The David Pakman Show - They’re talking about 1 to 2 years in Iran

Episode Date: March 31, 2026

-- On the Show -- Rep. Sara Jacobs, Democrat from California's 51st district, joins us to discuss the No Kings protests, cost-of-living messaging, suspicious trading tied to Iran policy, and much more… -- Reports show the United States deploys more than 50,000 troops to the Middle East while the Army raises the maximum enlistment age to 42 -- Ann Coulter, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Erik Prince publicly criticize Donald Trump’s escalating Iran conflict, exposing rare fractures inside the MAGA coalition -- Architects criticize Donald Trump’s rushed plan to build a massive White House ballroom, pointing to design flaws like stairs that lead nowhere and columns that block views -- Donald Trump promotes his new White House ballroom and complains about mail-in voting and Democrats, while gas prices rise and international tensions escalate -- Donald Trump frequently says he is hearing about major issues for the first time and maintains a loosely structured daily schedule dominated by media consumption -- Donald Trump signals distance from Tulsi Gabbard by describing her as softer on Iran and nuclear weapons -- JD Vance says the United States does not expect to remain involved in Iran one or two years from now, revealing a longer timeline than earlier claims -- On the Bonus Show: Soldiers are suspended after flying helicopters near Kid Rock's house, counterintelligence officials plan an Antifa summit, NASA sets up for the first moon mission in 53 years, and much more... 🛏️ Eight Sleep: Get up to $350 OFF the Pod 5 at https://eightsleep.com/pakman 🤖 Sponsored by Venice: Use code PAKMAN for 20% off a Pro Account at https://venice.ai/pakman 🛌 Helix Sleep mattresses: Get 27% OFF sitewide at https://helixsleep.com/pakman 🔊 Blinkist: Read a nonfiction book in just 15 minutes! Try it FREE at https://blinkist.com/pakman 💪 AG1 is offering you $126 in FREE gifts at https://drinkag1.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(01:24) US troop surge, enlistment age 42(08:31) MAGA figures criticize Trump Iran policy(17:58) Architects mock Trump White House ballroom(23:54) Trump promotes ballroom, complains about voting(32:04) Trump says hearing issues first time(40:01) Sara Jacobs interview(57:49) Trump distances himself from Tulsi Gabbard(1:04:06) JD Vance hints longer Iran timeline   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you are under 42 years old, pay extra special attention to today's show. There's a story spreading about war and recruitment and the draft that may be of interest to you. Also, we have people talking about the breakdown of decency under Donald Trump. And we're connecting dots about what's happening in Donald Trump's own movement, which suggests that there is, I guess we would call it dissent within the ranks, for lack of a better term. We're also going to talk sort of extensively at what is happening with that White House ballroom. As many of you have written in saying, wait a second, is it a ballroom or is it a military

installation or is it both or neither? Is it even happening? Does Trump have any idea what is going on? And does Trump have any idea what is going on is a growing question as his schedule is increasingly restricted even more than Joe Biden's schedule was when supposedly he was completely unfit to serve? We will also hear from some of the most bloodthirsty pro war advocates who are saying, hey, listen, I'm as pro war as anybody.

But I don't know about this Iran thing. So we've got a lot today. Great to see you. Great that you're here. Let's do it. Are you under 42 years old? Have you been seeing the same posts about what's happening in the military and whether you might be drafted to fight in Iran?

if you are up to 42 years old, let's talk about it because there's a lot of appropriate concern and some confusion as to what's going on. So messages have started to spread like Trump is going to draft you. The enlistment age has been raised to 42. There's preparation here for a larger war that will be fought not by a volunteer army, but we will be conscripting Americans to this Iran war. That could happen. That could happen. But let's slow it down and kind of separate what is happening and what is possible and what is being implied.

Now the real parts are the following. Number one, the United States has more than 50,000 troops in the Middle East right now. That's higher than the normal baseline. It's not we always have 50,000 troops in the Middle East. We normally don't. That is a higher number than the typical baseline. Marines have been deployed. Naval forces are in place. Paratroopers from the 82nd airborne are in the region. And there

are discussions about next steps. And that might be more aggressive operations to put those troops to use. It might be trying to get oil routes reopened or putting troops in strategic locations. All of that would be a further escalation. We were told this would take three to four weeks. It's been four weeks. Now they're talking about a different timeline and it looks as though. much more is going to happen. So that's number one major troop presence in the Middle East right now. Second piece, there is a regulation that raises the maximum enlistment age for the army to 42. Now, we talked about this on the bonus show. The enlistment age in some branches, some other branches had already been raised. And so the real news here is army enlistment age has increased to 42.

Now, that's where a lot of people on the internet have jumped in and they've speculated this This is about the Iran war. The whole idea is raise the enlistment age to 42 so that then when the draft hits, it's not about allowing volunteers up to 42 years old. It's about being able to draft people up to 42 years old. Now, you might be saying, why would you, we're all speculating here. Why would you need, if you're planning a draft, why would you need to raise the enlistment age to 42?

Wouldn't you be able to just draft people that are younger? In theory, yes. But this is so sad. If you consider the number of young Americans who have gotten through college barely being able to read or write and you consider the number of young Americans that are obese or or at least wouldn't be able to meet the physical requirements for being drafted. The speculation is because so many young Americans simply wouldn't be able to make it if drafted. you've got to raise that age so that you can get non-obese people who can read and write. Okay, that's all the speculation. There is something far more mundane in the explanation.

The Army says this change to 42 is basically just formalizing a policy that's been around internally going all the way back three years. And it is because of recruitment challenges. It is because of an aging population. It is because of the need for technical skills. But in principle, this is not a new thing. They formalized something that was around much longer than the Iran war. There is a reason, though, that people are connecting these stories. And if you're worried about where this goes next, we should be looking at three different things.

We do have more troops in the region than we've had in a very long time. We do have an active war there. We do get the sense, especially from an interview with J.D. Vance, I'll play for you later, that there is potentially going to be a lot more than three or four weeks of operations there. And it is true that the the higher the enlistment age, the bigger the pool of people you could recruit from or if there were to be a draft that you could potentially draft. So it is straightforward speculation. If voluntary recruitment isn't enough for this renewed large presence in the Middle East and whatever Trump has up his sleeve in Iran

or maybe Cuba or wherever else and the conflict grows, you would want to be able to draft from the largest possible eligible portion of the population. Now, that doesn't mean a draft is planned. There's been no draft announced. There is no current policy to draft civilians, but the concern is Trump lies all the time and has no idea what he's really planning to do. And historically, you see drafts after an escalation. That's another thing I think is important to correct. Some people think, well, if there was a plan for an escalation, they would start the draft now. That's not usually the way it works. Usually you escalate, with the army you have and then you start drafting if you need to. So are people online jumping

ahead about this is proof the draft is coming. Yes, people are jumping ahead about this is proof the draft is coming. It's not supported by current policy. But the underlying concern, if you put two and two together and you see troop levels, you see recruitment problems over the last several years, the possibility of a larger conflict and J.D. Vance is now talking about being in Iran one to two years, not three to four weeks. That is a change. And so if you are under 42, you are now within the upper bound of who can enlist and theoretically within the category of someone that could be drafted. Now, what is actually going to happen?

It's very unpredictable because it's subject to the whims of Trump. Now, there are people we'll talk about in a moment pro war people who are even saying to Trump This particular one is a bad idea. And Trump sees what's happening in the economy, jobs, stock market, gas prices, the entire thing. And he is saying, well, hold on a second. I want people to like me. Maybe this isn't a good idea. So I think that it is totally plausible that in the next two weeks, Trump does a total taco,

a titillating total taco and backs out. Then it's a question of whether Iran says, all right, well, we can end it. Iran can also choose to keep going. Or does Trump come to believe that the only way to appear not to be afraid, which is very important to him, is to keep pushing, to keep going and to making this an even bigger regional conflict. Whether you ultimately get drafted, can't believe we're even talking about this, is partially going to depend on who is in Trump's ear in the five minutes before he decides about some of this stuff. And that is admittedly a very scary place to be, especially when we have learned that Donald Trump is barely working as president of the United

States. We will get to that a little bit later. Some of Trump's closest allies and even some of the most pro-war right-wingers that there are are turning on Donald Trump over Iran and saying, this is a very bad idea. You rarely see this in Trump world. and it's coming from inside the movement. I am talking to you about Trump allies, MAGA influencers, long-time loyalists openly saying, I love war as much of the next guy, but the Iran war is a mistake. It could spiral out of control. Now, let's start with Ann Coulter.

Anne Coulter has been a long time Trump ally, who has defended him for a long time and has occasionally criticized things that he does. And she has certainly helped to shape the broader MAGA narrative, and especially during Donald Trump's first term. She is now comparing Fox News coverage of the Iran war to their lives about the 2020 elections. She is straight up saying Fox is putting out propaganda about the Iran war. And that is a pretty strong attack against that same ecosystem that elevated Trump to begin with.

The same people that allowed Trump to get beyond 2% in the Republican primary in 2016. are now participating in what Anne Coulter calls propaganda. And then in comes Marjorie Taylor Green, who, by the way, she's not even pretending to be aligned with Trump anymore. She and Trump had a falling out. And the following took place on Twitter. Anne Coulter posted, watching Fox News assure viewers the Iran war is going super well. And Trump is a total stud.

It's like watching the same network assure viewers that Dominion voting systems rigged the 2020 election and Trump was the winner. Pretty good point from Ann Coulter. I must say. And then in comes Marjorie Taylor Green with a brutal shot across the bow. And she says Fox News is now the fake news, brainwashing boomers to support what we voted against. Now Marjorie is right with the caveat that that's what they were promised anti-war Trump. We all knew it was bogus.

We all knew it was BS. But to the extent that people fell for it and believed it. Yes, they've been betrayed. So we have a situation here where Marjorie Taylor Green, one of Trump's biggest loyalists. She's on the outside looking in now. She quit Congress. She and Trump had a falling out. He calls her Marjorie Trader Brown now or something like that. And Ann Colter is also openly saying Fox is brainwashing people and putting out their propaganda. Cool. Well, who else? Um, Eric Prince. Eric Prince is a war. Loving military contractor who built private armies and made a fortune profiting from conflict He is not big on restraint or caution he loves war he pushes for more intervention and more force and more aggressive military action around the world and even Eric Prince is saying this Iran thing is a bad idea

It could spiral quickly Trump should not escalate further and he's talking about about the possibility of burning American warships and a conflict that goes at least regional, if not potentially further than that. When Eric Prince is telling you, hey, you gotta slow down on the interventions here, your alarm bells should be going off because he loves this stuff. Now, at the same time, Trump's polling shows the base, the hard base of Trump is still overwhelmingly behind the war. And there is a split inside the movement because you have influential voices, even if it is not the majority of voices, you've got influential voices raising major concerns.

And the base is totally locked in. And this is how internal fractures start to form. Trump built a lot of his appeal around avoiding these types of conflicts or at least saying he would avoid these types of conflicts. He's not going to get us into these foreign policy disasters. That was Bush. It was going to be Hillary or Biden or Kamala. But Trump's doing it now. Trump's escalating such a conflict. And the people who helped sell the message that Trump isn't going to do that have no option now, but to recognize the contradiction. You can see it in the allies.

And the difference is that this is now unfolding during an active war. It's easy to play, uh, uh, play these coy games about Trump as anti war when he's the candidate and Joe Biden is the president. But we have this unfolding now during an actual active war that any second could escalate bigly. So you've got Ann Coulter, Eric Prince, Marjorie Taylor Green. They're all raising alarms, Rand Paul and others. This is much, much more than a superficial political disagreement, which would be expected to

see. We have a coalition here within MAGA that is under major stress. The cracks are forming. And for now, Trump is continuing forward anyway. The question that gets me to is what happens if the Iran war does unfold the way Trump's allies are warning that it will. Because if that happens, the number of people willing to defend Trump could shrink very quickly. Then we could see Trump and Republicans get brutalized in the November midterms.

And what will Trump do then? series of speculative ideas is Trump will recede to Mara Lago and play golf the rest of his presidency and not really do much. On the other hand, on the other hand, it could make Trump even more erratic, even more unhinged and far more willing to do whatever Stephen Miller suggests, whatever the most extreme and radical inner voices of Trump tell him to do. So I think it's a little bit premature to assume that if this goes south and Republicans lose in November, Trump just says, bye, bye, I'm going to pack it up and play golf in Florida.

That would be probably the best thing for the country. But I don't know that it's what Trump is likely to do. Now, later, we will talk about Donald Trump's increasingly limited schedule and the question of, is he even really working? That'll be later. I run hot when I sleep. I end up kicking the blankets off in the middle of the night. I needed this huge, loud, eyesore fan before and would still wake up too warm, which is why I love our

sponsor 8 Sleep so much. Their pod 5 smart cover fits on top of your existing mattress, automatically adjusts temperature on each side of the bed so you're not waking up too hot or too cold. It also means partners don't have to fight over the thermostat settings anymore. Each side can run at a different temperature. The pod five will also track sleep passively. It can even adjust the bed slightly if you start snoring all in the background. So you just settle into deeper, more restorative sleep. My favorite thing is the system learns your patterns and adjusts over time to optimize

your sleep instead of locking you into one setting that might not work every night or all Go to 8Sleep.com slash Pacman. Use the code Pacman to get $350 off. Plus you get 30 days to try it at home. The link is in the description. If you use one of the mainstream AI chat bots, they monitor everything you put in the app. Stuff about your personal life, your work projects, medical questions. All of that info stays in the system forever to train the AI.

They build a profile about you based on what you input. If you care about privacy and bypassing censorship, I recommend using Venice instead. Our sponsor Venice lets you use all the biggest and best AI models. They do not store your prompts. Your prompts are encrypted and stored only locally in your app or browser, not used for training data. Venice also offers completely uncensored chatbots and image generation. You can ask it anything and it will answer. It is finally AI.

You can completely control. None of the conversations are tied to your identity. And you use Venice exactly like the mainstream chatbot app that you're already used to. The interface will feel really familiar. You'll also get 20% off a pro plan at venice. a.i slash Pacman with the code Pacman. The link is in the description.

The David Packman show is made possible. primarily by our audience through the membership program. You can also sign up at substack. David Pakman.com, get a substack premium subscription. But if you missed last week's Trump gas membership special, you can still take advantage of it. Just email in info at David Pakman.com. Say, David, I missed Trump's gas. I want that code. And we will send it to you if there's any stragglers who do want to take advantage of that. Donald Trump's ballroom just got destroyed by the New York Times. The New York Times put out a very detailed report on this White House ballroom that is funded by donors, which would cost 100 million, then 200 million, then 300 million, then reportedly

as much as $350 million. And the entire thing is exactly what you would expect. It's flashy, certainly, but the entire thing is completely broken. Trump rushed. to build a massive new ballroom on the White House grounds. This, I believe, is part of Donald Trump's desperation for legacy. He wants to do things that can't simply be undone by the next president. This is why he's obsessed with trying to accumulate more land like Greenland, for example, for the United States. And it's also why he decided to destroy part of the White House in order to build a ballroom,

the idea that this would be a permanent change that Donald Trump makes to Washington, D.C. are looking at the plan and they are saying this makes no sense. Now, start with the basics and we have this funny image we have up on the screen that the New York Times put together with just a lot of the architectural and design problems here. The design includes this giant portico with columns and stairs, which sounds impressive, except the stairs don't even lead into the ballroom. It's stairs to nowhere. You know, they talk about a bridge to nowhere. The stairs go nowhere. The columns will block views from inside the ballroom. So you build this massive event space and then you obstruct the view with your own design. The portico doesn't have doors into the ballroom. So you go up this grand

entrance and there's just no way in. You have to go around the side to the side door. It's like designing a house where the front door is decorative. Now, it gets even worse. The ballroom is massive. It's much bigger than industry standards suggest for the number of people. It's designed. to hold. Smaller events will feel really weird, kind of awkwardly empty. But the real issues here, I would argue are bigger than bad design. Like with Trump, there's probably bad design lurking somewhere, but there's far bigger issues. Projects like this usually go through years of review. You have public meetings, you have revisions, you have debate. Trump has decided that because his friends are donating in order to fund this, he can just do it. That's it. And they rushed the process.

There was one review meeting, which reportedly lasted 12 minutes. And in theory, construction is moving forward. Now, the reason I say in theory, construction has started in the sense that they've already done a lot of demolishing. But there are a number of architectural problems that have come up. And the main architect even quit previously. I told you about that. So this is a microcosm of how Donald Trump operates. He says he knows more than things than any about things than anybody. He goes ahead and just does what occurs to him, even if it doesn't make any sense. There's no scrutiny. He doesn't actually empower experts to make decisions. And he is going to potentially destroy what is at the end of the day the people's house. It does belong to the public. But it's not feeling

like that. Trump is treating it like it's his Mar-a-Lago penthouse and they're going to put together this oversized, rushed, gaudy building with fake windows, stairs to nowhere, and all of this, unless something puts a stop to this. Now, Caroline Levitt is big mad. She is furious about the New York Times report. She posted, quote, the New York Times had three random people who have studied fine arts long written about urban planning and never built anything to write an article criticizing the new White House ballroom. President Trump and his lead architect have built world-class buildings around the world and they are ensuring the people's house finally has a beautiful ballroom that's been needed for decades at no expense to the taxpayer. A couple things. Who is the lead

architect because there was a lead architect that quit because the project was unrealistic and Trump was dealing with it like a little kid. Secondly, no expense to the taxpayer. Now, I know that Donald Trump is insisting that this is being paid for by donors. The idea that the donors are donating out of the goodness of their hearts, laughable. Obviously, they know that there's something in it for them. But importantly, the maintenance, additional staffing and associated costs for this ballroom if it ever gets built over the next however many years it stands are going to be paid by the taxpayers.

Did the taxpayers ask for this? Was this done in accordance with historical commissions and in the appropriate way that it is supposed to be done? The answer is, of course, it wasn't because it's Donald Trump that we are talking about. So even if you grant that Donald Trump has donors to pay for this, it is untrue. It is untrue that it is going to cost the American people nothing. Even if you grant that that Trump had the power to do this, it was still not done in the way that it is supposed to be done. And he doesn't give a damn. And I'm going to tell you right now there's not going to be any consequences.

The only possible consequence is the project doesn't move forward. And then it's going to look like crap. I was just there looking at the rubble that's in DC at the White House. The the only possibility would be don't let Trump do it, which he may fail to do anyway, but But then it's going to kind of look like crap. Maybe it's a problem for the next president to solve actually involving the right people. But this is embarrassing. They are furious.

Caroline Levitt is furious, but it is completely and totally predictable. Remember my segment yesterday explaining that the vast majority of our elected officials and candidates do not give an F about you. It's just about them. Well, let me show you. Gas prices are through the roof. We're dropping bombs in Iran. There's discussions of a possible military draft.

Our world standing is in the toilet. Taxpayer dollars are being burned. And meanwhile, Donald Trump is bragging about his new ballroom and the columns that are going to be Corinthian and all of this crap. Here is Donald Trump, the war president on Air Force. just hours ago and look at what he's talking about. And if you're only listening, part of this is the visual where Trump is holding a rendering of the White House ballroom.

And that porch will be magnificent looking in between the columns. They no longer, we took the stairs out and we're in the south side and really replaced them with these stairs. So you have an open porch and you have the closed porch under the columns overlooking the Washington monument, the Jefferson Memorial. and the Lincoln Memorial slash monument. So right. That's great.

This is a view of the columns as they are going to be made. They're going to be hand carved and they're beautiful. Top of the line, there'll be Corinthian, which is considered the best, most beautiful by far. If anybody was worried as you are paying four bucks a gallon for gas and you're worried about is my kid going to end up in the Middle East? Am I going to end up in the Middle East? As your grocery prices keep going up, rest assured, they will be Corinthian columns in Trump's new White House ballroom. The affordability president, right? Is anybody else disgusted by this? Is anybody else ready to acknowledge that this is disgusting in every way? And it is the exact self-centeredness that I am

talking about. Here's a little more of this this ballroom nonsense from Trump on Air Force One. Talking about how beautiful the ballroom for 150 years. They've wanted to build a ballroom at the White House and other presidents have wanted it when we have dignitaries coming like President Xi of China or anybody. We need something for President Xi. Anybody else? We have very small rooms and not big enough. to handle the kind of capacity that you need.

This is the same height as the White House. It's an incredible fitting. You see what that is, right? Nice. I'll show you. Here's another view. This is coming from right opposite the Treasury building. Beautiful capital.

Beautiful building. I think it'll be the finest ballroom of its kind anywhere in the world. All right. I think you get the point. Now, there are also now claims that they're building a massive military complex underneath the ballroom, which is certainly putting a new sort of spin on the entire thing, which also raises national security questions. Should Trump even be talking so much about the design? Like aside from will it be built? Aside from doesn't make sense. Aside from all the stuff, should Trump even be saying

so much about the details? Because it sounds like that would be potentially a sensitive facility if that's what's going on. Now, with oil prices spiking again, I was thinking we are due for another post from Trump about big progress with peace stock, peace talks to try to buoy the stock market and maybe lead to a reduction in oil prices. And right on schedule, Trump goes, yeah, yeah, yeah. I think we might have a deal very soon. White House, which is, I think, very important to do. Mr. President, Diller, Mr. President. I do you first see a deal in Iran this upcoming week. I do see a deal in Iran, yeah.

Could be soon. I do see a deal. Could be very soon. And it is again the same market manipulation that Trump is known for. It did spike stock market prices. It did briefly lead, briefly lead to a modest decline in the price of oil for a little bit. The suspicion continues to be this is manipulative. This is Donald Trump continuing to say things in order to get a market response that he wants. Now, once we are all said and done in Iran, who knows when that's going to be, what's going to happen with Cuba? Well, we don't know. But Donald Trump was asked, are you really going to let a Russian oil tanker go to Cuba?

Because the whole thing was you're not going to allow oil in. And Trump goes, well, you know, I have no problem with it. But the truth is, it's always Russia. Russia, he has no problem with. In the CNN poll, which just came out, thank you very much, everybody. There's a report that the U.S. is going to let a Russian oil tanker go to Cuba. Is that true? We have a tanker out there.

We don't mind having somebody get a boatload because they need, they have to survive. It wouldn't bother them. Well, I would say, I told them if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba. Cuba right now, I have no problem with it. Do you worry that that's how it's whether it's Russia or not? What? Do you worry that that helps a lot of Burnton though? Doesn't help him.

He loses one boat, lot of oil. That's all it is. It's fine. If he wants to do that and if other countries want to do it, it doesn't bother me much. It's not going to have an impact. You know, it's unbelievable because Trump goes, well, if a country wants to do it, well, it's Russia that's doing it. And this was something you said you wouldn't allow.

But incredibly, Russia has been enabling much of Iran's aggression against the United States is military elements providing satellite data and a whole bunch of stuff. Russia's helping Iran fight the United States. And then Trump goes, well, even though there's sanctions on Russian oil and there's sanctions on Cuba, maybe I'll just allow that in. I mean, listen, it's a country. It's a country with a boatload of oil. That's no big deal. Donald Trump telling a few lies during this brief conversation, including that the United States is the only country in the world with mail and ballot. And you'll get everything you want. You get all five things. We have Voter ID. We have proof of citizenship. It's so important. Mail-in ballots have to be stopped

with exceptions for the military for sick people, people that are sick, people disabled, for people that are traveling. If you're traveling, you can vote. But other than that, mail-in ballots are inherently dishonest. Jimmy Carter and his Carter Commission said you can't have mail-in ballots. We're the only country in the world that has mail-in ballots. And of course, that is not true. None of what he said is true, but it is not true that we're the only country in the world with mail and ballots. There are dozens of such countries. Now, after all this, after all this, Trump wraps it up with the Democrats are like terrorists. They should terminate the filibuster and they should vote. That's what I think. Look, I think the Senate is playing

playing in too soft. The Republicans are wonderful people. But we're dealing with. with very sick individuals, the Democrats are sick. There's something wrong. They're like terrorists. And we have to protect our country. We have to protect our border. We have to protect our wall. It was up to them. They'd open up the wall that let millions of people pour into our country again. That's right. It's the Democrats that are like terrorists in Trump world. These sorts of conversations with members of the media are what continues to raise concerns that Donald Trump is non compostmentis. And the fact that Trump is barely working is another part of that. Let's dig into it. They told us Joe Biden had no idea what was going on. He didn't know what day it was. He didn't know

he was the president. He didn't know what was happening in Europe. He didn't know what was happening in Asia. He didn't know what was happening in his own White House. That's what they told us. And meanwhile, Donald Trump is regularly on camera saying this is the first I'm hearing of it. We're going to have to get back to you about that when he's asked questions. And somehow, that's completely fine with MAGA. And it's because it was never really about the facts. We should recognize that there is this huge gap between the story they sold us and what's actually happening day to day. There's a very specific image that Trump and his allies want you to have about how Donald Trump is spending his time as president. They want you to believe that he's relentlessly

working. He's constantly briefed. He's fully in control. He knows everything that's going on. he's on top of everything happening in the country and around the world. And he's deciding what's best for America based on that. But when you look at Trump's real schedule and his public behavior, that is not an image that we can possibly keep up. Start with the Biden attacks because that's where this whole thing kind of starts and why the comparison matters for years. They kept saying Biden's out of it. He's confused. He's not aware of what's going on. He's waving to no one on stage. But you didn't see a pattern where Joe Biden was asked about something big and said, never heard of it, haven't been briefed yet, don't know a thing about it. And that just wasn't happening with Joe Biden, no matter how much

they tried to push narratives about his cognitive health. Now, I was right there saying Biden's not going to be able to finish out this race. He's got to step aside. He slowed down. This doesn't make sense. He doesn't have the vigor that I would like to see. But the claims that he didn't know what was happening around the world or didn't know what was going on in his administration were debunked day and day and day after day. With Trump, it's happening. He'll get asked about something major and he'll go, we'll get back to you. What about the soldiers that were killed in Lithuania? First I'm hearing about this. No, no, this is the first, but sounds terrible. Sounds terrible, but I'm going to have to get information and then we'll follow up with you about it. It happens all the time. And it completely

undercuts the idea that Trump is briefed and in command of what's going on. Now, look at how Trump's days are increasingly set up. This is where it gets very obvious. He doesn't have pack days with briefings. Yesterday, his public schedule was essentially clear. He's not filling the day with policy work or meetings. He's not reading. He doesn't read. He can barely read from all accounts. He starts late. He has long stretches of what they call executive time just open or maybe they used to call it executive time. Now they call it something else. Basically, it's Trump gets to watch TV, call his friends, have tweets printed out and looks at them, and then posting about whatever he just saw on TV.

Not only has that pattern not changed, it's actually gotten worse. You can look at Trump's true social posts and line them up with what's on cable news, almost in real time. And Trump is just not getting influenced only by what he sees on TV. He's reacting to what's happening on TV. The presidency is essentially being guided by what is. Trump see on TV during the few hours of the day that he's actually working. So that gets us to the limited schedule thing. They insisted Joe Biden is working a tiny little shriveled limited schedule.

He can't do anything early in the morning or late at night. Trump's day is at least as limited. And in some cases, it has even less on it than Joe Biden had. Fewer formal briefings, less structured work, all of it. And then there's the golf, which has almost become a joke. I think the golf matters because the golf is about time and priorities. Trump spends a lot of time playing golf, a lot more than you would expect if he's really doing the nonstop work that they try to sell. He is also very often not in Washington, D.C. is in Florida at his own properties. There was even a moment during the start of the Iran war where J.D. V.P. was sitting in the situation room. And Trump, Trump was golfing in Florida and taking breaks to tell us, by the way, we're at war or is a military

operation, what they were calling it then. So what you end up with if you look at the facts is a 180 degree different picture than the one that they are trying to push. It's a loosely structured day with a lot of media consumption, Trump barely doing anything at all. Now let me kind of cut down to the most important thing about this. Is it better that Trump's not working much? And what I mean by that is the following.

If you know of someone, a worker who destroys things when they work, and then you go, listen, you can't really fire them, but you could put them in the break room to have snacks all day. But then they wouldn't be working. If the more they work, the more damage they do, are we better off with Trump doing as little as possible, even if it's totally hypocritical given the criticisms of Joe Biden? my question to you. It's very clear that Trump is working less than Biden and it's very clear that Trump is only minimally engaged with the job. But should we be, are we better off with Trump doing as little work as possible? Because the more involved he gets in stuff, the

worst the decisions he makes. Let me know what you think. Leave a comment. If you were shopping for a new mattress, I would recommend you start by looking at Helix sleep, the mattress I've been sleeping on for years, the only one that I recommend because they custom tailor it to your needs. I took their sleep quiz. It took a minute or two. I said, oh, you know, I like to sleep on my stomach. I tend to feel hotter in the middle of the night rather than colder. I like medium firm.

And Helix just nailed it. Matched me with the perfect mattress. Most people don't even know where to start when you're looking for a mattress and Helix just makes it easy. There is really no substitute for the mattress that's right for you. you, your body will thank you. Delivery was fast, setup was easy. You do get 100 nights to try it out. They'll even take away your old mattress. Right now, Helix has a special offer only for my audience. Get 27% off everything on their site when you go to helix sleep.com slash Pacman. The link is in the

description. Finding time to read as much nonfiction as I want to read is difficult and it can be difficult for a lot of people who love learning about complex topics. You just don't necessarily have the time. That's why Blinkist is such a powerful tool. Imagine being able to read a nonfiction book in just 15 minutes. Blinkist is the app that will condense the key insights from major nonfiction titles into these short summaries you can read or listen to in a single sitting. You still grasp the book's central argument and its takeaways. Blinkist, has over 9,000 titles across politics, economics, science, philosophy, business. I recently listened to Blinkist summary of a book called Dopamine Nation by psychiatrist Anna Lemke,

and it looks at the relationship between pleasure and pain in this kind of modern world that's filled with more stimuli than ever. Blinkist perfectly guided me through the most important concepts, and now I actually want to read the entire book. That's another thing Blinkist is great. for, test the book out before you decide whether to dive into the entire thing. You can try Blinkist completely free for a whole week and get 30% off a subscription at Blinkist.com slash Pacman.

Today I'm speaking with Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs representing California's 51st Congressional District. I'm really great to have you on. Thank you. Yeah. Listen, to start with, I've been talking to my audience about the no king's protests. We had the third iteration over the weekend. I think there's some in my audience who are maybe feeling a little frustrated about, hey, all

of these terrible things are happening. Democrats control nothing right now. The protests are great. But what are we working towards with these protests? The easy answer is, well, first and foremost taking control back of the house in November, but Like how do you see it? What is the point of these protests? Yeah, it's a really good question.

So actually before I was in Congress, I worked in international conflict resolution in the State Department and the UN. So I've actually worked in countries that are even more torn apart than our country is right now as hard as that is to believe. And they've found ways to come back together. And these protests, these marches are a really important part of doing that because they show people that they're not alone. they build community and they also send a really important signal to this administration that they

do not have the will of the public with them. And I can tell you that I've talked to a lot of people at these marches who are formerly Republicans, who might have voted for Donald Trump once, but who see what's happening isn't good, isn't working for them, and who want to show up and show that they know that. And marching is just one part of this, right? We all. We all also need to be doing the organizing work day in and day out of rebuilding the fabric of our society. And that's not going to happen top down at the, you know, on high. It's going to happen neighbor by neighbor talking to each other, rebuilding that sense of community. So I like to tell people, you know, when everything's going on at the federal level and they're feeling so overwhelmed, like go local,

go pick up trash at the park, go paint something at a local elementary. school. Like find ways to interact with your small community and interact with people who maybe have differing views than you do, not about politics, but about building your community better at the local level. That's how we are going to rebuild our country. And that's why the marches are an important part of that. Because what authoritarianes want you to feel is that you are alone and that everything is inevitable. And the marches show that you're not alone. There's millions of people across the country who agree with you and that we do get to say we do have a voice and we can make a change. This weekend was interesting because at the same time that these no kings rallies, protest

marches were taking place. CPAC was taking place. And it was a sort of a different CPAC than we've seen before. There was this surreal moment where Matt Schlapp said, you guys don't want impeachment, do you? And the crowd was like, yes, we do on impeachment hearings. And it was this very strange moment where, you know, you combine that with some of the interviews with people at the conference, they're not very happy with Donald Trump. You know, they fell for the, I'm the anti-war guy and now we're in the situation in Iran.

And some of, I don't want to pretend that the base is abandoning him. But there is questioning, at least, of what people have signed up for. So I think that's interesting. But on the Democratic side, there is arguably some fracture as well. And I see it in some of the following ways. One, we already have a contingent of the left. that's saying if the candidate is X in 28, I will never even consider voting for that person. I was recently with Gavin Newsome and we talked about how that some of that is directed at him

and a number of others. Another example maybe of the fracture on the left and then I want to get your your thoughts on it. Are the folks who are now sort of like A PAC is the issue thing. And it's not just all money in politics. specifically APAC. And then there's others who say, well, money in politics is the problem, but I don't know about APAC specifically disagreements, right? What's your sense right now of the unity versus lack of it on the political left?

Look, I think these disagreements are normal, right? No one's going to agree on everything. And we are in a moment that is really challenging. And so, of course, there's going to be strong feelings about the best way ahead and the best way to get out of this and a sense that, frankly, the Democrats are part of what got us here and we have to do things differently. And, you know, I totally respect people who are feeling that way. I am not worried about any sort of real fracturing because I think these are the exact kinds of conversations and disagreements we need to be having now because it's not enough to just be against Donald Trump. We need to be using this time to have some of those tough conversations in our party to be having some of those sort of, you know,

family conversations about what the way ahead looks like, how we're going to rebuild our party and how we're going to rebuild the country. And now it's exactly the time to be doing that. What do you think the direction should be in terms of wherever we, you know, we have a political spectrum that goes from very liberal to very conservative. Kamala Harris was somewhere on that spectrum. You know, I think center left kind of somewhere. I don't know whether she would be like a six and a half or a six or five being kind of like a moderate. She's somewhere on the left and depending on who you are, you disagree exactly where. Should the direction of the party be to the middle from where Kamala Harris was or further to the left from where she was?

You know, it's a good question, except I kind of reject the premise that our only option is this one linear line. Because I actually think that what we're seeing right now across the country is that the candidates who are the most authentic to themselves and the communities they are trying to represent are the most successful. And that doesn't necessarily track 100% to like progressive or moderate, right? Like Abigail Spamberger and Mikey Sherrill are incredibly authentic to themselves and where they were running. And Zoran Mamdani was incredibly authentic to himself and where he was running. And I think the most important thing we need to do as a Democratic Party is be authentic. And that means that we are a big tent party. We are authentically a big tent party and we need

to embrace that. It's okay that we don't all agree on everything. Like actually, it's good because if we all agreed on everything, we would not be a democracy. Right. And I think what we need, you know, frankly, I'm excited about the 2028 primary because I think we will see a lot of different people come up, give us their vision of what they think the Democratic Party should be. And everyone in the country, or at least everyone in our big tent, we'll see someone who they identify with. And then we will eventually have a winner and we will all coalesce behind them. But everyone will know that there's a slice of the Democratic Party that they can identify with and they can be a part of and that that is represented as well.

I agree with everything you laid out except when you say everyone will coalesce behind them. I think that's the part that worries me. I don't know that that's the case. You're confident that that's going to happen? I am confident that that's going to happen. It's not going to happen on its own. It will take work. But I think if we have a real authentic candidate, we will be able to coalesce.

And we will have to have tough family conversations. That's part of coalition building, right? That's part of what we have to do. But I think in the end, we will. And, you know, there are some people in our communities who aren't going to vote for the nominee. And you know what? if a bunch of super, super, super lefty people in California don't vote for our nominee, that's fine, right? Like, it's okay.

What will matter is do we get enough people in the swing states to vote for our nominee? And that's where I think, you know, that coalition building needs to happen. And I think it's good and important that people in other states can make their voice heard that they're dissatisfied or they want to move the party in one direction or another because that's important for us to hear and to do as well. I think the other thing is like, again, on this spectrum of left versus center, I think what we're really seeing also is that among the population, people are really angry about the status quo and angry that the systems weren't working for them. And that was true before Donald Trump, right? Like before Donald Trump became president, again, the status quo wasn't working for a lot of people. That's why they voted for Donald Trump. It's why they decided to give him a chance. and see if he can make things better. And so I think whoever our nominee is is going to have to understand that it's not going to be enough to say the same 20 things that Democrats have been saying for the past 50 years. It's not going to be enough to try and go back to the world before Trump that we need to recognize that the status quo wasn't working. And we need a new bold

vision of what the future of our country can look like. Is there a particular issue on which Democrats on average? And I know there's so many different people, but on average, is there a particular issue that you think the messaging from Democrats hasn't been good and is not connecting with enough voters? Yeah, I mean, honestly, I think the Democratic Party took way too long to realize that the cost of living was a real issue. I mean, I represent Southern California, San Diego. We are one of the most expensive places to live. So I've been running on how expensive everything is since, you know, I first started running for office. But the national party, for a lot of them,

they kind of came of age during the Great Recession. And so for them, when the unemployment numbers were low, they were like, oh, great, unemployment is low. The economy is good. And I really think it took our party way too long to realize, like, yeah, unemployment's low because everyone has three jobs and they still can't afford anything. And so I do think on cost on housing, I think housing is something that especially for young people, right, if you're our age, basically, like housing is your biggest sense.

And then if you have kids, it's also childcare. And we weren't really doing anything real on that for a very long time. We weren't talking about it. And we weren't talking about the role it played in hurting millennials and younger generations from being able to achieve their dreams. And so I think around those issues, we still have a lot of work to do to not only figure out how we talk about it, but actually figure out what we're going to do about it. Let's talk a little bit about something you mentioned, which is people realizing

that systems aren't necessarily working for the average American. and kind of combine it with Iran. One of the things that we've seen over the last few weeks are very suspicious trading patterns that relate to betting markets, stocks, and oil that seem coincidentally, if you are to be the most charitable, coincidentally timed with Donald Trump's pre and post market statements about the direction, oh, we're doing well, negotiations are going well. People have been making a lot of money, either by coincidence or. or based on inside information. I don't know which it is, but I know which way I'm leaning.

If you, uh, if Democrats take back control of the house in November, is that an area not only with regard to Iran, but more generally with regard to what seems to be trading on inside information. Are you interested in pursuing that in terms of house oversight? Yeah, absolutely. So I think that we need to have oversight over all of the very many corrupt things that this administration and people close to it. are doing. And I absolutely think the betting markets is a piece of it. And then I also think we need to recognize that we need to hold ourselves to those standards too. So, you know, I think we should ban stock trading by members of Congress and the executive branch completely. I'm a co-sponsor of the

of a bill that would do that. And frankly, I think we need to have a real conversation about whether we allow people in the executive branch to engage or and Congress to engage in these predictive betting markets. You know, I've already told my staff that this is not something that they're allowed to do. And if I find out that they're doing it, they will lose their job. And I think we need to be very clear that like, this is another way of using information that we have access to to make money. And that should not be the case. We should be in this job solely to serve the people in our communities. On the topic of Iran, we were first told three to four weeks. It's week four. J.D. Vance, just in an interview yesterday said, he doubts that this is the sort of thing that the U.S.

would be involved in for one or two years, which is a very different sort of timeline than we were given four weeks ago. Anything you can tell us about what levers you and your colleagues have to try to get some control over this thing? And if the answer is, it's really out of our hands, I think my audience would just rather hear that. Look, I mean, you're a millennial. I'm a millennial. we remember the Iraq war. They told us it was going to last six weeks. We had mission accomplished and then we know what happened for two decades after that. And so I think part of it is why we should have never gone into this war to begin with because war is by its very nature unpredictable. And you can't say you're going to go in three weeks, two weeks and do everything you want.

I think that there are some really key important things, actually, some levers that we do have. So one is that we have the war powers resolution. I'm hopeful that when we come back into session in two weeks, we will have another war powers resolution vote. Now, we lost four Democrats in that war powers resolution last time it came up and we were able to sway a couple of Republicans. So your audience can be really, really impactful in making sure they're both bolstering their Democratic representatives to vote for it and push for it to come up for a vote and calling their Republican representatives and telling them that this is something that they care about. And especially if you have people in your life who were Republican or voted for Trump and have a lot of questions about the Iran war, having them call their Republican representatives, I think will be really important. So that's one.

The second is there will be a vote at some point on this supplemental funding. Yeah. The president is asking for $200 billion. $200 billion is not a down payment on a short war, right? That is how you get a long war. And I think, first of all, we already need to start seeding the ground that voting for the supplemental is not a vote for our troops, right? We already know the neocons are going to start trying to use that same language they use during the Iraq war. We need to start seating. the ground that that's not the case. But we also need to put pressure on representatives to not vote for that supplemental. And I think a lot of my Democratic colleagues might feel like, well, they don't support this war, but they don't want to not vote for this supplemental. And I think pressure is a really important part of that. And then I think in general, while this administration and Donald Trump likes to pretend that he doesn't care what we think, we've actually seen that when we have good big public pressure, he does change his position. He is he is noticing it. And so we need to be

making our voices heard. If you're in a military family, if you're, you know, all of these different ways that we can make our voices heard, that builds and lends itself to Donald Trump changing his mind and saying, actually, I'm not going to continue escalating this. I'm not going to send in ground troops. I need to figure out how to cut my losses. Yeah. If there's one thing, thing Donald Trump really does care about. It's about being liked. I mean, ego plays a major role in the decisions that he makes. And I think that that is an important thing. We've been speaking with Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs representing California's 51st district. Thanks so much for your time. I really appreciate it. Absolutely. Thanks for having me.

Coming out of winter, a lot of people will try to reset their routines, but health routines can get overly complicated very quickly, pills and supplements and schedules and consistency becomes difficult. Our sponsor AG1 just makes it really simple. It's a daily health drink. It supports gut health. It fills common nutrient gaps. And it has more than 75 ingredients, including five probiotic strains. And the thing I love is, instead of juggling a multivitamin and supplements and all this stuff. It's just a scoop mixed with water. I like that it's an anchor simple every single morning. Schedules shift and things go on. AG1 keeps me consistent. Ag1 provides all sorts of nutritional support, B vitamins, et cetera, the probiotic support digestion. If you want to try it,

Go to drinkag1.com slash Pacman to get an AG1 flavor sampler and a bottle of vitamin D3 and K2 for free in your AG1 welcome kit with your first AG1 subscription order. Only while supplies last. The link is in the description. Whether it's with your besties or date night, get to all the hottest concerts with Go Transit. Go connects to all the biggest entertainment venues and makes it affordable with special e-ticket fairs. A weekend pass offers unlimited travel across the network on any weekend day or holiday for just $10. A weekday group pass offers the same weekday travel flexibility from $30 for two people up to $60

for five. So no matter what day of the week, Go's got you covered. Find out more at go transit.com slash tickets. Is Donald Trump about to go? You're fired on Tulsi Gabbard and proverbially launch her into outer space. We may be watching the early stages of something that in Trump world is very common. If you've followed the pattern before, you know where it goes. Someone rises, gets attention, gets Trump's praise, gets pulled into his orbit, and it looks

like they're really part of the inner circle. And then there's a shift. There's a subtle shift at first. And that is what already happened with Tulsi Gabbard. You might remember that when back in July, June of 2025, when Trump was starting to bomb Iran. She said, we don't really have an intelligence assessment that comports with what Donald Trump is claiming. And then all of a sudden she wasn't in Trump's inner circle anymore. And then now it's sort of like where on earth is Tulsi? A reporter asked Donald Trump, a very simple question.

Do you still have confidence in Tulsi Gabbard? And Trump gives the sort of answer where I guess he's supportive. And he goes, he doesn't even sound that sure. He goes, yeah, sure, but. And then he spits out a bunch of other stuff. Listen to this and tell me whether you think Trump's gearing up to fire Tulsi. And then I'll give you my thought. I have a lot of great candidates for this. He's not confidence in Tulsi Gabbard, sir. Yeah, sure.

She's a little bit different in her thought process than me, but that doesn't make somebody not available to say it doesn't make them bad. I would say, I would say that I'm very strong in the fact that I don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Because if they had a nuclear weapon, they'd use it immediately. I think she's probably a little bit softer on that issue, but that's okay. Some people are. And of course, it's not that Tulsi is softer.

She just as the director of national intelligence can't point to intelligence that says Iran is close to a nuclear weapon. It's not that she doesn't care. She just doesn't think the intelligence points to that. People are. Most people are saying thank you very much for doing what you did. They are decimated right now. They're going to give up nuclear weapons. They're going to give us the nuclear dust. They're going to do everything that we want to do. And you know what? They're going to go on and maybe have a great, a great country again. But if they don't do that, they're not going to have a country. They're not even going to have a country. So she's softer in that issue, but I have other

people, not too many. That's an issue that we've had great support. You saw the CNN. All right. I think you get it. She, yeah, sure. Sure. Sure. I support her. I mean, she's a little different in her thinking. And then he says she's a little soft on Iran. She's a little soft on. She's a little soft on Iran having nuclear weapons. And that phrasing, I think matters a lot. I think, you know, Trump is in a sense deliberate when he wants to signal something without saying it. And if he really backs someone up, he just goes phenomenal, absolutely phenomenal. He doesn't leave any ambiguity. He's hedging. He goes, yeah, sure. Sure. I mean, you know, she thinks a little bit differently than I do. She's not so concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon. I'm strong on that. She's a little

soft on that. He's creating a record. He's putting together a way to later say, we were never completely aligned. I told you, you know, we weren't exactly on the same page on Iran and nukes. And her thinking's a little bit differently here. I think that this is major because this is about one of the foremost issues of Donald Trump's presidency, both terms together, this war in Iran, nuclear weapons, the posture that the United States should take in a potentially huge inflection point type situation. Tulsi built a reputation around being more cautious with regard to intervention. She fell for the claim that Trump is the, you know, anti-war guy or whatever. She is for better or worse. You know, I disagree with Tulsi about so much. She is more skeptical of military escalation.

And that puts her out of sync with Trump on Iran, which is a huge deal. And this is an environment where these small differences can become really problematic. And it's a in Trump's ecosystem, loyalty and alignment are what matter the most. And even a small gap can become a huge, huge issue. So what I think we're seeing here are the beginnings of the beginnings of a familiar process in which there is a distancing and the distance tends to grow. Now, it may grow slowly enough that she'll still be able to stick out her full term as the director of national intelligence or maybe not because with Trump, it'll start with comments

like this. move to direct criticism. It'll be a full public break. And then all of a sudden, she's gone. And we've seen it happen many, many times. Now, I think the, the interesting part about this with Tulsi is that she laid down like a doormat and had Trump walk all over her metaphorically in terms of how she did a total 180 on politics and now kowtows to Maga. She spent a very long time abandoning everything that used to be part of her political space and edging in on Trump's political space and building credibility with the MAGA people and positioning herself as part of the broader movement. And now she's running essentially into the same dynamic that for other

people has ended up with them being unemployed where the closeness has an expiration date and you get to some area of disagreement. It could be a perceived difference or a real one. And this is a very high profile issue that is core. Think about it. It's not only Trump's biggest foreign policy sort of decision, I think blunder, but decision. It also directly relates to the economy. And the reason gas prices are four bucks a gallon right now, as we are seeing negative job growth and prices up and all of the stuff is because Trump decided to do tariffs and he decided to go into Iran. So when I hear Trump go well, yeah, sure. She's a little softer. He's a little softer on Iran having a nuclear weapon. It might sound small, but if you contextualize it, this is something way, way bigger.

And it could very much blow up right in Tulsi's face. Couldn't happen to a nicer person. If that's the way that it ends up going. J.D. Vance crumbles and admits something they've all been desperate to keep under wraps. This could end up being a really big deal. J.D. Vance, who is supposed to be one of the more disciplined messengers in Trump's operation, he says very clearly, we are not interested in being in Iran a year down the road or two years down the road. All right.

Well, that certainly sounds reassuring, right? But if you've been listening carefully, why is he talking about one or two years? Because earlier the framing was this is going to be three to four weeks, maybe five weeks. Week five is starting. Next week is week five. I hope people understand that. And as three weeks and four weeks and five weeks, it's not looking like we're done. I hope we are.

But it's not looking like it. All of a sudden now, J.D. goes, listen, I don't think this is the sort of thing we're going to be in one to two years. Why are you even mentioning that? They know that these endless wars are so unpopular that they've got to keep the timeline always as short as possible and extend it only when necessary. Listen to J.D. Vance. You need to neuter them for a very, very long time, and that's the purpose.

You're right. Gas prices have certainly gone up because of what's going on in the Middle East, but they're going to come down, right? This is a very, very temporary reaction to what is going to ultimately be a short-term conflict. I think the president's been very clear about this that we're not interested in being in Iran a year down the road, two years down the road. We're taking care of business. We're going to be out of there soon.

And gas prices are going to come back down. There you go. Now, the fact that he is even using those words years is a huge change. Nobody in and around this administration has been using that phraseology. And all of a sudden, instead of listen, it's three to four weeks, that's over. We've been there a month. they have to go with something else. Now, J.D. Vance could go listen.

I don't think we're going to be there more than more than a few months. All right. Well, that would only be one or two more months. But he's saying, I don't think we're going to be there one to two years. They also understand something else, which is the American people have very little appetite for another long foreign conflict right now. So instead of just giving us the most likely timeline up front, they move it slowly but surely. And you adjust expectations.

Well, we've already been there a month. And then listen, maybe if we're there five months, they'll go, this is not going to be a multi-year thing. Okay. So we're five months into maybe a 12-month thing. It's all this is a, it's a known strategy. You sometimes see it, by the way, with airline flight delays. We're going to need 10 more minutes before we can board.

We're just sorting something out. Listen, folks, we're going to try to prevent a delay of longer than an hour. And then you go, well, it's already been 10, 15 minutes. It's only another 45. And then when you get to the hour. They go, all right, we figured out the problem. We just need the part to be flown in. There's a flight coming in two hours.

You don't just go to people. Listen, guys, it's looking very bad. We're probably not leaving for four hours. You go a little bit, a little bit. And so with this war stuff, first, it's short and controlled and temporary. And then it's a little bit longer, but still manageable. We're there right now. They said three to four weeks.

We're getting to the end of week four. So that's over. So then we're going to need a little bit more time. We're there already. You want us to finish the job correctly, don't you? You don't want us to leave and let things get out of control just a little more time. And by the time people realize how that timeline has expanded, the situation has established itself. It's much more difficult to unwind it.

And we've seen this play out in a lot of different ways. Now, put yourself in Trump's shoes for a second with the lifts that he puts in his shoes and everything. Put yourself in his shoes. The messaging discipline is something he expects publicly, even if he's, you know, is very chaotic in his messaging. If J.D. Vance is out there effectively acknowledging a longer timeline than what people were told, there are a couple possibilities. He is doing something he's not supposed to be doing. He's admitting something he's not supposed to be admitting. Or the timeline

has genuinely changed. And he is admitting it. Either way, it's a potential problem for J.D. Vance. Trump reacts very strongly when he thinks someone is creating a narrative that he can't control or that he can't spin. So whether this question was like a slip in J.D. Vance's messaging, the beginning of a recognition that this is going to be a longer haul than we were told. I don't know. But when the timeline starts stretching from weeks into years, the framing of what is happening starts to look very different than what the public was told. This is the kind of moment where the internal cracks explode and they are supposed to be aligned, but they don't seem to be. So when you hear a year or two, maybe it's a limit.

And it's like it's still going to be three to four weeks, but absolutely not more than a year or two. But we're already at week four entering week five. The expectations have already shifted. So my sense is that J.D. Vance is simply being more realistic. I think Vance actually understands how long this is likely to go. And that's what he's putting out there.

I hope that that's not the case. I hope it's not the case for the sake of the death that that will bring down upon Americans and Iranians. I hope that that's not the case because of the economic chaos that that is likely to cause. And I hope that it is not the case because we were told we weren't going to be doing this nonsense Middle East war stuff under Donald Trump. We have a phenomenal bonus show for you today. You can sign up and get instant access to it by signing up at join Pacman.

I'll see you then.