The David Pakman Show - Everything is great other than all of this stuff

Episode Date: May 1, 2026

-- On the Show: -- Oil prices surge to about $126 per barrel, tied to the Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz disruption, while Trump claims the war is calming -- Donald Trump says his administration will release UFO files, citing interviews with pilots who report unexplained aerial phenomena -- Republicans propose using taxpayer money to fund a $400 million White House ballroom despite earlier claims it would be privately funded -- Republicans shift from private funding to taxpayer funding for Trump's ballroom, while constituents struggle to afford groceries and utilities -- Mark Carney says Canadian reliance on the US under Trump has become a weakness and signals stronger ties with other partners -- The Friday Feedback segment -- On the Bonus Show: The US will issue passports with Trump's face on them, Erika Kirk speaks out after the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and much more... 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.com/pakman 💻 Sponsored by Private Internet Access: 83% OFF + 4 months free at https://www.piavpn.com/DavidP 🖼️ Aura Frames: Use code PAKMAN for $25 off Carver Mat frames at https://auraframes.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) Oil prices surge to $126 per barrel (09:41) Trump teases UFO files release (18:04) GOP pushes for tax funded Trump ballroom (23:59) Trump focused on the ballroom as supporters struggle (30:56) Canada abandons US over Trump hostility (38:34) Friday Feedback Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There is a story that is getting almost no attention and it is hitting your wallet directly, which is that gas prices are climbing again. Oil is at a wartime high and it is all because of what's happening in the Middle East right now, even though the focus for a lot of legacy in corporate media has been the ballroom and the White House correspondence dinner shooting. We are going to break down. What is happening with gas prices? What is happening with energy?

Why and then the why it could get worse, which is just as a moment. important. Also, Donald Trump is back to teasing the UFO files saying something big is coming. He's seen some stuff. He's talked to some pilots. But if you've heard this before, uh, you might have a sense of what is coming and why we are hearing this right now. And then there is a push now officially for you to pay for Donald Trump's ballroom. But what about the donors? I thought it was a gift. Well, people are struggling to pay for groceries. People are struggling to pay for gas.

And they want you to pay for the ballroom. Plus, a top U.S. ally, Canada, is now saying it's time to rethink our relationship with the United States. Not good. All of it and more today. Gas prices have been blown sky high. Again, this is not an old story. It is happening again.

They are at their highest point in years today. Trump doesn't want you to know about it. Republicans don't want you to know about it. And I'm going to show you everything that they are doing so that you don't remember. Wait a second. He told me it'd be down 50%. And it's up almost 60%. So let's start.

with the record high for gas prices. As you can see here, after a brief detente when Trump said, oh, I fixed everything. The straight of vermouth is open after just a brief dip from the previous highs of $4.16 a gallon. Gas prices are now up, up, up and away $4.34 a gallon. And as you go back, this is an 18 month chart. You look at a two-year chart and we are way higher. You look at a three-year chart and we are way higher. You have to go back to a four-year chart, which was at the peak of the post-COVID summer driving demand boom to see gas prices that were higher than they are today. Oil prices are up to a, I guess we're calling it a wartime high of $126 a barrel at one point recently. And this is all happening at the same time that Trump is saying the war is over.

We've fixed everything. It's calm. It's stable. And by the way, I want to build a ballroom and you should be paying attention to other stuff. It doesn't match reality. The Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed. One of the most critical shipping routes in the world. 20%, one fifth of oil volume globally goes through that.

And that's going to drive prices higher across the economy as gas and transportation prices go up. Everything is going to get more expensive. And meanwhile, Trump is considering new military action, additional strikes, potential operations to try to take control of the straight itself. And all of it should mean more of a price increase, no price decrease. Now, Republicans are desperate to try to lie and take attention away from this. Here is Republican Congressman Steve Scalise. And he goes, listen, people were paying six and now we're paying three.

Actually, people were not paying six and we are not now paying three. And you know what? MAGA, CNBC host Joe Kernan actually does call him out on it. Prediction markets aren't friendly to the GOP's chances for holding the house. I mean, even the Senate is some question. I don't know if you put any stock in that, but there were some developments this week. No, it seems like negative developments in Virginia, I think for for dramatic crowds, positive developments for Republicans in Texas, something happening in Florida now?

What is your, you think there's any way that your party holds on in November to the House? Absolutely. And look, it's a path that is focused on turnout number one and delivery, what we've delivered to finally start turning this mess around that we inherited a year and a half ago. People that will remember, you go back two years ago, we were paying almost six, dollars a gallon for gasoline. Okay, let's let's just pause it real quick. You all know that's not true because I just showed you. If we look at a two year chart, which we're doing right now, there's not even a six on the screen. Two years ago, gas prices were about 365. They came down as

Joe Biden prepared to leave office. They were basically flat that entire time. And during most of Donald Trump's first year, there was a little dip and then a nearly 60 percent increase, recently because of Donald Trump's war in Iran. Okay, so Steve Scalese is lying. Now it's in the threes. Obviously, we've seen a jump with the Iran conflict. When were we paying six? 50. Two, two and a half years ago. I don't think we're look at it. I wasn't the average price. We're we're over 30% below where we were just two years ago. Today, we are 30% below where we were two years ago. You all know that's a lie. I mean, the charts right here. We're not 30% below anything over the last two years.

We're actually more like 35% above where we were. They don't care. They will just lie to you. It's still going to go lower when Iran gets resolved in the straight of Hormuz gets open. But at the same time, did anybody want a nuclear armed Iran? I think if you ask most normal people, they would say- All right, you get the point.

He's just going to lie. Meanwhile, Maria Bartaromo goes full Baghdad Bob. The economy is doing very well despite the war in Iran and the spike in oil prices. Well, other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln? Oh, absolutely. And the economy is doing very well despite the war in Iran and the spike in oil prices, which the president has talked about repeatedly being a temporary issue. Other than those disasters, it's all going well.

Now, just a reminder, Donald Trump saying the following. to the promises he made. I will unleash energy independence and we will bring the price of gasoline down immediately. So we're going to get your gas prices down. And we will ready? Drill, baby drill. Going to get your energy way down. You're going to spend a lot less money for your gasoline.

You have that special stuff. We will unleash American energy and bring prices way down fast. Way down and very fast. So let me shift into the media analysis part of this. this because we've established the promise was gas prices down and what we've got, what we've gotten, gotten our gas prices up. Look at what's dominating media coverage at the same time. White House correspondence dinner, shooting, the shooting connected to it, ongoing discussion of the event, the venue, the personalities involved, hours and hours of coverage focused on the ballroom,

which Republicans have opportunistically said we really need to build now. The visit from King And no coverage of the fact that Trump declared the gas price problem over almost three weeks ago and gas prices are at a three and a half year high. And this is how the story gets lost because they've decided on legacy and corporate media, it's not really going to be a store anymore. Now, because many of us in the independent space have been now covering it for three full days, you're starting to see the gas price story trickle in. And that example with Steve Scalise is an example where Scalise felt the need to address gas prices by lying, but he felt the need to address it. People feel the price increase. The connection to the ongoing conflict and the policy decisions has to be brought up. This was optional.

And so what happens if we allow the story to fall by the wayside is that people forget about the fact that it is a political issue. People don't forget that they're paying more for gas. When you go to the gas pump, if you turn on TV and they're talking about the ballroom, but you go to pump gas and it's 434 a gallon, you remember that it's 434 a gallon. But the important thing is to connect it to an optional policy that Donald Trump said, I think I'm going to try to do this. And those are the drivers for these gas price increases. Instability looks exactly like this. And what we need to make sure is simply that there are a constant. consequences for political decisions. Trump should sometimes it might make sense to go to war.

Sometimes it might not in this particular case the United States population by and large doesn't think the Iran engagement made sense and is not pleased with the direction of the economy. You now get to vote on that basis in November. Are we finally getting the UFO files? Donald Trump says we are going to have them very soon. He's seen things you wouldn't believe. Pilots have told him unbelievable things about UFOs, and he is ready to release the files and finally give us the evidence we've been waiting for about what? Donald Trump and little green men in area 51.

What exactly do you think we're going to get? set it up for you. Donald Trump started teasing this weeks ago with statements like the following. As you remember, I recently directed the Secretary of War. How good is Pete Hankseth doing, by the way? By the way. To begin releasing government files relating to UFOs and unexplained aerial phenomena. Phenomena. And I figured this was a good crowd because I know you people, You're really into that. I don't know if I am. So I'm pleased to report today.

I thought I'd save it for this crowd because you're a little bit out there, you know, a little bit. That this process is well underway and we found many very interesting documents, I must say. And the first releases will begin very, very soon. So you can. Trump's going to make a massive, massive release. Oh. And if you think you're getting information about alien life, well, I have one.

more clip to show you. Donald Trump was asked yesterday the day before in the Oval Office. Any updates on those massive dumps of UFO files? Here's what Trump said. Mr. President, I have two questions for you. First, on the topic of space. Do you have an update on the UFO files and what might be when we're going to be seeing those? Well, I think we're going to be releasing as much as we can in the near future for some reason. And I guess it's just a reason it's been in the minds of people for a long time. And that is such, you know, They want to find out about the UFOs and anything having to do with UFO or related material. And we're going to be releasing a lot of things from that we have.

And I think so it's going to be very interesting to people. I've, I've interested. All right. So listen, if you think that this is a bombshell, there's a little problem with that. We've heard versions of this before. This is not the first time that UFO disclosure has been teased. It's not even the first time Trump has teased UFO disclosure. And every time it's the same pattern, you get vague claims.

the things I've seen, the things I've been told, very interesting. You then find out that there are dubious claims from unnamed sources who are then referred to as very credible people. Something big is coming and one of two things happens. Number one, nothing happens. Or number two, what is released is pretty mundane. Now, could the documents be coming? I guess.

The Pentagon has already acknowledged unexplained aerial. phenomena, but something that you don't have an answer for is not necessarily alien life, which is, of course, like the big bombshell that is being teased here implicitly. We've had hearings. There have been reports. But the context makes it a lot less bombshelly, I guess I would say. And to me, the most important takeaway is, listen, if we get documents, we'll look at the documents. We'll see what they say. Until we see them, I can't evaluate documents I haven't seen. But I want to remind you that this entire conversation is not happening in a vacuum. Supreme Court has weakened voting rights protections. Economic policies like tariffs have completely blown up. Foreign policy

decisions like Iran have spiked gas prices almost 60 percent to a price higher than they've been in three and a half years. Those are actions with consequences that are affecting people. And then sitting on top of that, you've got Trump again going, I've seen things you wouldn't believes, but pilots I've spoken to have given me reports. I've directed Pete Hagseth to start releasing massive dumps of files. And so the pattern is one we're very used to if we follow modern American politics. You need a spectacle to compete with substance. Right now, the substance sucks for Trump. It's gas prices up. It's economic growth expected to decline according to Jerome Powell. It's job creation down. It's inflation up rather than down. Energy

prices up rather than down. And in the meantime, they want you to pay for a $400 million ballroom, which we'll get to in a moment. And so that's the substance. It's a very bad substance. And so you add a little spectacle. UFO files. I've seen things you wouldn't believe. No one's seen it before. And in the background, the policy changes that really hurt the average American continue with very little attention. In fact, up until today, like the last 12 hours, the gas price story is finally getting more attention. But prior to the last 12 hours, we heard far more about UFO files that may not even exist and may not be released. We've heard far more about UFO files in the previous four days than about three and a half year record high gas prices. So you have to ask why all of a sudden

is Trump speaking? This is he actually spoke three times. I showed you two. He spoke three times. about UFO files in the last 10 to 14 days. Why are we hearing about that? And where is the attention being sucked away from? And you very quickly understand that there are terrible economic circumstances that are being smothered with this kind of stuff. Question for you. Leave me a comment. Leave me a send me an email info at david packman.com. Do you expect even a single bombshell revelation with regard to UFOs in the next two months? Let me know. Most scammers rely on information that's already public. Your name, address, phone number, family connections.

A lot of that is online and available to be scraped and abused. Our sponsor Incogni reduces the risk by removing you from the internet wherever that personal data appears. It works across many types of websites, not just one category. So scammers have fewer ways to piece things together about you. Incogny automatically submits removal requests to hundreds of sites on your behalf. But the standout feature is custom removals where you find your information on any website, even one not in their database.

You paste the link and Incogni's team will get to work to remove it. I can tell you I've personally been getting way fewer scam and spam calls and messages ever since I started using Incogni. You can accomplish a lot quickly with Incogny. Protect yourself before your data is used against you. Get 60% off. go to incogny.com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman. The link is in the description. There are a lot of VPN companies out there and almost all of them make the exact same promise.

Trust us. Your data safe. Our sponsor, private internet access, you don't have to take their word for it because they've proven multiple times in court when authorities have asked for user logs. They don't have them. They don't have anything to hand over. Their software is open. source. You do not have to trust anybody. You can verify for yourself. They have a no log policy, which really matters because the whole point of a VPN is to protect your privacy. Private internet access hides your IP address, encrypts your connection, helps to protect your data when you're at home, on public Wi-Fi, traveling. And it also lets you access content that might not be available in your region. Just a single private internet access account.

You can use on unlimited devices with servers in 91 countries and all 50 states optimized for fast streaming and downloads so you are not sacrificing performance for security or privacy. It's one of those things you turn on once and just forget about it. Get an exclusive, 83% off. That is just 203 a month plus four months free at PIA VPN.com slash Pacman. the link is in the description. Are you having trouble affording gas? What about we all get together and buy Donald Trump a $400 million ballroom? Now, you might be saying, wait a second, David, I thought the ballroom was going to be paid for,

but Trump's friends who are giving him money out of the goodness of their hearts with no expectation whatsoever of any future favors. Well, they are very quietly and then not so quietly and very quickly moving towards, moving towards having the ballroom paid for by me and by you and by all of us. Do I have my, I did everything right and they indicted me. Saudi Arabia and Russia will repeat you. No, I don't. Um, senators led by Lindsey Graham have introduced a bill. To fund a massive new ballroom at the White House, the same one Trump's been planning to build for months. It'll cost around $400 million. But as opposed to the first version of it, this one would be paid by taxpayer money.

Here is Trump just as a reminder saying the ballroom will be fully financed by private donors. And in fact, he's got so much money that there will be money left over. You know, you can always fit a few more people in. And part of the fact that you're a little tight at your table, that's okay. That's better than lots of room for everybody because nobody shows up, right? But you've been so generous in your contributions, very substantial money, fully financed. It's fully taken care of now. And in fact, we'll have money left over.

And we'll use that for something. We'll use that. We're going to have so much money left over. Now, I want to remind you, this was initially going to be $150 million ballroom paid for by donors. Then it became a $200 million ballroom paid for by donors. Then it was a 250 million and 300 and 325. They are now offhandedly saying it's a $400 million ballroom and it's not going to be paid for by donors if it indeed is built.

Now, we know why this shift has happened after the shooting at the White House correspondence dinner on Saturday. A whole bunch of Republicans got on message and started saying we must build the ballroom. It is imperative that we build the ballroom. We need it. Why do we need it? Apparently so that you could do the White House Correspondence. correspondence dinner there, except you couldn't. The White House correspondent's dinner is like 2,500 people. The ballroom, if built, would only accommodate a thousand people. But we must protect the

president indoors for major events and gatherings. And now it is going to be who that pays for it, not Trump's rich friends, but you and me. Now, I want you to consider what's taking place at the exact same time. Gas prices are at a record high. Record, like three year record today. Groceries are expensive. People are feeling squeezed. Lawmakers say let's spend hundreds of millions on a ballroom. And you know, there are even some Republicans, not not nearly all, but some Republicans that are a little uneasy about it. And they say could look a little bit tone deaf to voters. There are questions as to why taxpayers would even need to do this if Trump's donors have already agreed. Have they sent the money?

Have they sent their bank transfers? I guess we don't know. There are some senators saying if it does get built, it shouldn't come from public money. It should be built, some of them say, but not with public money. Others are saying this will be a complete backfire politically. They don't really have a problem ideologically, but they're like, it's going to backfire. It's not going to be a good idea. And that's before we even get into the details of the process.

It is not a room. It is a large complex security infrastructure. And if they're admitting it's going to be $400 million, we wouldn't be surprised if it ended up costing even more. Now, meanwhile, what's Congress up to? Well, they're fighting over basic government operations. What amount of debt should we be taking on? What are our spending priorities?

The Department of Homeland Security is still in a share. shut down. We're about to start up again with TSA agents not getting paid. But somehow the momentum is behind taxpayers paying for a ballroom. That is frankly disgusting and immoral. And the proposal that at one point was little project paid for by donors is now why do we need this thing and you are going to be paying for it. Now, I doubt that this proposal. from Lindsay is going to pass, certainly not as proposed. I don't know that it would pass the house anyway. The fact that they feel comfortable proposing this when we are in the current economic circumstances we find ourselves in is the part that's like the major red flag. Don't they recognize

that this is a disastrous idea at this point in time with gas prices as high as they are, job creation low, unemployment ticking up, energy prices. We were told. They'd be down 50% and in fact, they're up. And they go, you know what I think the American people would like to see us do right now? Let's propose paying for what was going to be the donor funded Trump ballroom. If I'm missing something and in fact, there is willingness from the American people, interests from the American people in paying for this thing, I will eat my hat. But it seems to me that this is not something the American people are going to be falling for.

And meanwhile, we should actually delve more deeply into what's going on with costs. So let's do that right now. Reminder, the ballroom Trump wants was supposed to be funded by his donor friends. That was the pitch. I have friends with money, rich backers, corporate donors, whatever. You can be concerned about access. You can be concerned about influence. But at least the taxpayers aren't paying for it.

As we spoke about moments ago, fast forward, White House correspondence dinner shooting, and suddenly everything changes. And Lindsey Graham proposes that taxpayers, me, you pay for the ballroom. The argument they are leaning on is we need the ballroom for security. And there are some Republicans in Congress who are saying, yes, let's do it. So let's revisit the shift. Donors will pay for it after the shooting. taxpayers must immediately pay for it with no argument at all. They should line up and salute

and say, sir, we will buy you a ballroom for $400 million. Now, at the same time, you've got some members of Congress who seem attached to reality like Sarah McBride saying, my constituents can't even afford groceries. And we're talking about 400 million. dollars in tax money for a ballroom. Here is our friend Pablo reports from Midas touch speaking to Sarah McBride. So Donald Trump has been saying for months that private donors are going to pay for this ballroom project. Now apparently taxpayers are going to be on the hook for. What's up with that? My constituents can't afford fucking grocery bills or utility bills. And he now wants to spend taxpayer money on a ballroom, on reckless wars on a masked.

immigration regime. I mean, it's his priorities are clearly in the wrong spot. And, uh, they shouldn't use a potential tragedy to try to secure funding from taxpayers for this president to have great Gatsby parties in the White House. Now, let me remind you about a couple things because I got some emails from very nasty Trump supporters going, David, you're an effing this and a mother, wow. and all of this different stuff. The donors are paying for it.

Well, no, they're not. First of all, if the donors had already sent their money, Trump would have it and they wouldn't need to now start saying, we need taxpayers to fund this thing. But I do think it's important before we kind of continue on to take a brief detour into the reminder that even if the ballroom construction itself were funded by donors, the ongoing maintenance and the additional staffing that would be required for for it would be paid by taxpayers. That's like, that's a no matter what thing. So no matter what

this is going to cost taxpayers money. Now let's move into the incredible contrast. There are people whose electric bills are up massively. Their grocery bills are up. Their gas prices are up. And the priority of Washington is a bill for taxpayers to pay for a ballroom. A massive 90,000 square foot complex with underground facilities. And the justification is it, would have prevented what happened at the correspondence dinner, even though that is not an event that is even held at the White House, even though ultimately security still stopped the attacker, and despite the fact that the proposed ballroom wouldn't even have the seating capacity of the White House correspondence dinner. The DOJ and Republicans are saying a shooting is why we need to clear

all legal obstacles out of the way so that we can build this ballroom. And the part that really jumps out is a tragedy happens, a potential tragedy more so than anything, it seems no one, no one was hurt. There was a secret service agent that I guess his phone in his pocket blocked the bullet. I mean, it's crazy. Fortunately, everybody is okay. And all and that's we, we immediately need to dump 400 million dollars of our own money into building this thing.

And it almost immediately becomes an overnight talking point coordinated by Republicans. Um, what about the debt? Remember when every extra dollar we found was supposedly going to go to paying down the national debt, which Trump promised would happen by the end of his first term, which didn't happen. What about rushing things through before anybody has had a chance to settle down? Every time there's a shooting and we say, we might want to look at gun safety regulations. They go, no, the impact of the shooting is too strong. in our minds. It's too soon to get political and to make any decisions. Well, within five minutes of the shooting on Saturday, they were saying we need the ballroom now, fund the ballroom with taxpayer money. So we see priorities that are completely out of sync with what people they're dealing with. And my hope is, and I'm going to do everything I can to make it happen. And you have just as much power as me through voting to make it happen. These people need to be voted out. These people need to be voted out in November. We now have just six.

six plus months, barely six months before we get the opportunity to send them packing and to say, no, you're not going to take this and try to get 400 million in taxpayer money for Trump's ballroom. You are not going to make promises about affordability that you don't keep and then insist that we should vote you back in. So I hope that you will be joining me in November voting to end this insanity, gas prices, energy prices, grocery prices, and they want you to pay for a ballroom. Give me a break. One of the weird things about getting older is realizing how many photos never go anywhere. They sit in your phone even when they are great pictures that matter.

And this is why an aura digital picture frame makes a great Mother's Day gift. Our sponsor, Aura, makes digital frames that turn photos into memories that can be enjoyed every day. I gave one to my mom years ago for Mother's Day. so easy. You can preload photos before the frame even arrives. You can keep adding pictures and so can other people. I can add pictures of the baby anytime I want, even though we don't live that close to each other. These frames look like real prints. They blend right into the room's decor and it's a great way to stay connected with your mom or other family members or friends and

keep those pictures from disappearing. Orra is giving my audience. $25 off their best selling Carver mat frame. Go to auraframes.com. Use the code Pacman. Terms and conditions apply. The link is in the description. One of our top allies is abandoning us even more than they already have over the last six months because they see Trump's insanity and they are saying this doesn't make any sense.

Sadly, this is a, this is truly sad. It's Canada. We have another one of these situations that maybe it sounds like diplomatic language if you don't pay very close attention. But when you listen to what's being said, it's a pretty big deal. One of America's top allies, Canada, is now saying it's time to move away from the United States. Mark Carney, the prime minister, said something that should really get our attention. This should horrify us. He said that what used to be strengths, close ties to the United States have now become weaknesses.

Take a look. Foundations of the international order, the order which Canada helped to build, and from which we have long benefited, that order is crumbling. And many of our former strengths built on our close ties to the United States have become our weaknesses. The U.S. has changed. That's their right. responding, that is our imperative. We are responding with speed and ambition, focusing on what we can control, which is to build our strength at home and diversify our partnerships abroad.

Abroad, we've secured more than 20 economic and security partnerships across four continents in less than a year. We're re-engaging with global giants like India, China and Brazil, and we're deepening our partnerships with our closest allies, including the European Union, the Nordic countries, and Australia. As a result, we're attracting the strongest investment in the G7. And we're on track to double our non-U.S. exports within a decade. Uh-oh. Now, if you just glance at the tone, because Mark Carney is very polite and I don't want to

stereotype Canadians as polite, although they've always been very polite to me. And I will be back in Canada within just a couple of weeks. and they're going to be polite again. They always are. This is pretty serious. It turns out that having an untrustworthy president as a partner tells you we've got to diversify. And when he says we've doubled non-US imports, that means we are increasingly getting more and more stuff from someone else. This relationship with Canada has been a foundation of Western alliances for decades. And Mark Carney now says it's It's kind of a liability. This is the US has changed.

Now, this is of course, they're right to change their forward going economic decisions. And he is also correct that the partnerships with the United States when Trump is president aren't super reliable. They're not super consistent. They're not the they're like an on again, off again girlfriend where you never know. Is she interested today or isn't she? Is she going to be nice today or is she going to be mean? I don't know.

Maybe it's not a good analogy. But the point is that the United States has changed. And so he says, well, let's do more with the European Union. Let's do more with the Nordic countries. Let's do more with Australia. Steadier negotiating partners. Steady trade partners. And so this is a major recalibration of these sorts of alliances.

And it's not a complicated reason. I've said it before as it applies to Iran and with other parts of the world. If you are a foreign government and you want to plan long term policy, long term trade, long term intelligence sharing, you need predictable partners. You need to know if we get into an agreement, it's going to hold. It's not going to be 10% tariff today and 50% tomorrow and then we're done next week and then we're back on in three months. That doesn't make sense.

You can't plan that way. Commitments have to mean something. Otherwise, the policy swings wildly every few months or years. And under Trump, there is zero predictability. The U.S. from their perspective is not a stable anchor. It is more like a wet noodle flapping in the wind. And so countries don't just go, well, we don't like that. They adapt.

China has adapted. When Trump put the tariffs on China, when we were liberated, liberated as liberators. And our soybean exports to China went to zero. China said, all right, well, we still want soybeans. Let's figure out someone else to get them from Brazil and other countries. And they did. And so now Trump is begging them to restart one or two percent of the total soybean exports. They are bragging the Trump administration is, hey, we got soybean exports from zero to something.

Yeah, but that something is 98% lower than it was before you screwed everything up. And so Canada and others are hedging. They're building alternative alliances. They're reducing their dependence on the United States. I don't like that. This is bad. You know, if you want to go, well, David, why do you care? I don't think you really care ideologically.

Well, I care ideologically. But even if you want to look, if I want to analyze this through the self-centered, greedy lens that Trump always uses, most of my viewers and supporters and members are American. And if something happens that is bad for the average. American for the average American business, that'll leave my audience with less money to support me with. So even if you just want to say, from a greed perspective, why would this matter? It matters for that reason. And that's why small businesses would also be horrified by any kind of change to the global order that hurts the average American business. America first was going

to make the U.S. stronger. It's making us weaker. And we were going to be more independent and more respected. Instead, we are less independent and we are less respected. Allies trust us less. They rely on us less. They start building systems where we aren't included. So we may be more isolated, but we are not more independent. And it is embarrassing. There is a long term cost. It's not a comment or a speech that changes this. It's over a period of time. And the most tragic thing is at some point, Trump's going to go. And hopefully the next president is less whacked out, even if it's a Republican, whether it's a Republican or a Democrat, hopefully they're less wacky. But it's going to take years to solve these things if we start right when Trump leaves.

And so, you know, an executive order is easier to undo. These changes in the perceived reliability of the United States that relegate us to low status. You know, we are not exactly status maxing here. If you understand what I'm saying. We are increasingly low status in the global order, and it is because we are not reliable. I wish it weren't this way, but I understand why other countries see us that way under Donald Trump. The David Packman Show is an audience supported program, and the best, most direct way to support the show is by becoming a member at join packman.com. You'll get the daily bonus show, the daily

commercial free show, and plenty of other great members. Membership perks, get the full experience by signing up at join packman.com. Excitement, fear, and passion is increasing among many of you for what is likely to be a very interesting 2028 primary. We're going to start with that in today's Friday feedback. Remember that you can always write to me info at David Pakman.com, but we will also feature on Friday's comments and reactions from any of our platform. platforms. We'll start with our subreddit where devourer of redditors wrote, there's no reason for AOC not to run in 2028 going through some of the often repeated ideas. No, she should run for

Schumer's seat instead to which devourer says, well, she can do both. Both you can run for a congressional seat and in a primary at the same time. If she wins the primary, great being president is better than being a senator. That to me seems like a terrible idea. That that I don't agree with. The other two I do. Next. No, she doesn't have enough experience. A, the U.S. just two time elected a guy who had no experience holding political office at all. That's Trump. And B, people want someone with outsider credit. Yeah. I mean, listen, for me, whether you have experience or not, that's not a reason not to run. That might be a reason people don't vote for you. But I'm not like a it's not your time sort of person. Run if you want to run. Let voters decide. And then finally, she should wait until

2032 or 2036. She shouldn't waste her shot now to which devourer says, tell me you don't know anything about politics without telling me you don't know anything about politics. Like the last three Democratic nominees haven't all had fail runs for the nomination before eventually securing it, running for the nomination multiple times before finally getting it is practically a right of passage. Yet to me, the only thing here is I don't think voters like it when you are running for two seats at once. I just don't think voters like it. I think you should be run for one thing. That's a personal preference. She doesn't have experience. It's not her time. Let voters decide that. I say get everybody in and let voters decide after a robust and extensive prime.

Mary. Grandma Wish from Instagram said, I want to support your content, David. But dude, I've completely exhausted my outrage. I recognize toddler behavior with an underlying callous superiority that gives me chills, given the power this man has for chaos. Listen, this is both completely understandable and also we need to resist hyper-normalization. where we become so accustomed to insane things that we don't react to them anymore. Both can be true.

It's reasonable to be outraged out, but we want to make sure our barometer for what is acceptable and normal doesn't get destroyed by so many years of this stuff. From YouTube, awesome HPT says no one has more subscribers than David. He's got a big, beautiful community that no one can match. Listen, we are, I don't think that that's true. I appreciate the sentiment. We are pushing towards four million YouTube subscribers. When I started this show, after a year on YouTube, a year, I had a thousand subscribers.

We are now often adding 2,000 subscribers in a single day. So I'm asking you for help. We can't do it alone. We're trying to get to 4 million. that subscribe button. That is so appreciated. Based on my commentary last week or the week before about private equity buying YouTube channels, Bill wrote in on Facebooks and said, how can we determine if a channel is owned by a private equity firm? Well, unfortunately, you can't always determine that. And this is one of the things I pointed out in the video, which is if you have advertisers,

you say, hey, this is an advertiser. This is our sponsor today. It's Mark. is an ad, et cetera. But a lot of these channels that have been purchased by private equity, it's not something you have to disclose. It's like a behind the scenes change in ownership structure. And there may not be a way to determine that. I wish I had a better answer, a more satisfying answer, but I don't. Single extension wrote on Reddit, David's perspective versus younger guys at Midas Touch and

writes, I like all of them. But it's interesting when David recall somebody like John McCain, Luke Beasley and Adam Mockler have no idea how different things were, not even saying it was better, but wow, were things night and day different? As somebody who's 40, I love seeing younger people see things with fresh eyes, who I actually learn a lot from in contrast to somebody familiar with the post-9-11 world of politics. Yeah, listen, I think I can't tell whether this viewer is saying it's better when comment or commentators have less historical knowledge. I think the argument he's making is that it's sort of like eyes untainted by how it used to be. I think there's value in all of the above. I think that there's value in hearing from folks

who have been around and following politics a lot longer than I have. And I think there's value in hearing from folks who have not and don't have any personal recollection of some of these pre-Trump political eras. I think it's all valuable and brings, brings important and varied views to the table. So I think it's, it's all worthy of our support. Curious Olive says about my view on tipping. In Dave's rant on tipping, he talked about tipping at massage parlors. I really appreciate the double entendre here where hookers should be able to keep their tips and also how tipping. Uphamistically at massage parlors is highly encouraged in other places like Europe. I have to admit, I have no clue what this person is talking about.

When I was talking about tipping at massage parlors, I wasn't talking about whatever this person thinks I was talking about. It was not like an indirect message about he uses the word hookers or maybe it means prostitutes or sex workers. I don't know. Any apparent reference to that was completely coincidental, not on purpose, not what I meant. So please don't include me in whatever you think I was talking about. Darth Shredder wrote on YouTube. The Trump administration replaced DEI with D.U.I. Kegs Breath, Janine Piro, Crash Patel are all DUI hires.

This is very funny. And you know, I did I sometimes in the audience, there are people who are very sensitive to anything I say. I'm not making light of alcohol use disorder. I was told last time I used the word alcoholism. That's an inappropriate word. use that word. It's called alcohol use disorder or alcohol abuse disorder, depending on, I guess, your perspective. But, but this is genuinely funny. And there is a weird thing where there are a lot

of circumstances completely unique to the Trump presidency. If you look at past administrations, there were anecdotal sort of isolated concerns about drinking for like one person in an administration. But the Trump administration is really loaded for lack of a better term with a lot of people who do seem to have issues with the amount of alcohol they used to or potentially now consume. And that is, I mean, listen, it's sort of interesting because Trump doesn't drink alcohol at all, as he tells it, because his brother died from alcohol use disorder. And then and yet he is surrounded by, you know, RFK who has a documented history of drug use issues and a number of people who seemingly have alcohol use issues. So it's kind of an interesting thing.

David Cohen wrote about people clapping when Trump signed the bill or executive order. They clapped the same way parents clap because they're. toddler use the potty, you know, as someone who recently potty trained a toddler and boy, oh boy, was it fun? This is very accurate that when Trump signed and said, look at that's a great signature. Joe Biden couldn't do this and people. It was the exact sort of clapping and cheering that I have come to be really familiar with from the potty training process of a of a toddler. It's all very, very strange. Listen, we are now. publishing thick, meaty articles and analyses to our substack multiple times per week.

We're putting this stuff out for free. Okay. Subscribe free to my substack. David Pakman.com slash substack. I know there are people in the audience who say, I like to read more than I like to listen. Cool. We're doing that at David Pakman.com slash substack. And remember that we have a phenomenal bonus show coming up right after this.

The bonus show has won endless awards. Awards we've created. It's the equivalent of the FIFA Peace Prize, but we're just winning, winning, winning awards. And you can get instant access to the bonus show by signing up at join hackman.com. We'll see you that.