, expect that he is going to politicize political institutions. When he, uh, uh, and by the way, loyalty tests, retaliation campaigns, all of it.

So what we have now is the woman who accuses Trump of sexual assault. assault, defeats him in court, is found, Trump has found civilly liable for sexually abusing her. She is now being criminally investigated. Now even if perjury's hard to prove and they don't prove it, simply being investigated by the full power of the federal government can be enough to ruin you or to ruin your life for a long period of time. And Todd Blanche previous, who's now the acting AG, attorney general and is overseeing this,

Blanche was one of Trump's personal lawyers in the Carroll litigation. So the lawyer who got the short end of the stick, for lack of a better term, representing Trump in that case, Blanche represented Trump and Trump was found civilly liable for sexual assault. Now that very same guy acting as attorney general is going to criminally pursue the person that defeated him in court. Looks very, very bad. Now, as far as those civil judgments against them, E. Jean Carroll, I don't think she's gotten the money or almost any of the money.

Trump's appealing the civil judgments. He's appealing the sexual abuse ruling. He's appealing the defamation reward that was found against him. Those appeals are going to continue. And meanwhile, E. E. Jean Carroll has to now fund. legal work because of being targeted. I hope, here's my hope. I hope that journalists, universities, media companies, political opponents, former officials, former friends of Trump,

everybody needs to understand this is what they plan to do to anyone they can get away with it on. And one of the most important questions I believe in a democracy is, does the justice system apply equally regardless of political power? Does it apply? equally regardless of personal loyalty. Does the justice system apply equally regardless of how connected you personally are to the president of the United States? I believe that most Americans are going to look at this story and see basically the same thing. The president is using the justice department to pursue someone. He was found liable for sexually assaulting because he's so upset that she beat him. And this is how he is going to get his retribution. And I think most Americans are

to say, this is not okay. The hardcore magas love it. I get it. I think most Americans do not. Donald Trump held a cabinet meeting yesterday and it went horribly wrong. Horribly wrong. Now, just as a starting point, this is the entire meeting. There are people in my audience who go, okay, this is the on-camera portion of the meeting, but they must have a real meeting, not in front of the cameras. No, that's the way other presidents worked. This is the full meeting. They just bring the cameras in and ramble. Trump fresh off of a perfect clean bill of health at his third annual physical in 13 months, fell asleep multiple times during the cabinet meeting. Here is Trump sleeping. For what I believe is the most important government benefit for young people since the GI Bill,

the Trump accounts, the app will be available on all major platforms tomorrow morning. And it will place the American dreams into the palms. Trump just struggling to stay awake and then really asleep, Marco Rubio apparently, not entertaining Donald Trump. People, they are selling oil in the market at market rates. The money's going to an account in the United States controlled and monitored by Treasury, audited by KPMG. So he can't stay awake.

The guy who said Sleepy Joe can't do it, can't stay awake at all in public. But then Trump utters a phrase at this cabinet meeting that I believe. should be made a political campaign ad. It should be presented without comment. Trump has given us enough material over the last month to not need anybody but Trump for a campaign ad against these people. Economic system is broken down. They thought they're going to outweigh me, you know, we'll outweigh him. He's got the midterms. I don't care about the midterms. Look what happened last night. That was I don't care about the midterms. There should be a campaign ad. Trump's saying I don't care about the midterms. Trump saying the gas price increase is peanuts. Trump saying,

I don't consider the financial situations of Americans when I think about what to do. The very anti-war Donald Trump praising Pete Hegseth for loving war. I thought this was the anti-war president. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, another one. I mean, we have great people. And the secretary of war Pete Hagsett, Central casting. He loves war. I don't like that. He loves war. I'm the only anti-war president, but I've got a secretary of defense who loves war. And boy, are we starting war's new reporting that the Trump administration is setting up the sort of scaffolding for an invasion of Cuba. We're going to Iran and we're going to Venezuela and we're going to Cuba. Maybe we'll go to Greenland, the anti-war president. Then,

Trump's brain is gone. He confuses Venezuela with Iran. He doesn't know where he went. And he goes, Venezuela has no more Navy, which is actually the line he's supposed to be using about Iran. We destroyed Iran's Navy. He's confused. The anti-war president is starting so many conflicts. He doesn't know which is which. The stock market has set 68 all-time record high since the election. So 68 days, we hit all-time highs. We're right there now. And the average 401K, and that's despite the conflict, I don't go to war, I call it a conflict.

We know. Despite the conflict with Venezuela, who no longer has a Navy, no longer has an Air Force, no longer has a lot of people that were leading the country into very bad places. Their leadership is gone. Their second wrong leadership is gone. And we're dealing with their third, half of that third because half of that third is gone too. Exactly. So a completely confused Trump mixing up Iran and Venezuela. And then the topic of gas prices came up. And again, this stuff should just be part of a campaign ad. Do you have any urgency

to get gas prices down, which are now 445 a gallon? Trump was talking about we're going to have dollar 87 gas. Trump goes, no, no, I don't. We'll release them. But the American people are seeing higher gas prices. Now, it's come down a little bit, but it's still $4.45. It'll come down a lot. It'll come down to where it was before. We had it. When I was in Iowa, we had driving by, we saw gas stations $1.90 a gallon, $1.85, $1.87, where the three that we saw. We had it down in some places below. Now, we can't help in California where they charge so much tax that, you know, you lower it and they charge tax. They've got to straighten the act down in California, but we had gasoline down to a very low number. I think we'll be hitting that number

shortly after that whole excursion ends. Does that give you more urgency? But regardless of anything, regardless of anything, as Marco said better than anybody can say it, you can't let them have a nuclear weapon. They would use it instantly. They wouldn't think about it. They would use it instantly. I've gotten to know them. They would use it instantly. Does that give me more urgency, Mr. President? that you're in no rush to make a deal. But with gas prices that are still high across the country, people are paying more for travel. Does that give you more urgency to make a deal? Why doesn't it? Well, I'll tell you, the primary urgency, I have I said this, it wasn't covered properly, but the primary urgency is that we can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's the big thing.

The gas prices don't matter. These, this should all be put together into a campaign ad. It got a little weird at other moments as Donald Trump's energy started to appear to wane and run low where Trump just started kind of meandering and mumbling about grass. Grass has a life too. Grass should get to live. I'm very proud of D.C. because when we came here, a little more than a year ago, it was a very dangerous place. And now it's a very safe place. It's been incredible what's happened. As you see the crime numbers, we had restaurants closing up and nobody wanted to go to a restaurant. They were afraid to walk to work. It was very, very. Very dangerous place, very unsafe. And now it's a very safe place. We brought in the National Guard.

We worked with the cash and the FBI and Janine is doing fantastically and Todd and everybody. And it's now a very safe city and people are pouring in and you see the grass is all beautiful. We put a lot of new grass in because, you know, like people, grass has a life too on this grass. Grass must be allowed to live. Let grass live. Trump then, again, when things get hot, when it gets a little difficult to convince the American public that you're doing a good job, Trump loves to go, we're going to release stuff about UFOs soon. Don't make me do it. I'll do it. I'll release the stuff about UFO. We're releasing a lot of information having to do with extra torrential.

Extra torrential. It's a torrential downpour that is extraneous, extra torrential. With extraterrestrial, terrestrial things and people are totally fascinated by it. It's amazing that I wasn't sure if they would enjoy it. It's literally trending number one. Did you believe it? Could you believe that extraterrential people love it? We're going to release some elements of torrential. We're not falling for it, buddy.

We're not falling for it. And still touting. This is a cabinet meeting, folks. This is a cabinet meeting. Still touting that people who are 125 years old are getting social security payments. I think we have a chance to save Social Security without doing anything to it. But just the numbers of fraudulent people on Social Security, people that are 115 years old, 125 years old getting payments.

It's funny. I said, oh, do those payments get turned back? No, they accept them. Well, somebody's getting the payment. It's not a person that's 125 years old, but that's the least of it. The numbers. Trump's lying. If you go to the social security website, ssa.gov, it says social security has an automated

process where payments stop when you are 115 or older. Now, some of you might be saying, oh, so people get payments until 115 even if they're dead. No. For the most part, every single jurisdiction in the United States reports deaths to the Social Security Administration. Then they go, okay, this person died. We're not sending them payments anymore. But they continue to insist. People are getting paid until 115, 125. They're dead. Well, it's not happening. And it is possible that someone could be on a list as someone that was a social security recipient. And if you look at their birthday, you might do math and go, wow, they're 100.

They would be 157 right now. But that doesn't mean that they're getting payments. The fact that at one point they received payments doesn't mean they are receiving payments today. And then finally, now I'm not going to subject you to these nine minutes. Trump ranted nine minutes straight about nonsense. Okay. I'm just going to take a random spot in the middle. Just pick the random spot. This is not an individual who is well. So we we went to work and over the years I built hundreds of pools. I build them every time I built the bill and I always like to build Olympic size swimming pools and I was very aware swimming pool, what goes into making a swimming pool.

You need the water and you need chlorine. As simple as people think, you never want it to leak, you want that beautiful surface. I said, you know, I have an idea, Doug, we sat down. I said, let's take that long thing, well, we're going to fix it with concrete, which- Fix my long thing with concrete, please. We need to stiffen it up. Leaks, concrete, all sorts of other materials that all leaks. and don't look good. They're gray. And, you know, swimming pool, I have a swimming pool right up the road. I built it 22 years ago. It's perfect. Anyway, there was, I'm not going to, I like my audience

too much to play the full nine minutes. That's what was going on at the cabinet meeting. There are people saying this is full blown dementia. I'm not in a position to say that with confidence, but there are a lot of people saying it. That's for sure. When we talk about privacy online, your email account may contain more detailed information about your life than anything else. Your purchases, work conversations, account logins, medical updates. Most big tech email providers do scan your inbox. They build advertising profiles around your activity and then they target you using that data.

I recommend start mail. Our sponsor, start mail is a platform that functions just like the email services you're used to. No learning curve, but unlike the big tech email providers, start mail does not scan your email. It doesn't track you. It doesn't sell your data. And you also get privacy tools that the other email providers do not offer. You can create unlimited email aliases so you don't have to give anybody your real email

address when you sign up for stuff super useful. You can also send PGP encrypted emails even if the recipient doesn't use encryption. Switching to start mail is really easy. You migrate your emails and contacts with a few clicks. Go to startmail.com slash Pacman to get 50% off your first year. The link is in the description. There's something special about having real quality bread at home, fresh from the oven. It elevates any meal and our sponsor Wildgrain makes it easy.

Wild grain is a bake from frozen subscription box for sourdough breads, artisanal pastries, and fresh pasta. arrives frozen, goes in the oven, no thawing, ready in 25 minutes or less. Wild grain uses simple ingredients in slow fermentation to give their bread real depth of flavor. What I like most is the flexibility. I can keep sourdough loaves and croissants stocked in my freezer, bake what I need, no prep, no cleanup. Tastes like something you'd get at a small specialty bakery, but you don't have to spend an hour driving to the bakery and back or making them from scratch. Wild grain boxes are fully customizable along with the new variety box. There's the gluten-free, vegan, and protein boxes.

Wild grain is offering $30 off your first box plus free croissants for life when you go to wildgrain.com slash Pacman or use promo code Pacman at checkout. The link is in the description. We continue following the California gubernatorial election. Today I'll be speaking with Tom Steyer, businessmen and philanthropists now running in that race. Really appreciate your time. Thanks for talking to me. David, thank you for having me. You know, I'm very interested in some of the things around your campaign and then we'll delve into the campaign itself. I saw this picture of you seemingly flying by yourself in coach. And I'm just curious like, is this, do you not get bothered? Do you not have security concerns? Like I always, this might be in my, my, my synest.

But I assume when you hear billionaire gubernatorial candidate flying Southwest or whatever, that this would not be your natural activity. So let me say this, David. It was Southwest. Okay. I always fly commercial. I never take private planes because they're so bad from an environmental emission standpoint. Okay. It is absolutely normal. This is not performative. That's how I get around. Southwest actually has done a very good job this year, and I've flown on it quite a bit. And no, I don't, you know, I feel, you know,

I don't feel threatened or anything. In fact, it's a great way to meet people. You know, you spend a lot of time online, you meet people on the plane. It's a normal part of life for normal people, and I'm kind of a normal guy in many ways. I know that people think of me as this rich guy, but I think of myself as somebody who started,

without, you know, who never inherited money, who built a business, who's with his wife is giving it away. And in the meantime, I'm trying to, you know, lead a fun, normal life as much as I can, knowing that, of course, I have, you know, a lot of privilege. But the truth is, I fly commercial in Southwest is one of the ones that actually we use a lot. I'm very interested in the self-financing of your campaign. You know, one of the things that Donald Trump started to say when he came down, the escalator as he describes it back in 2015 is I have so much money I have no reason to be convinced to do anything for money and that is going to in some way insulate me from corruption and it turned out that it was totally bogus and in fact his net worth like everything he said was a complete

lie. His net worth is up two billion dollars just during the second term and just about everything he's done has been for either self enrichment or the enrichment of his friends and family and others. So have we sort of get can we disabuse ourselves? of this notion that just because some people have a lot of money, they're not corruptible. Like, that doesn't seem like a good argument anymore. Would you agree? I do agree with that point. And let me say this, David. I have been very dismayed at how many business people have given into and accommodated Donald Trump, have basically played up to him, flattered him, bribed him in multiple ways

in order to aggrandize themselves. And at a time when Donald Trump is overtly, not just corrupt, but also overtly trying to corrupt and destroy our democracy is clearly doing things that are bad for the people of the United States of America. The idea that business people are sort of uncorruptible,

we've seen the exact opposite if you don't mind my saying so. One of the things that has been interesting in this race is that we spoke with your opponent, Javier Becerra, and he's taking some heat because he was for single payer for a long time, and now he's being accused of no longer being for it. He disputes that, but it's a subject of contention. You have a different situation where for a long time, you were critical of the idea of single payer. You said Bernie's plan is not realistic. Now you've also changed your perspective. And you say, no, single payer is the path forward.

Can tell us about that. What would I think that's a practically changed about the. Well, David, let me say what happened with Javier was he was overtly for single payer. He went into a meeting with the largest lobbying group against single payer. The head of that lobbying group came out and said he very clearly indicated that he was not going to pursue single payer and that group, which is strongly anti single payer, then endorsed him and gave him the maximum amount of money.

Right. Now, people can check out the interview with him. He disputes that. But I know that. Yes. I stood on the stage. I'm just saying that that group said he very clearly said he was against it. And their actions imply that they absolutely believed that.

Got it. What I did was this. I believed for a long time. falsely now, I believe, that American competition in business could bend the curve on health care. We've seen healthcare escalate at twice the rate of inflation for 50 years or more. And it's eating up budgets, and I knew that. But because I was still trusting in the ability of American business to compete and drive down costs, I thought that is the way we'll actually get this rising cost curve that is eating up everybody,

families, businesses, and our state budget under control. And after a while, it's sort of, you know, the old saying, who are you going to believe? Me or your own lie in eyes. It's kind of like at some point you look at the numbers and you go like, okay, I don't believe you anymore. You're telling me you're going to drive this down and you told me that two years ago and you told me that four years ago and you told me that seven years ago. And we haven't seen one instance of that. And you're still singing the same tune and I'm not seeing it.

And that's why I changed. I looked at the facts. And I went public and just said, look, I believed something that was going to happen. And I've waited to see and waited to see and waited to see it's not happening. We have to do something about it because it's at a crisis level. And that's why I changed. You know, sometimes I wonder whether in gubernatorial races, the single payer question is a bit of a red her in this sense, I agree that healthcare is one of the most important aspects to the daily lives

of Americans. I'm in favor of a system that covers everybody. No disputes there. But I question whether it's doable at the state level. And the reason I question it is some of the states that have done it best for what's been possible have been like, for example, the state I grew up in Massachusetts with RomneyCare, which was an early version of what Obamacare ultimately was. It's not perfect, but it's the most that was possible.

at one point in time. Vermont tried to do state single payer. 650,000 people, not a huge population. Maybe in fact that's part of the problem. We could talk about that. They weren't able to even implement it. And so I wonder, is the healthcare question a real policy question the governor of California will have to contend with?

Or is it a way to signal to different constituencies where you're leaning? Maybe it's not going to be something you ultimately actually have power over. Well, let me say this. It is something the governor of California is absolutely going to have to address. There's no question about that, David. And you can see what's happening right now in the state. When I say that health care is chewing up California, it's true. It's basically eating the budget of all the other services in California.

you are watching the state legislature reducing the amount of health care that is promised to different people. You've seen Donald Trump and HR1 kicking one to three million Californians off Medi-Cal, which is a hole that's been estimated. I don't know this is right or wrong, but I believe that the recent May revise of the budget

implied that was a $9 billion hole in the budget. And so when you say, Is the governor of California really going to have to deal with it? The answer is absolutely yes. I guess my question is, will it be dealt with by tweaking what's there versus really having an opportunity to implement single payer? So there's no doubt that getting to single payer will be a lot of negotiation and work. Yeah. And that there are steps that have to succeed that you can't, the governor can't just snap his or her fingers and get done. But it's also true that if you look at this, I don't see the other way that we actually control this.

And so when you say, this is a lot of brain damage, Tom, I go, yes. And you say, and there's going to be a lot of issues, I say, yes. But the truth is what we're seeing is health care. Look, there are people who are giving up health care in the state of California. Lots of them so they can make rent. There are people who are being thrown off their health care insurance. we're then going to end up in the ER. There are people who are delaying, doing anything about their health issues

because they can't afford to, which then the issues multiply, and the health care is much more expensive, but also their health is much worse. So this is a real-time escalating problem that has to be addressed. And when you say, you know, is it really going to be said, I don't see the alternative, David. I really don't. And I think that we're the only, you know, industrialized nation in the world that does not provide health care to every citizen. We're the only one.

And so are we really going to stick with that for some reason? You know, obviously Trump's bill, HR1, was a drop in tax rates for the richest Americans and the biggest corporations. And he paid for it by kicking the most vulnerable people. off Medicaid or Medi-Cal. If you just take a step back and think about how awful that is in a society with great wealth inequality where the corporations are making record profits,

that is a choice that is so cynical and so wrong-headed that it's kind of shocking. Even now, a year later, and you think, oh my goodness gracious, that really is your value system that says everything. And we're the exact, I'm the exact opposite of that. I thought that was absolutely wrong. And I think it's important that healthcare is a right that we're going to provide it to everybody in California. And we have to do

whatever it takes to make that affordable. And the only, this is the way to make that affordable. That's why I'm for single payer. On the other side of this, we're talking here about something that costs money, but it will also produce savings, of course, by keeping people out of the ER, for example, on the other side are the revenues and wealth taxes and how to collect money from billionaires has become a big topic. One of the things that my background is economics and one of the things I've studied and have gone over with a lot of people, including some of your opponents in this race, is that it's very popular to say, we got to tax billionaires.

Cool. They mostly don't earn wages. So you can set the tax at the income tax rate to whatever you want. You're not going to collect any more money because they're not earning. income. Cool. What about we tax capital gains at the same rate as income or at a higher rate? Well, the problem there, as you know, of course, is that's when you are taking gains. If you don't actually sell shares on which you have a gain, you don't have the opportunity to collect those capital gains rates. So then we go, okay, how about a wealth tax? Now, here's my thought

on the wealth tax. And I want to hear from you because you might be both governing on this and subject to it. A lot. I have no ethical or moral problem with a wealth tax. Seems like a reason idea. A lot of the countries in Europe that have done it saw total tax revenue come down and they abandoned it because people react to the tax and change their behavior. Now, the California 5%, if I understand correctly, is one time and it's retroactive. So leaving the state wouldn't work, at least in theory, because it would go back to your status as of January 1st. Talk me through this. Talk to you. And the real question that I want to get to is what is the most effective way to actually collect tax revenue from billionaires? So let me say this. I understand everything you're saying. Yep. I have said that

if it's on the ballot, I'll vote for it. Okay. But that it's a one time tax to solve an ongoing problem. It doesn't distribute the money in the way that I would go, including the fact that it dramatically under pays or under distributes to the education system to schools and teachers. Okay. And therefore, I can see this as not a long-term solution for this issue. You'd be okay with it, but it doesn't solve the problem to do it once. What I've said, I've said, look, here are the reasons that I would not design this this way. Okay. But if it's on the ballot, I would vote for it. Got it. But let me say to you, David, take a look at the things that I'm. I've done and the things that I am proposing right now.

Okay. So I ran a proposition to protect the cap and trade revenues in 2010. Oil companies were trying to get rid of it. We beat them 70, 30. No one thought we could possibly win. We smashed them. I got a $2 a pack cigarette tax passed in 2016. The legislature couldn't get it past the tobacco companies were too strong.

We took it to the people. We won. No one had ever been able to do that. In 2012, out-of-state corporations weren't paying a fair income tax in the state of California. We're paying less on their California earnings than California companies. Yeah. We said, that's not fair. Let's close that loophole.

And we did. Right now, I'm proposing on day one to call a special election and close a corporate real estate tax loophole where basically corporate real estate is taxed based on valuations from the 19th. It makes no sense. It's a loophole. It's worth $20 billion to the state of California. Over five years, it generates more money than the wealth tax. I'm also talking about something where corporations in California get to decide what locale they earned their money in. And of course, they choose low tax locales. And that costs the state about $5 billion. In answer to your question, you said your background is in economics. I'm for shared prosperity. I want to make sure we have prosperity. I just think we're in an incredibly rich state that has the highest poverty rate in the United States of America. We have the highest wealth disparity, inequality in the United States.

And that's not right. And so I am working on behalf of working people so that the state can provide health care as a right, good education system, home care, child care. the things that will let them live a fair life and drive down housing costs so they can buy a house. These are basic things. And the way that I just described to you five things, three of which have already passed that bring billions of dollars every year to the state of California for either education or health that Californians don't pay a penny for.

Those all sound good. The one I want more information about is the tax on cigarettes. Isn't that basically just saying that people addicted to cigarettes often disproportionately poor people are going to pay more for their cigarettes? That one I'm less sure about. Okay, well, let me say this to you, David. The thing that happened with it was it dramatically reduced teen smoking. Okay, well, that's good. Yes, it is. And so the basic point is, I take your point, but the truth is that was an anti-tobacco move. It actually has had a very positive effect on the state of California, which of course, has meant the tax revenues go down. Yes. But it's also very good for the health of the people of this state.

So it sounds like your principle here is let's capture more revenue from the corporations before it even gets into the pockets of the individual billionaires and we have to figure out how to get it from them. Is that fair? I wouldn't say that's what I've talked about. Yeah. If we're going to do a tax on billionaires, I've said I would vote for it. I got you. I would tax myself.

I just want to make sure that when we do it, we do it in a way that works for shared prosperity. And so I gave you the examples without going into how I do that if I were designing it. Yeah. Things that I have designed. Things, I gave you five things that I have either, three of which have already passed, two of which I've talked about, one of which I said, I'll call the election. a special election on day one so that you can understand that when I say shared prosperity, I'm not kidding. I really care that we have prosperity. And I want to design things to make sure

that. And I want to make sure that in fact, but this state works for working people because it's not fair. People working people can't afford to live in this state, David. They can't afford rent. They can't afford health care. They're not getting the school systems that such a rich state you think would absolutely deliver. And they're paying. twice as much for electricity and they're getting gouged at the pump. Somebody has to stand up for working people against the corporate special interests. That's why I'm running for governor. I'm the only person doing it. I did want to talk a little bit about homelessness. I'm getting a message. You've got to run. So maybe we'll save that for another opportunity if we can.

David, I would love to talk again because obviously you are someone who thinks about economics. Me too. I love that. I you know, I'm a very practical person. I, started a business from scratch and built a big business. I went to Stanford business school. I really care that the state of I'm on. I would say to people, I'm on team California. I want our state to win. I want our state to do really well. But this is not a fair way that this state is being run. And I'm for working people every time because they're getting screwed by the corporate interests who are absolutely feasting on them. Tom Steyer running for governor of California. We're watching the race closely.

And I really do appreciate your time. Thank you, sir, for having me. See you, David. Scams and identity theft rarely start with a hacked password. They usually start when your personal information is easy to find online. Your address, phone number, relatives, employment history. That information lives on countless data broker sites on the internet, accessible to almost anyone unless you actively remove it. Our sponsor, Incogni, is a service that handles that for you. Incogni doesn't just focus on one category of sites.

It works to take down your personal data wherever it appears online. reducing the raw material scammers used to impersonate you or target your family. Incogny will automatically handle removals across hundreds of known sites, but the most powerful feature is custom removals, which is included with the unlimited plan if you find your info anywhere, even an obscure directory, a business database, something new. You paste the link into Incogny. Their team will work to get it removed.

That level of coverage really matters. Even a single exposed profile can lead to fraud, harassment, identity theft, Incogni's removal process is independently verified by Deloitte, and you can get 60% off when you go to incogni.com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman. Gavin Newsom doesn't like Trump's corrupt slush fund, wherein he sued himself in the sense that he's the president suing the IRS for $10 billion and agreed to withdraw the lawsuit for the creation of a $1.7 billion slush fund, which is going to be given to victims of government weaponization, which basically is a way to give his friends and supporters money out of this slush fund.

Well, Gavin Newsom has an idea. He wants California to impose a 100% tax on any payments made to California residents from the corrupt slush fund. You get 500 grand from the slush fund, probably more like 15 grand. You get 15 grand from the slush fund. It's taxed at 100% by California. What an idea. Well, I've been thinking a lot.

I'm not in Congress. I was out there in Washington, D.C., trying to make a case anew. And some good meetings with EPA. Lee Eldon's, I want to get them fired. But, you know, there is teams working hard. to see what we can do to help the victims of last year's fires in Los Angeles. And, you know, so I was up there around the time when legislative leaders were all, you know, discussing what the options were.

And so I've been thinking a lot about it in my flight back. And one thing that I think we're going to try to do with your support is tax 100 percent. Anyone from California that receives any of those funds, we want to tax 100 percent of those proceeds. And that's an action the state of California can take. Yeah. Now, there, this is not actually the only state considering this. There seemed to be some potential legal hurdles to do that. At minimum, it would be challenged in court.

But it would certainly make the effectiveness of Trump's corrupt slush fund. It would diminish the effectiveness of Trump's corrupt slush fund. And I love the idea. Here is Gavin Newsom himself talking again about how Donald Trump is endlessly still telling the same old lies. I really won California in 2024. Eyes wide open. Trump himself just last week said yet again that he won the election in California.

Can't even make that one up. I'm not talking about January 6th. The fact he pardoned all those folks that were beating up cops and absolved them, providing him $1.776 billion. So none of you get a pardon and you get rewarded. Private army with ICE, private army of protesters. Stand up, stand back. So what's the key issue here?

I think that the core political issue is that you've got all of the first, I don't even want to get into this, but remember when it was Antifa that did January 6th? There were not really any Trump supporters. It turns out they were because then Trump pardoned them because they were his supporters. And now Trump wants to give him money out of the slush fund. But imagine committing crimes. Crimes against the government of the United States. It's not petty shoplifting, not that petty shoplifting is okay.

But these are crimes against the government of the United States, against law enforcement, against the primary processes of how our democracy functions. You then get a pardon from Donald Trump. And on top of that, you're going to be financially rewarded. You storm the capital, attack police officers, get pardoned by Trump. And now they're like, how about some money? because you're actually a victim. These are perpetrators.

These are criminals. So this is an inversion of law and order. And we've been talking about projection all day. Trump goes, oh, we must stop once and for all the weaponization of the DOJ by Joe Biden. Yeah, Biden didn't do that, but we know you're going to. And he does. Now, he's having E. Gene Carroll investigated, the woman that he sexually assaulted was found civilly liable for sexually

assaulting. January 6th happens. Police officers are beaten up. on camera. And then the same politicians who go, we're for law enforcement, we're for the police, we're for law and order. They minimize, they excuse. They're pathetic. Gavin Newsome understands the political framing because he is explaining it as these aren't just pardons. These are rewards for attacking the capital. What is less American than that? And whether people agree with California's idea of this 100% tax on the slush fund proceeds, what I do think Democrats should do is force Republicans

to defend the underlying premise of the payouts publicly. Get them to come out and go, no, I think these people do deserve the money. You do? Here's what they did. Well, they were pardoned. And you defend the pardons? Like, get them on record as I defend the pardon and I defend the money. I don't think it's a very comfortable argument for a lot of these Republicans because most Americans, on polling still don't support what happened on January 6th. They don't view it positively. They don't view the rioters positively, even if Trump did pardon them. There's also a broader thing happening here. States increasingly are functioning as counterweights to the federal government, which is interesting

to see. California is basically saying if the federal government wants to reward January 6th defendants, right? So pulling one way, we will try to neutralize it through taxation. And I think this is a good type of confrontation politically for Gavin Newsom because it turns like a national culture war fight into something with a very clear corrupt and anti-corruption side. And that I think is very important for Democrats to do heading into 26 and especially 28. Now Trump continuing to lie about, I really, if they had counted the votes fairly, I would have won California.

I think that that's also useful for Newsom because it makes Trump's. sound detached from reality because he lost California by millions of votes, but not a thousand, not 10,000, not 100,000, millions of votes. And so Trump can insist he won California all day long. He looks nuts when he talks about that. I don't know whether Gavin Newsom will actually effectuate this 100% tax. I think the idea is phenomenal. But what I'm getting the sense of and I agree with is that Democrats believe this terrain is favorable to them. digging in on this, the slush fund is corrupt. We will take any measures we can think of to fight back against it.

Americans see the corruption. They don't all like Gavin Newsome. Some of them prefer Trump. But the anti-corruption feeling is growing. And I think it's a great idea. I support the concept. I don't know if it'll actually work out. We will see.

Donald Trump is now the least popular president ever. He's gotten the worst numbers in history from a number of polls. listen to Harry Enton on CNN explaining it here. And what are we talking about? We're talking about a complete collapse of the floor. Look at this. Republicans' net approval of Trump on inflation. You know, you go back when he was running for reelection back in 2024 for term number one.

Look at that net approval rating. It was plus 68 points in terms of how they viewed Republicans viewed inflation in Trump. And term number one, look at this. Look at this. Collapse minus five points. Now this is just the Ipsos polling. I will note, but look at this. Even in Fox, he was at minus two points.

So it's not alone. He is on the wrong side of the ledger. And this is not voters overall. Let me remind you. This is Republican voters. That call absolutely coming from inside the House on the key issue of inflation. There are now multiple polls showing that Donald John Trump is underwater within his own Republican party. That's a 73 point swing.

That is 73 point swing. And three. And I actually drew that pretty gosh darn well. All right. Harry, the phone is ringing. Hello. And someone's calling about gas prices. Who's calling it?

What are they saying? It's Republicans who are calling you. again and they are saying that they are underwater again when it comes to this particular issue. Look at gas prices. Okay, GOP, Trump, net approval on fuel and gas prices. You go back to last summer. Look at this. It was plus 51. Look at it now. Minus four. Again, what are we talking about here? We're talking about a 55 point shift away from the president of the United States on the key issue of gas prices. So these numbers are historically bad. These are devastating numbers. Think about everybody included in those numbers over all of this period of time and how we are seeing historic reversals,

historic reversals. And we also have new polling data from these are net approval ratings. And we'll put those up on the screen. And you see that these are just disaster numbers. You see a thin red line, which are Trump's first term numbers. You see the gray line, which is Biden's numbers. And then you see the thicker red line. red line. And so to understand these numbers, you have to go all the way back to the worst

of Biden's moments, the worst of Biden's worst moments, the peak of the inflation panic and all of that. And Trump's numbers are even worse than that. And Trump's numbers are worse now than they were when you had all of the COVID deaths happening as Trump looked the other way and said, stop the testing. These are some of the worst numbers we have ever, ever seen. Now, what's Maga's reaction? It's always kind of the same. It's, you know, the polls are fake. The media is corrupt.

The samples are rigged. The pollsters are biased. Whatever excuse they can come up with. But there's a point when, I mean, listen, every major poll, even ones that lean right, like Rasmussen, they point in the same direction. You might say, well, the numbers are a little different. Yes. But they're all pointing in the same direction, which is Trump is rapidly.

declining in approval. And this could be a disaster for Republicans in November if we make it so. One thing we've learned, and this goes back to Clinton, but you could go back a long way. When people are struggling economically and they know it, they are not going to be convinced by politicians telling them everything's awesome. And in fact, they might get angry when politicians try to tell them everything's awesome. And they go, oh, yeah, well, wait until you see how I vote. I'll show you how awesome things are. Gas prices are very high. Credit card debt is ballooning. auto loan delinquencies are surging. Housing affordability has not improved. Americans are financially exhausted. They're emotionally exhausted. They're psychologically exhausted. Very dangerous environment.

And then you see the opposite direction. You want line go up. What you've got with Trump's approval is line go down. And voters are watching and they're like, what is Trump doing? Bizarre cabinet meetings saying he doesn't care about gas prices and he doesn't think about Americans financial situations. confused rambling, stories about grass and aliens, extraterrential, imaginary social security fraud conspiracies of 125-year-olds getting benefits. What? That is not going to win you any votes. And if we go back to the promises that were made, Trump was going to be, supposedly,

we didn't believe it, but Trump was going to be the guy who looked powerful, fixed everything, was never tired, never looked weak. It's a disastrous presidency, and he falls asleep on camera multiple times per week. So if you're an American in Detroit or Des Moines or Tallahassee and you look around, you go, gas is expensive. Prices have gone up instead of down. And Trump is bragging about how the reflecting pool that he's redoing for 13 million is longer than the Empire State building is tall.

What? And he's bragging about how great his cognitive tests are without having the conscience of saying, wait a second, maybe it's bad that I keep being tested cognitively. Now, Americans see it. And I don't know when the breaking point will be, but that's exactly why these numbers matter so much because there's a deeper problem than the daily chaos. It used to be people that are going about their days. Trump says something wacky.

Oh, that's weird. People go back to going about their days. There wasn't necessarily a connection between the two. Now people are looking around and going, am I better off now than I was four years ago? No, I'm worse off now. Notably so. And did anyone make promises about how things were going to be going? Yes, Trump made promises.

And as he kept those promises, no, he hasn't. And does he seem to care? And then you turn on the TV and it's Trump going, we're going to release stuff about aliens. And I also don't consider gas prices and the increase is peanuts and it's worth it because of Iran. People don't buy it. And so voters are, forget about being inspired. They are angry. They're exhausted. They're embarrassed by what's going on. We need to make it an electoral disaster in November. On the bonus show, could Trump's IRS case be reopened to look at fraud? Some say yes. More people are going hungry now than at the height of the pandemic. It's disgusting and it doesn't. It's optional. Doesn't have to happen. And there are allies of the president want to.

a $250 bill with Trump's face on it. Dear God, what would it take to make it a reality? All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Sign up at join packman.com.