The Megyn Kelly Show - Tucker Carlson Says He’s Leaving GOP, Far-Left Mamdani-Backed Candidates Win NYC Primaries, How World Cup Renewed American Patriotism, w/ Halperin & Palihapitya | Ep. 1346

Episode Date: June 24, 2026

Megyn Kelly is joined by Mark Halperin, host of "Next Up with Mark Halperin,” to discuss the victories of candidates backed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani in New York City, debates over Israel and antisemitism within the Democratic Party, the controversial background of Democratic Socialist candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier, her history of controversial tweets, Jack Schlossberg’s defeat in NYC primary, the New York Times' ridiculous coverage of his loss, and more. Plus, Chamath Palihapitya, co-host of the "All-In Podcast," joins to discuss Tucker Carlson’s announcement that he is leaving the Republican Party, the debates over Israel and America’s role abroad, divisions within the GOP over the future of the party, the rapid rise of artificial intelligence, the economic and political disruption caused by AI, whether the benefits will improve our future or create new problems, how AI may reshape traditional jobs, a JPMorgan executive fired for dumping garbage all over NYC to steal a Knicks-themed trash can, Larry David’s criticism about America 250 and White House UFC event, how the World Cup has renewed American Patriotism, and more.   Halperin- https://www.youtube.com/@NextUpHalperin Palihapitiya- https://x.com/chamath   Brooklyn Bedding: Upgrade your sleep with Brooklyn Bedding—Visit https://brooklynbedding.comand use promo code MEGYN for 30% off sitewide! Supersure Insurance: Upgrade your business insurance to a year-round SuperAgency at https://Supersure.com/Megyn Byrna: Go to https://Byrna.com or your local Sportsman's Warehouse today. Shopify: Launch your dream business with Shopify. Sign up for your $1/month trial at https://Shopify.com/Megyn and start selling today!     Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to The Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. Happy Wednesday. We have a great show for you today. The thief has been identified. We now know who stole that New York Knicks trash can in the viral video from the championship parade. Who steals the trash can?

I mean, how much of a low life do you have to be to pick up a full trash can, dump all of the trash on the sidewalk of the seat? city you're supposed to be celebrating and then steal the trash can. You're not going to believe who it was. Actually, you will totally believe it, but you're going to I roll. Plus, Chamath Palahapatia is here. I never say it right, but we are French math from the online podcast. He's going to be here to tell us what we need to know about the latest with AI, and he's got some really helpful insights on it. But we begin today with the Democratic Party taking a giant leap to the left last night in New York City as voters rejected the establishment candidates

and delivered victories for the three candidates backed by socialist mayor, Zoran, Mamdani, in primaries for house seats. Okay, this was not the general election, but New York being what it is, it might as well be. And boy, are we going hardcore left in Manhattan. It's very interesting to me because when Mamdani got elected, I know tons of Republicans. I know tons of Republicans. who are actually operatives within the party who were saying they couldn't wait to make him the face of the Democrat Party. And they thought that would be very good for Republicans. Depends on where you are. Because in New York, he's a hero. I mean, he's becoming extremely strong and formidable as a kingmaker within the Democrat Party. And, you know, New York is not considered

extreme by most Democrats. Like it's how they see their own party and how they see the world and generally where they'd like to take their own party. The far left is ascendant within Team Blue. And there are some key reasons why that's so. Let me just give you a couple of the updates. And I'm going to bring in Mark Halperin to talk about what this all means. In New York House District 7, state assemblywoman Claire Valdez defeating Brooklyn Borough president Antonio renozo after campaigning on her staunch opposition to Israel. In New York 10, former city comptroller Brad Lander defeating incumbent Dan Goldman, who's been such a thorn in the president's side and so blindly loyal to Joe Biden and was trying to tell us that he did so great at the debate.

I mean, that's how much of a loyalist. He was a lot of good it did him. He lost by more than 30 points last night. Lander saying, we need to reset our relationship with Israel. Now, he wasn't quite as extreme on the issue of Israel as some of these other candidates, but Dan Goldman was super pro-Israel. So the contrast was stark. But the candidate who takes the cake last night is, all right, this is a tough one. It's helpful if I can see it written down. It's Dara, it's very tough. Dariliza, Liva, Liva, Chevalier. And she beat a five-term incumbent. Chevalier, we're going to go with. She beat a five-term incumbent, who's also chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, but not woke enough from Mamdani's New York City.

And once again, Israel was key here. She hates Israel and A-PAC, and it was not afraid to say it. And she wasn't afraid to say a bunch of other crazy shit either. I mean, like, this woman is out there. If this is the future of electoral politics in Manhattan, thank God we moved and it cannot spread. I mean, honestly, like, my own views on Israel have changed. But my God, this person, she wants to abolish the police, prisons, ICE, the U.S. Senate, the Supreme Court. This is as radical as you can go. and she just won the Democrat primary in New York for New York 13. Now, if she's elected, as she is expected to be in her deep blue district, they're not going to go with a Republican and the general. She will be one of, if not the most radical far-left candidates in the history of Congress.

Someone described her as AOC but left, like as if AOC's not left. They're both Democrat Socialists, a party that really should be in the dustbin of history, but instead is ascendant. This woman's a 32-year-old community organizer because we needed another one of those in electoral politics and a PhD candidate at the Kuni, City University of New York. Chevalier is a member of the Democratic Socialist of America and a recent convert to Islam at age 32. You'll be shocked, shocked, shocked to hear she went to Columbia University. Not only are they making you an anti-Semite, if you can. come out of Columbia University, they're making you actually convert to Islam. I mean, they've really gone next level at Columbia. I would never send my child there. I've told my

children, you want to go to Columbia? You can pay for it yourself. No, we're not paying for that. You're not going there. Not that they want to, but I'm just saying it's like in New York, which is close to us. You'd think we'd normally like take a look at a school like that. It's a hard, hard pass on that place. She calls the notorious protester at Columbia, Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil. Remember that guy? A friend. And her campaign website says that she, quote, provides legal aid to victims of police brutality for the public defender's office in Harlem. Now, that last part, that's kind of standard Democrat fare. It's this other crazy stuff that has her standing out in a field of wackos. All right, here's just a sampling of her now deleted social

media posts dug up by the New York Post and by CNN. In June of 2020, she responds to a tweet about what it means to abolish the police. Quote, it means ending police, full stop, period. No more police at all, ever. I love her honesty. It's very harmful to the work black abolitionists have been doing for decades to dilute this movement. If you are not fully on board yet, it's fine to just say that, unquote. Full, no more cops. She wants to abolish policing. December 23rd, 2019, quote, I forgot to get napkins. So I just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me, unquote. Just lovely.

Why is it, like, if you're a Democrat socialist, why do you have to hate America too? And why is in this faction on the left that's growing, that's like got questions about Israel? I mean, they really, the left really can't stand Israel. Why do you have to hate America too? Like, that I don't get. Even I get why Israel is extremely controversial now,

even within a large faction of the Republican Party. But like, how does that take you to America? hatred. For the leftists, at least the extreme ones, it does, and she's Exhibit A. In June 2021, when Kamala Harris encouraged migrants from Central America to stop making the dangerous trek to the U.S., Chevalier wrote, quote, I have no nuance to add. Fuck Kamala Harris. Well, in that week and all. I mean, she's, is she all wrong about her everything? Do we, maybe there's like some piece on Kamala's Venn diagram. on which we can find common ground with our soon-to-be new elected congresswoman from New York.

There's a lot more, but I want to bring in Mark Halper now. He's host of Next Up with Mark Halperin right here on the MK Media Network. You can find Next Up by just searching wherever you get your podcast and then downloading and make sure you listen to Mark for all the latest on all things politics. There's something refreshing about a company that focuses on integrity and hard work. With Brooklyn betting, I know they built my Aurora Lux mattress, which I love. in the USA with high quality materials and real attention to detail. It's that classic American ethos, do the job right, stand behind your product, and build something that lasts, and they did deliver

it right to my doorstep. Totally convenient. Brooklyn Bedding knows sleep is not one size fits all. That's why they offer mattresses for everybody, every sleep style, even in hard-to-find sizes. Sleep hot? Brooklyn Bedding uses copper-infused foams and temperature-regulating materials to keep you cool and comfy all night long. Plus, you get a 120-night comfort trial with easy returns or swaps. They've earned awards from CNET and wirecutter, proving that they deliver real high-quality sleep you can trust and enjoy just like my husband and I do. Go to Brooklynbetting.com. Use my promo code Megan at checkout to get 30% off-site wide. That's Brooklynbetting.com. Use promo code Megan for 30% off-site wide. Let them know we sent you after checkout. Brooklynbetting.com,

promo code Megan. Mark, your reaction on kind of the bombshells that happened in these three races in New York last night. Well, I think it's easy to overstate it, but it's easier to understate it because it's not just New York, it's Michigan, Maine with Graham Platner. It's probably going to be Michigan with Dr. El Sayahad. And the energy and power in the Democratic Party is with this wing of the party. It's not, it's Israel, it's anti-establishment, it's anti-ice, it's pro-radicalism. And Democrats have ignored this for 10 years. For 10 years since Bernie Sanders had the nomination stolen from him by the establishment in 2016,

the parties pretended as best they could that they weren't being dominated by the energy and power of the radical wing of the party, the progressive wing. They speak for tens of millions. It's not like they don't have followers. But I don't think they're a majority of the party, but they're the loudest and angriest on the National Town Square. And what we saw last night with these three winners backed by Mondami, two incumbents beaten and one open seat, is they can win primaries in New York. As you said, that's a special beast. But they also want a primary in Michigan with Graham Platner, in Maine, rather. They may win a primary in the Michigan Senate race.

And it's going to be fascinating in the context of the midterms and then the presidential to see if the wing of the party that says, we don't want to be a socialist party. We don't want a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party by the Socialist Party. We're going to have to stand up to that wing of the party. We'll see if anybody does it. Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have known for a decade what's happening. And they do not have the nerve and the courage and the skill to stand up to that wing of the party. So we saw yesterday a specific New York City manifestation of it, but it's happening everywhere within the party and it has been for a decade. the the i've i've read a lot of analysis today as i'm sure you have to and people from both sides of the aisle

seem to be coming to the same conclusion which is there was no issue that was more front and center in these races than israel and if you are running as a democrat like the conclusion um jeremy carl uh of the hoover institute in clermont wrote as follows israel and in particular apac are absolutely toxic in a democrat primary especially anywhere vaguely progressive. Israel was arguably the central issue in all three of these primaries, and the candidate that was more hostile to Israel,

one in each, expect a lot of Democrats to swing much harder against both APEC and Israel going forward. Do you agree with that, Mark? Well, I largely agree, although in Maryland last night in a less watched primary, a Democrat who got tons of money from APEC,

who was the establishment choice of Steny Hoyer, the retiring leader, who's districted what it is now, that guy won. And so it's not, and Maryland's not a, you know, a conservative state. It's a very liberal state. So it's not 100%. But I agree that Israel and American Jews and APAC have very quickly become,

in both parties, a very, very emotional issue. And I agree that it's, it takes a lot. There's some exceptions like Congressman Gottheimer of New Jersey, It takes a lot for an official to go out of his or her way to speak out against this. Some of them maybe choose to hide and not speak out for or against this trend. But there's no doubt now that if you were to say in any Democratic primary, almost anywhere in the country, if there's a single litmus test, if there's a single emotional issue that could make or break candidacy, it would be this.

And opponents of APEC would say, well, yeah, the guy in Maryland won. But they had to spend millions of dollars to get them the nomination. Why do you say American Jews, too? Because I see that Israel's clearly an issue. Yeah. And APEC is clearly an issue. But I think only, you know, weird, bigoted people extend it to American Jews as part of the issue. Yeah, it's a very difficult thing to discuss because it's uncomfortable.

And there's not a lot of polling date on it because pollsters don't want to poll on it. I'm writing a piece of that. Like, what do you mean? Like, how do you like the Jews? Yeah. Yeah. Do you feel favorite? And it's a tough thing to pull. It's an awkward thing to ask. And are people going to be honest? Here's what I draw on. If you look at human history, as long as there have been Jews, how have the Jews been treated? Not that well. A lot of people don't like Jews. So I just, I don't think you can take it out of the equation. Now, I've got relatives who are Jews who are very angry at Israel. So it's not. It's not that everyone with a strong position about Israel is anti-Semitic, of course. And the point of view of questioning Netanyahu, of questioning Israel's activities, of questioning Apex activities, those are all legitimate conversations to have and the views of tens of millions of people.

But you can't ignore human history. You can't ignore that some of this, you can't quantify it, some of it for some people, and I would say not an insignificant number of people is driven by this. Let me give you something that falls in the cracks between just a public policy view of Israel and anti-Semitism. The Democratic Party has become a very secular party. The polling data is quite clear on that. Jews, some people say it's an ethnicity, but it's also a religion. And so I think you're going to see some people say, well, I've had negative feelings towards Jews because they're religious.

That's not quite anti-Semitism, but it is a point of view that I think animates some of this for some people. It can't just be about Israel and Netanyahu. It just can't be because it's far too powerful and far too emotional. There are plenty of public policy issues that involve human rights, that involve violence. Why don't they feel this way about China? Why don't they feel this way about Putin? So I don't think you can ignore. for some people that this is an element within the party.

And I'd say for some people within the Republican Party as well. I mean, I think, unfortunately, there are some people who conflate those two things. But I think vast majority of people in America who are critical of Israel have come to it honestly. They watch what happened in Gaza for two freaking years. They've watched them drag us into this Iran war. They're mad about it. You know, it's like they don't want to fight Israel's battles. They don't want them getting us into trouble.

They don't want APEC having this much control over our lawmakers. Get out. Go back to your own country and lobby your lawmakers. Get out of ours. And they're having feelings like that. Even people like me who had been very pro-Israel have turned on it because of things like that has nothing to do with Jews. All of my best friends.

And honestly, they feel the way I do. Like my closest friend in the world who's Jewish, culturally, religiously and all that, she couldn't care less about how you feel. Israel. You know, it's like, there's only like a certain strain of American. You could be Jewish, you could be Christian, that makes Israel, like, the stakes for which the relationship plays. You know, like, you can't, we can't be friends any longer if you're not going to support Israel. It's a very, and it doesn't, it's not based at all on whether that person is Jewish. I agree with you, 100% that that's the dominant thing and that those positions are perfectly reasonable, like,

well within intellectual understanding and political discourse. I'm just saying that there's some of this. Can't quantify it. You look at how Jews have been treated through human history. You just can't say, well, America's the first country in the world that doesn't have anti-Semitism. That just, it's got to be part of it. Oh, no, we haven't. We do.

We have it. But I just, I would submit, that is not what this is about. Because look what's happening within the Republican Party. was the Republican Party 20% anti-Semitic all along, and now it just happens to dovetail with their opposition to Israel. They were just latently, like, keeping their anti-Jew feelings quiet. I don't believe that. Could it be something?

Like, what else has happened in the world over the past couple of years that we saw directly affect Democrat support go right down, independent support, go off a cliff. No more independent support Israel. And even Republicans start to turn. Could it be Gaza? could it be Iran? You know, it's like, whatever. Okay, let's keep going with you. Because one thing that is absolutely on the ascendance is Democratic Socialism, which is, you know, we thought that was, I don't know, I thought, Mom Donnie was more of a one-off because New York's been going further and further left. And I was among those people who thought, oh, he'll be a great poster boy to run against for Republicans. Well, I don't know. Here's Harry Enton, your pal.

of whom I am a fan, talking about the Democrat Socialists versus the regular Dems in Congress and popularity. Watch this clip. The Top 52. Among Democrats themselves, the Democratic Socialists of America have a higher net favor than the Democratic Party does, at least those who members of Congress. I mean, just take a look here. Dems Socialists of America plus 17 points. Democrats in Congress plus four points. No wonder that Dems Socialists are getting nominated across the political map in different primaries because simply put, they are more popular than the Democrats currently in charge. Okay, I'm just thinking back to when I was sitting here and Zora Mundani was sitting there when he was running and I asked him about capitalism. Yes. And he had no problem saying that he had real

issues with it. Okay, he wasn't afraid to say it. By the way, he ended up winning. It didn't hurt him. How do Democrats today view socialism compared to capitalism? There's a reason why it didn't hurt him. And that is simply because this is one of the biggest political changes I've seen during my lifetime. Match up socialism, capitalism, among Democrats. You go back 16 years ago, 2010. Capitalism and socialism right there, favorable rating, 51%, 50%. Look at it now. Socialism, clearly in the lead among Democrats. 66% of them views socialism favorably. Just 42% view capitalism favorably. No wonder, Mom Donnie had no problem blast in it. Oh, my Lord, Mark. 66% view of the Democrat Party views socialism favorably, only 42% view capitalism favorably. So like,

you get out of the Israel thing and the differences become really, really stark on where we all stand, even within the Democrat Party. So what's a Democrat to do? You not only have to be against Israel and APAC, which most of them are over on Team Blue, but you also have to be against capitalism now. This is where the media being liberally biased for Democrats, ironically, does not do Democrats any favors. Because this has been growing, as Harry's data showed, for a couple decades. In the post-Bill Clinton era, the Democratic Party has moved further to the left than it has ever been in our lifetimes, at least. And the press doesn't cover it. The press doesn't say, well, you know, they can't be distracted from attacking Donald Trump and the Republican Party pointing out the flaws there.

They don't cover this, but this is an incredible development to have a party move this far to the left and have most of its leaders either ignore it or cater to it. And, you know, when Democrats wonder why Donald Trump has been able to win two presidential elections and get very close on the third, they don't really do any soul searching to say, well, maybe it's because we've become a party of socialists, a religious socialists. And it's right there in the data. It's right there in the data. And it'll be interesting to see if anybody stands up to them in the midterms, if anybody in within the party, or if anybody stands up to them within the context of the 2028 presidential election. But they have moved really far to the left on economics, on law enforcement, for those who say abolish ICE, on cultural issues, like on trans.

And no mystery. Why Donald Trump, who's got his own flaw, deep flaws as a candidate in terms of unpopular positions, no mystery why he's able to win. Because they have, as was said in the previous era, they're so left, they've left America on a range of important issues. Here is this Chevalier who was asked recently about some of her very controversial deleted tweets, some of which we read at the top. Take a listen to how she answered. It's not 53. I want to still ask about two tweets specifically because I think they are relevant to the race. The first is all deportation is wrong.

Now, in Congress, obviously, that comes with a lot of questions about immigration enforcement and even as Democrats might agree with calls that you have shared to things like Abolish ICE. I don't know if they're necessarily there on things like all deportation is wrong. Is that something you still believe? That phrase, yes. I still believe that all deportations are wrong. Even if we're talking about illegal and true to the country or someone who may have committed a crime? So when we're talking about things like illegal entry or to we're actually

talking about administrative laws, right? We're not talking about criminal law. Let me concede the question of people who have not committed a crime because I think that that's not really the question man. Like if we're saying all deportation is wrong though, that would seem to also include people who were convicted of breaking U.S. criminal law. Is the deportation of those people wrong? Yes. Okay. So they're all going to get asked these questions now. Any Democrat running for office. She's for open borders against all policing, against incarceration. She said the U.S. is an effing disgrace. Her party, the DSA, they just recently revised and re-released their leadership platform. They want to defund the Pentagon, abolish the U.S. Senate, they want universal amnesty,

they want ownership of major corporations to be transferred to the public. They want to replace the president and the Supreme Court with an executive and a judiciary that would be subordinate to Congress. They want all police budgets to go to zero, courtesy of John Fund, writing for National Review there. It's pretty extreme, Mark. Megan, I would bet you almost anything that that's going to be the tip of the iceberg. I bet you we're going to find for all for these candidates, for her, for Chevalier, I think we're going to find more videos, more statements, more social media posted she's failed to fully scrub from human history. And it's going to be fascinating to see Democrats get asked about this stuff. And now that there is their programs like ours and conservative

media, they won't be able to rely on the legacy media to just kind of brush it away and say, well, she's already the nominee. Of course, she's going to win. And this is, this is what we saw with Mendami. He wasn't scrutinized either. But it's going to happen and it's going to be a very, Interesting case. I go back to Maine with Platner and Michigan with El Saad, if he's a Senate nominee there. Because they're running in competitive states. They're running in purple states. They're running, having to defend these kind of positions and past statements before an electorate who is going to look at it very differently than a lot of New Yorkers will. What's the story with the guy in Michigan? Have they not yet had their primary? Primaries not until August. It's not until August. So we got a long way to go.

Republicans have a good candidate in Mike Rogers. And right now, Al-Said is the most likely to be the nominee. And I think the establishment wants to stop him because they do have the good sense to say that he is the least electable in the general election. But as we saw in Maine, when the establishment now mobilizes to stop, it only makes it worse. It only makes it harder to control the grassroots strength. And that guy has the grassroots strength, even though, you know, you look at his record and he's far to the left on a range of issues of anybody named his elected statewide. Even Tish James in New York is now criticizing Mondami, who she endorsed and the nominees like Chevalier, who she's supported. He's supported because even Tish James, who's pretty far left, knows how dangerous this is for her party.

There was some good news, as I see it, coming out of the electoral results last night. Namely, the vile, bizarre, I think mentally unwell, Jack Schlossberg lost. He will not be continuing the Camelot legacy, as I heard some discussing it today. He's out, and the voters of New York saw right through his slick act. He refused to campaign. He had a sense of entitlement. he's never accomplished anything, Mark. I mean, literally he's never accomplished anything

other than going to school at prestigious universities, which being a Kennedy will, you know, happen every time. And to their credit, look at this moron. The New York people said, no, we're not falling for this again. This is not the mood we're in at all. What do you make of it? Jack, we hardly knew you. You know, he got screened.

You didn't come close. And remember, he got the endorsement of Nancy Pelosi. He got a ton of favorable press coverage. He was from the start an unserious person. It's my congressional district. It's filled with very serious people. And the guy who won is a perfectly serious establishment candidate. But I was dubious about his prospects from the start.

And I don't know exactly why he failed, but I'm certain that part of why he failed was because he was a clown and had no business thinking he should be a member of Congress. And this generation of Kennedy's maybe is not as distinguished as some of the previous ones. Here is the New York Times headline. Schlossberg's defeat dampens dream of a renewed Camelot. Okay, no, wrong, and let me give you some highlights. Just for fun. Why not? It is fun.

Let's have some fun. For a first-time candidate, Mr. Schlossberg seemingly had it all. A scion of the Kennedy family wants America's most famous political brand. Young and handsome, much like his grandfather, the progenitor of Camelot. He was well-connected, earning endorsements from Democratic royalty, like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and old money rich, able to pour his own fortune into a campaign he said was in part about the evils of money and politics. And in an age in which Democrats have often played catch-up with Republicans online, Mr. Schlossberg had a vibrant and social media presence presenting an oddball and decidedly opinionated persona that drew attention when. whenever he posted. He literally was talking about, forgive me, jizz cocktails. All right, there was nothing vibrance and just oddball. Just a little oddball. Yeah. Oddball's a good euphemism.

Two more. When early polls showed him in front of a crowded field of candidates in New York City's 12th congressional district, it seemed the race was his to lose. As it turned out, he lost it. Schlossberg's defeat also comes as the Kennedy family has also grappled with the defection of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mr. Slossberg's cousin to a Republican administration where he serves as the health secretary under President Trump. Even People Magazine's headline wasn't as ridiculous as this New York Times one. The People Magazine headline was Jack Slossberg loses his first election in heated Manhattan congressional primary. New York, the defeat dampens dream of a renewed Camelot. This guy was never going to be delivering a renewed Camelot,

Mark Halperin. No, he's a cuckoo, Kennedy. He's not like, There's literally nothing about, to extend anybody sees anything appealing about him, and I did not. There's nothing Kennedy-esque about his appeal. He's just kind of like, was kind of like a quirky, kooky outsider and young. But he's not a good candidate, and he was not Kennedy-esque. He just happened to be named, you know, be a member of the Kennedy family. But man, what a misguided thing.

You know, there's all these Democratic consultants now, like the people who got Platner in the race, who, and Mondami's consultants, who are just, they're just enablers of candidates who don't necessarily think through whether the person can actually win. In the case of this guy, I mean, they should, they should refund his money. Well, the man who showed up at President Trump's State of the Union this past year with a sign that read, Black people aren't apes, as if President Trump needed to be told that. Al Green has lost his seat in the U.S. Congress. He's out. Finally, Mark, he was sort of a shitster at a lot of these state of the union addresses for Republicans. That is, he's out. Nancy Mace. She's out, too. She lost. Jasmine Crockett's going. Are all the shisterers going?

Matt Gates is already gone. He's already gone. M.T.G.'s gone. It's good point. We're losing a lot of them. Bobert's still there. You know, Jamie Raskin, do you count him in the same category? He's a bit of a shitster. No, I don't know. I mean, we've lost a lot of them. We've lost a lot of them. True.

We have. Yeah. We've lost, gone but not forgotten. Wait, who's the other one that was going to talk about? What did you just say, Deb? Oh, George Conway. George Conway didn't make it either. He did even worse than that.

He was running for that same. He did worse than even the quirky Kennedy. Yeah, and he was running for the same seat. Now, last but not least, I saw you tweet out this morning post on X. You know, just when I thought I couldn't be shocked in politics, President Trump manages to shock me. Because today, he was all set to have this big signing ceremony for a new signature piece of legislation on affordability, attacking the housing market inequities, trying to, among other things, ban, big firms like Black Rock from swooping in and buying up big blocks of houses making it tougher

for some people to buy affordable housing. And this was going to address some affordability concerns. And more importantly, in politics, going to make it look like he was addressing affordability concerns for average Americans. They're going to have the big signing ceremony. And President Trump just canceled it and said he won't be signing it. So he's got, It's passed, but he's not going to sign it because he says he's insisting that they push through the SAVE Act, which is going to require universal voter ID and tighten, you know, screening procedures before you can vote in an election. And I get it, almost all of his party, once the SAVE Act passed, but it has zero chance of passing Mark Halper. No, it's not going to get, it won't get a vote. If it did get a vote, it wouldn't pass.

they don't have the votes to pass it, even if they could get it passed a filibuster. So he's tanking legislation that actually could be good for people and for him and Republicans politically in the name of a different piece of legislation that's very popular on the right, but has zero chance of going anywhere. What do you make of it? Well, they could get it past if they could get it past the filibuster. They just can't get it past the filibuster and they can't get Republicans. I don't think so. They don't have the votes. They have 50 votes to pass it.

They have, no, they don't. No, they do not. They don't. They don't. No, Collins is against it. Murkowski is against it. Tillis is against it. And so is McConnell.

They could pass a version of it, not the version of it. Not the version they go out on previously. They could get a lot of what he wanted, I believe. But they can't do it because they can't get, they can't break the filibuster. You know, maybe he'll change his mind again. But this was kind of, there was going to be a bipartisan signing ceremony. This bill is an incredible piece of legislation. Policy experts love it.

The left loves it. Mag is fine with it or enthusiastic. It lost five Senate votes and very few House votes. And the president was going to be able to go up to Capitol Hill and say, I'm signing into law a bill that will help with affordability on housing, which is one of the, as you know, one of the big areas people really care about. And he's chosen to scuttle it for, as you said, a piece of legislation that cannot pass. So it's confusing.

It's confusing why he did it. But the president likes leverage, and I guess he thinks he has leverage here, but he doesn't. And maybe they'll reschedule it. But it's just a very odd decision that caught many Republicans on Capitol Hill by surprise. It's the old cutting off the nose to spite the face routine. Like, this is a win. Like, oh, take your win. You can't get the thing you're threatening.

We wish you could, but you can't. It's very odd. So why not take a win? The president has had a run. rough news cycle. You know, I mean, people are behind the settlement of this around war, but the past few months have been rough, rough on the president's poll numbers. This is a win. Total win. Now, maybe he'll change his mind and sign it, but it's not, it's going to not get the same kind of coverage it would have gotten. It was going to get triumphal coverage. Donald Trump goes to Capitol Hill,

signs a popular piece of legislation on affordability and housing with massive bipartisan support. And he's just, for now at least he's choosing to put a damper on it. It's confusing. I don't get it. It's very confusing. All right. But as we close out the segment, we're glad Al Green is gone. We're glad Schlossberg and Conway did not make it. We're not so grateful for these weird radical Democrat socialists ascending into New York politics because it's probably a harbinger of things to come on a nationwide level.

Do we agree? Good summary. Outstanding. All right. There's something for everyone in that one. Yeah, exactly. Mark Halperin, a pleasure as always my friend. Great to see you, Megan.

Thank you. All right, don't forget to go subscribe to Next Up with Mark Halpern. So you can get Marks and his favorite guests insightful political analysis. Political season's starting to gear back up, guys. So now's a great time if you haven't subscribed to go and do it next up with Mark Halper. And next up right here on the MK Show, we will be joined by Chamath of the All In podcast. He's a billionaire. So he's going to have thoughts on all of these things and the economy and the affordability issues and AI and all of it.

Stay tuned for that. When you sign your insurance agency for some brokers, that is the finish line. It's a handshake. They get their commission done. Then you may not hear again from them until it's time for renewal and they need your money and commitment again. It's not exactly a great relationship. Your business, however, runs all year. And so do the gaps and so does the risk and so do events for which you need insurance. And that is why I want to tell you about super sure. If your company has more than 25 employees, whether you are the owner, the CFO, or the HR, manager, it can be too complex to just buy a policy online. SuperSure is the super agency built for you, licensed in every state for your business insurance and employee benefits, with year-round support for you and your team. At super sure.com, you can access tools like fine print facts,

which translates your current policy into plain English so that you see what's covered and what's not. Plus a business value calculator so you can estimate what your business is actually worth, and then know what really needs protecting. Go to supershure.com slash Megan, one super agency, one powerful platform, all your policies in one place so convenient, so much easier to manage. Go to super sure.com slash Megan paid for by SuperSure insurance agency LLC, which is a licensed insurance agency. Joining me now, Chamath Polyhapitia, he's CEO of Social Capital and co-host of the All In podcast. Chimoth, great to see you. So we've been talking with Mark Halperin about what happened in New York last night with these three, I mean, far left Democratic socialists winning in these three key congressional races, which means they're going to, they're going to Congress because there's no real meaningful Republican opposition in New York. And the radical, the radical nature of these three. I'm just going to play another soundbite from this woman Chevalier, who take a listen to what she said.

here in SOP 54 comparing Israel and the United States. And I've seen a lot of similarities, not just in the way things are done, but also in the very institutions that are enacting that violence. The tear gas that was being dropped on Palestinians in Gaza in 2014 was the same tear gas that was being dropped on black protesters in Ferguson in 2014. And that memory, that summer for me, was incredibly formative because it showed me that connection is not only one that is like, but it is the very same system.

Your thoughts on this gal, Chimha. I think if I take a step back, I think we have to take this really seriously. When you look at candidates like her or candidates like Mom Donnie, what is the through line? They're all incredibly articulate. They're generally very good looking and presentable.

And they're incredibly nuts in terms of their perspectives. They present these things, in an extremely approachable way. They're built for the moment in terms of social media. And so I think you have to take these folks extremely seriously because they know how to capture the algorithmic intentions of the mechanisms that get their message to people. And it's landing with enough people

that then they are going out and voting in a direction that I never thought we would even come close to touching in the United States. So I think it's really concerning. I think that if I had to give you a pet theory on this, though, I do think that we're going to turn the tide. And I would give you the example of Canada, the UK and Australia. The thing that those countries had, I grew up in Canada.

I think you know that. It was an incredibly liberal place. And when I was growing up in Canada, it was much more liberal than even the United States was. We would look at Dan Quail railing on rap lyrics and we thought, what is the big deal? Like, this is freedom of speech or, you know, past a certain amount of time on TV, there was some relatively racy television. And we were all just kind of looked the other way. Everybody was a live, let live culture. But then what happened? When social media really started to proliferate and the currency

became about attention, the outrage machine and the attention you could get from that trumped everything else. It just cascaded through all of society. And now what you're seeing is the next generation of that, which is a much more refined form of outrage, that I think like when you unpeel what they're saying, beyond the articulate words and the well-presented nature, is really scary.

And this is the kind of insidious thing that I think we have to confront. So what has happened in those three countries? They have veered so far off course over many years of allowing, this outrage to build up and they've manifested in completely open borders, economic policy that didn't make sense. A lot of the things that people are talking about now have been experimented in those countries and have turned out clearly to be a pretty abysmal failure. But what have those countries interestingly done in the last six months?

All three have instituted a ban on social media for kids 16 and under. and I think this is a huge thing. Why? Because you look, Megan, you have children at the same age as my children. We all know habits engender behavior. If you want kids to eat well, you can't feed them candy when they're kids. If you want kids to learn how to sleep well and manage their body and exercise, you have to teach those habits as a kid. If you want them to speak a second language, you have to speak that language at home.

There are just basic rules that then guide these children as adults. I think if you deprive an entire generation of social media, I think you'll see the incentives change because their desire to be fed by this attention outrage machine will be less than this current generation of people that live on it. And I think in that, they'll hopefully be able to sort through

what is normal and what is clearly crazy. Even when it's presented by people that look and sound like very articulate, presentable people. And I think that that ability to distinguish has been lost by this last generation of people that are now at voting age. You see it in the polls.

And so I suspect if you see Canada, the UK and Australia flip, it is time, and by the way, Florida has already done this. It's time to probably look at this and say, hey, hold on a second. We need to reset

how people actually process information because you can have totally derelict outcomes here if you let this stuff fester too long. A couple of thoughts on that. One, I hope you're right on the social media. I'm concerned it's more like you had no cocaine your entire life and then you had cocaine. And you're like, holy crap, this stuff's amazing. Watch me go.

Thank God, this is finally introduced to me. That worries me about the social media thing. Secondly, on what's happening on the left, I actually think what we saw last night in New York is not that far afield. from what we saw with Trump's election and then re-election, where there is a segment of the population that is just so done with the systems as they are now. They feel so unserved by government, by the choices that their predecessors have made. They can't buy a house. They can't get a meaningful job.

They can't take a vacation that they're just willing to try something different. And so even though maybe they knew, maybe they didn't, that this woman's party, for example, the Chevalier, but all three of them are Democratic Socialists. As I said, a moment ago, wants to defund the Pentagon, abolish the U.S. Senate, wants universal amnesty, wants to replace the president in the Supreme Court with something else, wants no more policing, no more incarceration. It's kind of like... It's like a dystopian version of idiocracy meets the handmaid still. It sounds insane.

Yes. But they're like, that socialism stuff in the middle of all that sounds good to me. This is where... I don't want to read one more article about Sam Altman or Elon and his trillion dollars. Sure. I want to take a vacation. Sure. This is where I think you're bringing up something really important. I don't want to completely dismiss where they're coming from and their rhetoric.

Because to your point, what they're also able to do beyond capture the outrage to get distribution, that's a lot of, you know, a lot of the stuff that they say initiates that way. but then underneath what are they speaking to the economic insecurity of a plurality of Americans clearly and they're able to exploit it and take advantage of it and give their version of what should happen which is essentially some version of let's dismantle and take from people that are making things and redistribute that which you know we know doesn't work and it's never worked and I think it never will work so what can we take away from them to your point that is actually worth taking away It is that we are at this moment where people have been beating the drum since Trump won around economic insecurity.

The first wave was about saying we have hollowed out all of the United States except the coasts. And nobody is going to do anything about it except Donald Trump. So we're going to elect him. To your point, I think that that's very accurate. This next wave looks like something that's much more subtle but equally powerful potentially, which is how do I get a chance to get to the starting line? And very smart candidates like these guys are perverting that desire and instead saying, well, let me just even the finish line for all of us.

And some people can't tell the difference. They're like starting line, finish line, whatever, I just want more. The problem is if you just even the finish line, you become a ward of the state. I think you know this, but like I grew up on welfare. My parents had very little money. I am telling, I will just scream from the mountaintops. You do not want this life. I've lived that life.

It is horrendous. It is horrible. It is dehumanizing. And anybody that tells you otherwise hasn't lived in those conditions. You don't want to be a word of the state getting a check because the finish line was set for you by somebody else. You don't want to stand in line and wait four years in a free, free hospital. That doesn't work. You want to have it even starting line.

You want to be able to have the economic mobility to go where you want to go. You want to know that the game isn't rigged against you. Those are completely reasonable desires. So I think we have to address those issues. And we have to make sure that we dismantle some of these arguments because the idea of just taking is reductive, but it sounds really nice to some people at some point. I mean, I do wonder how much can a politician do to help people economically? I do think Trump's deregulation, Trump's keeping the taxes. I mean, they're not low, but they're lower than they would have been had he not won re-election

and gotten an extension of his tax cuts passed. That helps. But honestly, the people who are suffering in New York City, this woman Chevalier, what's she going to be able to do for them? Nothing, but she's going to be able to create a lot of chaos and slow things down and gum up the system. And, you know, I mean, you talked with Mark about the housing bill that just passed. There is the potential for government in moments to do some really useful and good things. There was an enormous amount of upside, I think, in the one big, beautiful bill.

It cleaned up a bunch of regulation. It cleaned up a bunch of grifty, you know, tax credit schemes that were just bogging down the economy and just wasting money. In this housing bill, I read, I don't know much about it, but I read one very clever feature which I thought, wow, this makes so much sense. You know, everybody rails about how hard it is to get local state governments to do anything, you know, to get a permit to do anything. And they had two things making that I thought was brilliant. One was, if you have a building to the left of you and a building to the right of you, you don't need an eke. and environmental review, because clearly these two buildings had to go through all of this for years, so just build what you want to build. And second, if I'm just buying from a home builder and I'm just

taking a pattern that they've built 10 times, why do I need all these extra permits? So there are ways that governments can just step in in very tactical, precise ways to just get out of our own way. And what it turns out is other Americans are very clever and industrious and are then able to make things for you that you want. That's where I think government plays a huge rule. And I think when you whack back regulation and regulatory capture, you generally allow you and me and all of the other people in this country to just take care of ourselves and each other. And it always works out better that way.

Unfortunately, they've been sold a bill of goods on what the next gen DSA candidate can do for them and they're about to learn the hard way. the answers make things worse. Stand by. Chimah stays with us, much more to cover after this. You might already own a firearm, but what if you could start with less lethal methods to avoid the financial and mental repercussions of pulling the trigger of a loaded gun? This is where Berna comes in. That's B-Y-R-N-A. Burna's less lethal launchers are equipped with tear gas and kinetic ammunition

and designed to incapacitate an attacker for up to 40 minutes. And Berna is excited to introduce the all-new compact launcher. It's sleek, it's slim, it hits like a sledgehammer. It's the same size as a smartphone allowing women to conceal carry everywhere, comfortably and with confidence. It fires at 400 feet per second. That's a lot of power to stop aggressors in their tracks. Their pistols are American-made and hand-assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with over 80% of the components in the compact launcher being sourced in the USA. Burna is legal in all 50 states, requires no background checks and can be shipped directly to your door, and Burna is trusted by hundreds of

police departments too. If you're one of those people who's afraid of guns and you're worried if you get one, it's going to get used against you. Consider Burna. This thing incapacitates, gives you time to get away or call 911, but God forbid it were turned against you. It would not be a fatal event. try before you buy visit berna.com to find a berna dealer partner near you that's bryrna.com chamath halahapitia is still with us of the all-in podcast which if you're not already listening to you should be go and subscribe now so chamath um there's you know we'd be remiss if we didn't acknowledge what's happening on the left with respect to israel has creeped over into the right and the right wing the independents no longer support Israel in overwhelming numbers. They're against it now. I mean, they disapprove of it.

They don't approve of its behavior. It's government, its leadership, and the decisions they've made. Now that's happening more and more within Republican politics as well. And I just think, you know, we started the show by reading from one political pundit who said every Democrat now is going to swing much harder against both APEC and Israel going forward as a result of last night. But the truth is, Republicans are going to have a really serious decision to make two when it comes to positioning on Israel. And I'm going to play the soundbite from Tucker, who announced to a podcast I've never heard of earlier this week that he's left the GOP. Now, I haven't been a member of the GOP in 20-plus years. I'm a registered independent. And that's, I'm very happy where I am. But it's over this

issue. And he speaks for others too. I wanted to get your reaction. Watch this. I would not support the Republican Party. There's no chance I would support the Republican Party. I'm not going to support the Democratic Party. I don't know what I'm going to do. But at this point, you know, how could you support, how could I or any American voter support a political party that's not loyal to the United States

that puts the interest of a foreign country above those of its own citizens? Like that's, that's, you know, it's not possible to vote for people like that. And I'm not going to. And I think I voted Republican in my entire life. I worked at Fox News. I've seen an MSNBC I've been a consistent defender for 35 years of the Republican Party I mean very

consistent defender but there's no defending this because it's immoral and it's exactly the opposite of what a political party in a democracy is charged with doing which is representing its own voters its own citizens its own nation and they're not doing that so no I'm out and if I'm out then I think a lot of other people are out wow it was the can't be censored podcast. Yeah, pretty extraordinary. There is a growing wing within the GOP that I think feels the way Tucker does. But what do you see happening here on the red team as we go into these midterms and then beyond? Because, you know, right now there's there are thought pieces out on how, for example, over on the blue team, Josh Shapiro's out. The Democrats are not going to vote

for even a Jewish man, never mind a Jewish man who supports Israel. That's extreme. But But I do wonder what it's going to do to Republican politics going forward. Yeah, I share these same concerns with you. I find this incredibly concerning. Many of my closest friends are Jewish. And I love Israel. I had the honor of working there very early in my career. I would spend time in Tel Aviv, spend time in Jerusalem.

The people are unbelievable. Frankly, like most of the people have ever met in the Middle East have been unbelievable. like in every country there, UAE, Israel, particularly those two countries, I've spent more time than any place else. So this idea that, you know, we have an issue with Israel needs to be separated from, do we have an issue with the current leadership of Israel versus Israelis versus Jews? And I think that's a really important distinction that we have to make. I think that people are

hitting a level of exhaustion with BB and I think it's important to acknowledge that and then ask the question is it time for what more does BB need to accomplish at this point where he can sort of say okay in his view, not defending it but in his view

whatever he felt needed to be done maybe he can say he can declare victory and step to the side so that Israel can find a firmer footing on the global stage. Because I think what is happening, unfortunately, is that that leadership is creating a schism where it's forcing us to make very difficult decisions. I don't know if you've been watching, but America versus Europe is sort of falling along these lines as well about what's happening. I think it's very complicated and it's super concerning.

But I think if I could tell people that are watching, please think about whether you're actually anti-Israel or anti-Jew or whether you're just very frustrated with BB. And I think that's a very reasonable claim to have. But I would encourage you to not project that onto Jews, particularly Jews in America, Jews at large, or Israelis at large. These are by and large, incredible. human beings and people.

And you can be upset with a leader. And that's allowed. And I think that that's reasonable. And there's enough fodder there where, you know, you can not be super happy with BB. But I would just try to make that distinction. Because it needs to be made. But it's a little more than BB because I'd be thrilled to see BB go.

I think he's done so much harm. And I mean, you look at the tens of thousands of civilians dead in Gaza, among one thing. And then as he started it again in Beirut, he seems very determined to queer the deal that Trump struck to end this war. So that's all bad. But it's beyond him because the APEC thing is real too. And it's not just APEC. I've been a critic of care for many, many, many years. By the way, no one ever gave me a hard time over that. But you become a critic of APEC and you get flooded with trolls in your and your ex account. But these foreign lobby groups, I mean, these groups that are lobbying basically on behalf of a foreign country

and their interests. And APEC is, I mean, they are like NRA level in terms of, of their influence and control and how ubiquitous they are and how many politicians they've touched with their money that it's like now that's long that predates bb and it'll go on after bb and that that's something people hold against israel like stop you're bringing up the constant interference in our politics you're bringing up an a really important historical example when you make the comparison of apac to nRA in what way both of those organizations were incredibly sophisticated. They had huge ground games. They had an incredible fundraising apparatus. But what happened ultimately to the NRA? It became an organization, sorry about that, Megan,

focused on its own power, more than it was focused on advancing, you know, gun rights necessarily. How do we know that? Because of what ultimately then happened in the NRA, issues of fraud or issues of corruption and then the dismantling of the NRA that's happened now. So what I would say is APAC is probably no different than any large organization, which is you start with a virtuous mission, right? You think that you're fundraising on behalf of something virtuous. And I just think human nature has demonstrated that beyond a certain amount of influence and capital, these types of organizations tend to, fold itself inward and lose the script. I think if you want to criticize APEC, again, fair enough. I think there's probably enough material there to point to. And again, I would just say the same

thing to be repetitive, but that is so different than Jews and Israelis. So great, you can put you know, APEC and its operations under scrutiny. I think it's fair to do that. We can put, you know, Southern Poverty Law Center under scrutiny. We should do that. NRA. has already been under scrutiny. So there are examples here when these lobby organizations be on a certain amount of scale lose its way.

I think it's fair to critique APAC and see whether that's happened there. I don't know the story well enough to judge, but I would just say it could have happened and maybe that's where a lot of people's anger comes from. Entirely different than an entire class of people or religion.

That is just totally different. Yeah. Yeah. That is important distinction to keep in mind. All right, from APAC to AI, which is right up your alley. Yeah. Where do you stand on it?

Are you part of the doom, the domer crowd predicting, you know, I sort of made a joke before, like we're going to solve every disease that can kill man and then we're going to get bombed by the machines that solved it. So where do you stand on AI? Where do you see it going? Look, when I was an early executive, I helped build Facebook. I think that that's well known. A lot of what I did there were the early.

was the early table setting of AI. And then this next phase of my life, I was an investor and invested in a lot of AI-related efforts and space and other things. But two years ago, I started a business in AI, and I've spent most of my time. Now, maybe the question is, I didn't have to do that at 50 years old. I'm tired. I'm exhausted, quite honestly, but why do I do it? I'm being really honest with you, not hyperbolic when I say this.

it is the most important and powerful economic leveler I've ever seen. What does that mean? Going back to how we talked about, we want to even the starting line, not even the finishing line. What is the most incredible thing that you could do to even the starting line? Well, imagine you and I Megan had to run the 100 meter dash against Usain Bolt, but we were both given an exoskeleton that allowed us to run as fast as he did. That is an example of just trying to analogize what AI is in your pocket or in my pocket or any of your viewers and listeners' pockets. It's not about knowledge anymore. It is about literally taking all of the expertise and intellect of the smartest humans that have ever lived. And compacting that in a way where you

can have that beside you effectively as your partner, as your analyst, as your doctor, as your co-founder, as your co-parent. So it allows you to do things that, frankly, we weren't able to do before. The reason we're here and why so many people have a negative view on AI has nothing to do with the product itself. It has everything to do with the personalities and the insecurities that have spilled out into the open amongst the players in this play. And I think it's important to make sure we tell that story honestly, because it would be a shame if this technology got negatively painted because of infighting and rancor and the kind of stuff that we're dealing with now.

You have, for example, like you talked about it with Mark. You know, in the race where George Conway got crushed and Schlossberg was a nothing burger, the real two candidates in that race was a pro-AI person that was funded in a way from organizations that wanted to see progressive approaches to AI. Progressive, I define as like, let a thousand flowers bloom. And then a bunch of doomers. And the doomers said, lock it all down, let the government decide who gets it and how. Could you imagine if the government decided how you got access to health care information?

Is that insane as it sounds? Because that's exactly what they're saying. And yet, that organization, funded by impropic, raised $21 million and they spent in that election. and they still lost. Thank God. So we have to now take the narrative back. We have to paint the reality. There's going to be some initial dislocation, but there's some huge pockets of winds right now

that are happening economically. There are construction foremen, managers, engineers, plumbers, electricians. These folks are making hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Those economic benefits spill into the communities in which they're in. The taxes that are paid on these things are funding hospitals and schools at a level that hasn't happened before. The data centers you're talking about building and paying taxes on. Yeah, all of this stuff is happening, but none of it gets told.

Instead, what it's being told is, hey, watch out the sky is falling. And the problem with Chicken Little is you don't believe him after a while because it turns out that the sky doesn't actually ever fall. What is actually happening is he is projecting his insecurity. into the public light to essentially gatekeep this technology by saying it doesn't matter, you know, how much value I make at this point. What really matters to me is I'm on the inside looking out, deciding who gets to use this and how. And I think that is fundamentally un-American. And it's very concerning to me. So I think that we have to let this technology breathe,

let great people who have great intentions make things for people. And we have to have enough circumspection so that you understand the incentives of the doomers. The doomers want control. They want the handmaidsdale. They want to decide who gets to use things and how.

And I think gatekeeping this kind of power is incredibly irresponsible. They use the exact opposite word. They say it's responsible. It is not. It's deeply irresponsible. You don't worry about putting a generation out of work. That's what worries me.

I think the details. We're marching toward eliminating millions of white collar jobs. I don't think so. Without a whole lot of thought about it. I'll give you one. Here's Citadel CEO, Ken Griffin, in an interview in May. Listen to this, 45. Let me just share a few thoughts with you on this.

Number one is, in the last few months, there has been a step change function in the productivity of the AI toolkit. It is profoundly more powerful than it was just nine months ago. And for us at Citadel, that has allowed us to unleash a much broader array of use cases for AI. And it has been really interesting to watch To be blunt, work that we would usually do with people with masters and PhDs and finance

over the course of weeks or months being done by AI agents over the course of hours or days. So these are not mid-tier white-collar jobs. These are like extraordinarily high-skilled jobs being, I'm going to pick a word, being automated by agenic AI. And I got to tell you, I went home one Friday, actually fairly depressed by this. What do you make of it? I think that Ken Griffin is an incredibly brilliant investor and businessman. I think he's built an incredible business. And I think if you date stamp what he said and look 18 months from now, I will bet any amount of money.

Two things are true. One is that he actually has more people working at Citadel, not less. and two, his assets under management have gone up, not down, and on the margin, I suspect, three, he's made more profits. What does that actually show? I think it's very reasonable

for people to look at something that's incredibly powerful like this and not fully understand its totality. And I understand that. And I think it's extremely prudent for someone like Ken Griffin, who is very trustworthy, to actually paint a balanced approach.

But I suspect when you ask him how to refine his opinion. And as he refines his opinion, if you, you know, are able to ask him this exact same question, Megan, in a year and just ask precisely, did your business grow or shrink? Did the number of people go up or down? Did your AUM go up or down? And the people in your organization making more or less, I suspect the answer is more on all counts. And the reason I know this is in my business, that's what I see. I don't see myself displacing engineers or product managers, we're designers. When I, our business, 80-90, right, we go in and we work with the largest organizations in America,

the global 1,000, the most prestigious, big, complicated businesses, and the U.S. government. In all of these cases, when we go in and we work with them and we use AI to improve their business, they grow more. They end up hiring more. They end up paying these people more. And you're right. that people move up the stack in their capability in terms of the skills that they offer.

Like I suspect when the Megan Kelly show implements AI, using AI to maybe make short form clips for you, using AI to help market your show better, to sell ads, I suspect what happens is you will grow more, even more. I mean, you've had incredible success, but you'll be even more successful. It'll auto-translate you into umpteen languages. Now people all over the world will watch you, your team will get bigger. They're invariably going to ask that you pay them more. You're going to have to do that. It's going to be a win. And I think that there are going to be umpteen examples of that. This is why I'm saying we're in a moment in time where there's a vacuum. And this vacuum has been filled by misdirection and misinformation by a small cohort of people that need two things.

They want absolute control. And they want all of the money. because the way that they've approached this technology is extremely expensive. What do I mean by that? We have a company, Anthropic, that launched a model. It's exceptional. We use it. I mean, this is an incredibly talented team. Politics aside, all of these other tactics aside, they're technically superior.

I'm glad they're American. But let's just say, you know, it costs you $100 an hour to use their latest model. A Chinese competitor launched a model basically, few weeks later, and it's $10 an hour. I'm just using those numbers as a comparison. It's one-tenth the cost. So for whatever set of decisions that Anthropic is made, they need all the money. All of it. So when they talk to investors, they're trying to present this picture of this is going to be cataclysmic. You need to be on our side. And also, you know, we need to make sure that we stagegate this because a bevy of competitors creates their, makes their access

the capital harder. I think if everybody understood those incentives and at least thought about them for one second when you heard the Dumer narrative, you would probably balance what they're saying and say, maybe they're saying what's right, or maybe this is a very fancy soundbite to advance their agenda and take a second to understand their agenda and judge for yourself. Is it true that Anthropic went from $1 billion to $44 billion in revenue in sales? 17 months? So this is a very complicated question. And the reason why is they're very opaque in how they report revenue. And they have every right to. So let me be clear. They're not a public company. They're not subject to public reporting standards. They publish what they feel like they should

publish. And frankly, they publish the minimum that they can get away with to their investors. it is very hard to really know underneath the hood what that revenue means, meaning, is it actually recurring where you and I are on the long-term contract and we have to pay this? Is it one-time revenue? Is it coming from a handful of folks? Is it coming from a long-tail? What is true is that their revenue is going absolutely parabolic. Again, because the quality of their business is undeniable.

The quality of what they've built is undeniable. And so they've had enormous success. I can't speak to the actual numbers because there's a level of opacity that's, you know, for a person like me. Well, let me get out it a different way. Because it seems to me the level of investment in companies like Anthropic and beyond has, I don't know, triple quadruple. We're talking about hundreds of. It's 200 basis points of GDP now. It's $5, 6, 7, 800 billion dollars a year.

that's insane too much so if i were to ask you a separate apart from whether it's good or bad if i would ask you you take any industry in america and inject it with five 600 billions in investments what's going to happen to that industry i mean it's a great question okay so it's about to take over so let's let's postulate this so or let's hypothesize i think we people hate going back and looking at history but i think history is sometimes a very useful teacher here. You know, the level of investment that we're seeing is probably most reasonably approximated to two different parts of the business life of the United States. The first was there was an incredible investment cycle that we Americans went through when we were building transportation

infrastructure in the 1800s and the 1700s, everything from canals and then canals that transition to, you know, major railroads with the invention of steam engines. and whatnot. And that was on the scale, on an inflation-adjusted basis of what we're talking about. Another example is the major highway infrastructure system, also on the same order of magnitude of this. So to your point, one of the things that's so odd this time around is we've transitioned from public support and public investment, right? By the way, many of the canals that were built in the United States were underwritten by private investors. However, they had state backstops. same thing for some railroads.

But this time around, it's all privately financed. And so you're looking at a level of investment and you're wondering, well, how do we make this thing equitable and fair? Because the canals and the railroads were ultimately available to everyone. The highway system in the United States is available to everyone. This is why, again, I go back to if we're making this level of investment, and I thank the private actors in America that are stepping up and our partners abroad, who are stepping up.

How do we make sure that it's available to everybody? Like, this is the last thing we should gatekeep. Could you imagine if the highways could only be used by certain people at certain times that were judged by a private company? That is insane. And so we're making the investment. The jobs are being created. The profits are being spread out. All of that is good.

What is scary is that now we may marry that with gatekeeping. And that's to the benefit of the few that are making the system. And I can understand it logically in the sense that that's a capital incentive. Okay, reasonable. But we have to be smart enough to see through that, not fall for the dumerism, balance the perspective and say, you know what? It's great that you're doing it. You're going to build a great business. You're going to be rewarded, but we're going to keep this thing fundamentally open.

And I think we have to do that. And we have to make sure we draw the line and see the forest from the trees. Do not fall for the dumer narrative. It is laced with their own personal incentives. I'm worried about the computers eliminating a bunch of jobs, number one, so our kids don't have meaningful places to go. Because I hear you saying that the companies are going to add jobs, but that's not what a lot of other people are saying. And I can see it. I was a lawyer for almost 10 years.

First, second, third year lawyers, their work is getting eliminated. I mean, a computer can do that now. AI can do that now. But then how do you become a senior lawyer without having been a first second and a third year lawyer? Like you can't have, but that's just one field. Like graphic design, gone. No, no, make it a lot of the pieces of the medical industry. Can we pick, can we pick these?

These are not true. Can I debunk these? Let's give you, I'll give you a couple examples. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So I'll give you three examples. And I'll end with lawyers. But let me start with animators.

There's an incredible story that Jeffrey Katzenberg tells. Jeffrey Katzenberg is his famous, incredible entrepreneur, executive investor, ran Dreamworks. He was at Disney. He was the number two person at Disney, uh, working, for Michael Eisner, who was the CEO at the time, and he flew up to Silicon Valley from Los Angeles, and he went to meet Steve Jobs. This was after Steve was, you know,

sort of deposed from Apple and started this company called Next Computer, and he had bought a small company called Pixar. And Steve was working to make a movie, but didn't have enough capital. And so Jeffrey says, I'll finance you. Let's do it. First he said, I want to buy you. And Steve said, no. And so Jeffrey says, great, let me finance.

you and let's do a, you know, three or four picture deal. And Steve says, great, go, go back to LA, get the deal done. And Jeffrey goes back and says, guys, we're doing this deal with Pixar. The animators are up in arms because what they see is a computer that's trying to replace their job. Sound familiar, right? It's like, I animate by hand, and now this computer is going to make these graphics. It's going to be much better than my graphics. I'm going to lose a job. They were up in arms. Jeffrey and Michael sit in the room. Jeffrey says, I thought through this, it is going to be okay. We're going to look back and we will have more animators.

He walked through his logic. Michael says, okay, the deal gets done. The first movie they release is Toy Story. Okay, fast forward a decade. The number of animators inside of Disney has gone up by 10x. It didn't shrink. It didn't go away. In fact, what it did was it opened the aperture for what was possible.

Second example, we had all of this dumerism around in the medical field. around doctors and radiologists specifically. And it's this idea that using AI, you can get to absolute precision. Why do I need a doctor visually inspecting with their eyes, whether I have a tumor or not? Oh my God, give it to a computer. The computer will absolutely know with surety.

Lo and behold, what turns out to be true? We implement these systems, and the computer needs the human judgment to sit on top of it. the human is the operator. And now what has happened in radiology? The number of jobs, have they far exceeded the number of jobs before AI. So AI, now in two markets, have grown the pie of jobs. I'll give you a third example now, which is we'll end with lawyers.

Unless humans stop populating the earth and passing laws and politicians seeking power, unless that happens, the body of law is only growing. There's this positive entropy where it just keeps growing. I'm not saying it's right. In fact, I think it's wrong, but it just happens. Even when you feed it into an AI, you need more human supervision and human judgment. So you're right. The tedium of the lawyer goes away.

And there's a lot of tedium and a lot of jobs. But that's what AI does really well. It deals with the tedium. And now, imagine if you're a second and third-year associate, instead of having to, like, sit there and, like, grind out T's and C's deep into page 98 of a contract, that TDM is done for you. And instead, your partner is saying, all right, Megan, frame up this deal. Tell me the broad strokes.

That's how to shape this thing. And then you're like, well, look, these two laws conflict with each other. What's our interpretation? What's our human judgment? That's what's happening. And if you look inside of the best law firms, and, you know, I'm fortunate to get to work with many of them, the number of people that they're hiring is going up. And in fact, the amount that they're charging me is going up.

And I'm just like, what choice do I have? And so in all of these examples, what I see on the ground, all the places where people say the jobs are going away, it's just not true. I think that we have to also take a step back and say, why do we think this is true? And I think this speaks to a very different thing. Silicon Valley for many years

had these kind of like quirky nerds. You know, we kind of toiled in obscurity. Every now and then we would poke our head out. You would point at us and say, look at this exotic animal at the zoo. And then we would go back to, you know, you know, my office in Mendel Park and Palo Alto and Redwood City and Mountain View.

You know, these are these little quaint towns and we would just grind away in obscurity. That's what it used to be. I think in this last cycle, we have done two things that have really hurt us. One is we've become deeply unsurious in how we manifest our character outside of Silicon Valley. We have built, by and large, except for a few people, a lot of unserious things. Some people specifically have done things that have completely collapsed trust and respect. We've lost our last generation of leaders who were incredible, like people like Steve,

jobs. Everybody would have followed him everywhere. And the vacuum is being filled, but it's few and far between. We have that next generation, but a few of them. Jensen Huang, who runs Nvidia, unbelievable. Elon Musk, obviously, who runs SpaceX, unbelievable. But there's a vacuum. You know, Mark Benioff, who runs Salesforce, unbelievable. So we have a few, but not nearly as many as we had before. And the rest of them are a little bit kind of goofballs. And, you know, the decisions they make are just dumb and, you know, how they show them. Behind the scenes, kinds of people. Yeah, and like the things that they've allowed to happen inside of their company is the

stealing of the information, it's all bad. So I think a lot of why people also mistrust AI is they say, well, hold on, if the next generation of leaders of this technology look like this last generation, I don't like that. I don't want to see those kinds. I don't want to see this next generation of those folks. I want to go back to the 2000 to 2010 era. I want Mark Benioff, Steve Jobs, Jensen Wang, Elon Musk, I want those people, fundamentally earnest, good, honorable people, predictable, consistent.

And that's what we need. We need to reset. And I think if we do that, you are much more likely to believe the positive sum view of AI. Instead, again... All right, wait, let me ask you one other question about it before we go, before I move on from this topic. What about what about the risk of, like, literally, AI. launching

like the nuclear codes launching missiles, doing something to actually attack humans. Great question. Okay. Let's break that one down.

Everything runs on software. So the missile codes, when you say, you know, let's figure out like some doomsday scenario where somebody gets access to the codes.

There's not some keypad somewhere that you can get access to where you can just go and type in a bunch of codes that are guessed by anthropic. There's a lot of software. Now, what's incredible today is OpenAI and Anthropic have created a level of proficiency

where we are able to take those models, point it at all of that mission critical code, and say inspect it line by line, letter by letter, and tell us where all the holes are. And what would you expect that they are finding? That, again, there's an enormous amount of TDM that goes into writing code, okay? And as a result, humans have littered these codebases with thousands and thousands and thousands of preventable errors. And it exists in every single code base, in every single company for every single use case you can imagine. All of that is slowly getting undone. So at some point in the near future, because we're pointing these technologies at the most critical infrastructure first,

what we will know is that these things are incredibly hardened. Now, that's the point about protecting ourselves. That's defense. What about offense? I do think that there needs to be levels of KYC, which what is that? That means know your customer to use some of these most advanced technologies. Like the best example is, and this is a horrible example, but it paints the case. You know, when Timothy McVeigh did that act of domestic terrorism and blew up that federal office building in Oakland,

Oklahoma, what did we find out from that? We found out that we needed to have much stricter guardrails. You can go and buy fertilizer, but the minute that you're trying to buy two tons of fertilizer, all these red lights go off, and you have to submit your driver's license, and we write that information down, and we keep that in storage. That's the kind of KYC that's incredibly important. Why? Because it allows us to backtrack and say, you're allowed to have fertilizer,

but beyond a certain point, that can go from being a tool to being a weapon. Similarly, with AI, it's not unreasonable to say that there is a class of model that you should be able to use at your home. Why? Because you know, you want to help manage your health. You want to help your kids. You want an AI tutor. Go at it.

You don't need any identification. But there's going to be a certain class of model to your point, Megan, that could create a biological weapon, that has enough intelligence to maybe manufacture a bond. You should be forced to put your driver's license, your passport, we should know who you are. And that's a reasonable expectation to use that class of model. We do this in many other parts of our society today. And I think that's how we should deal with this. It's just have a reasonable know-your-client K-Y-C infrastructure.

It's a different example. You know, if you wanted to send me 50 million bucks, you could probably do it because you and I are known actors. You wanted to send it to a random account in Colombia. All kinds of alarm bells go off, and you're going to get a call from Treasury because these infrastructure says you have to self-you have to identify. We need all this tracking information. Otherwise, you're not allowed to do those things. That happens in so many parts of our society today.

So I think we should apply that here. You're saying that that transaction would be shut down or labeled for extra scrutiny by the AI companies before they would just start forming out this information that. a bad actor. No, in fact, I think it's more that there needs to be almost like a third party that sits in between all of this and says beyond a certain class of transaction, a certain class of prompt, you have to self-identify in a way that, that, you know, authorities as well as those companies can go back to, if anything bad were to happen. Or prevent it. Something beyond the honor system, because we're not talking in this hypothetical about honorable people. And this is where, like,

the honor system won't work for a very bad actor who has an incentive to try to do harm to the United States. I get that. But let's do that, not gatekeep stuff from everybody else, because 99.999% of these use cases are reasonable and good and useful to you and me and everybody else. And so we should just deal with- I mean, I'm all for curing pancreatic cancer and skin cancer. We've been getting so many amazing updates on the health field as of late, thanks in large part to AI. So it's, That I get very excited about and very happy. Just hope we can live to enjoy our wellness. That's all. All right, stand by. We're going to take a break. You made a very compelling argument. We're going to be back with Chamoth on the opposite side of this. Don't go away. Starting something new, especially a business, is so hard. So much work goes into something that you're not entirely sure is even going to work out. And it can be hard to make that leap of faith. But it does help when you have a partner like Shopify on your side. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. from household names like Mattel and Allbirds to businesses just starting out. With hundreds of

templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store that matches your brand's style. It's packed with great AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product images. Plus, Shopify provides world-class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns, all with 24-7 award-winning support. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com slash Megan. Go to Shopify.com slash Megan. That's Shopify.com slash M-E-G-Y-N. Hey, everyone. It's me, Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on Sirius X-M. It's called the Megan Kelly channel, and it is where you will hear the truth, unfiltered,

with no agenda and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halprin, Link Lauren, Morin Callahan, Emily Dershinsky, Jesse Kelly, Real Clear Politics, and many more. It's bold, no BS news. Only on the Megan Kelly channel, SiriusXM 11, and on the Sirius XM app.

We're back now with Chamath, Pollyhappatia. Chimoth, there's bad behavior in New York, and you're going to be shocked, shocked to learn who did it. A woman caught on video, reporting here from the New York Post, emptying a public trash can on the street and then stealing it during the celebration of the Knicks championship parade has since been identified. Before I say who she is, we're going to look at the video where she's caught on camera here in SOT 16. All right. So it's a very large, though short, woman in a Nick shirt dumping trash all over the New York City streets because nothing says thank you to the New York Knicks like trashing their city.

and then steals the specially painted blue and orange trash can for herself. And who does it turn out to be? Well, she was up until this broke, a director at J.P. Morgan Chase. She was fired on Tuesday after this video went viral. Her name is Angie Baez, 40. And she was promoted to executive director of community and industry engagement. which is DEI. She previously served as executive director of DEI

at New York-based review website, The Infatuation, which Chase acquired. She's a DEI honcho. I'll give you just a little bit of her bio. This is how she was described at the infatuation acquired by J.P. Morgan. As a vibrant mosaic of Dominican heritage, Bronx roots,

and a passion for storytelling, creativity, and culture, Angie continues to lead the way toward a more inclusive and equitable future for food media, leaving an indelible mark on the infatuation and everything she touches Chimov, including that garbage candy. She also co-founded a queer, black, indigenous,

and people of color-owned talent agency focused on increasing representation and equity in media and industry which works with artists and talent on creative projects, photoshoot, strategy, and business affairs. Now she's unemployed because she is a classless thief.

This is a made-up profession. Is anybody surprised she was idle, had nothing better to do than walk around the streets of New York, stealing? Well, look, I don't know about how much the job impacted this decision, but she's a really terrible crook. You know, you can't document your crime. You know what I mean? Like, that's like a really stupid idea. Like, okay, commit the crime.

I could understand why. Look, if I was in my 20s and I was in, I'm not a New York Knicks fan, I hate the Knicks. I apologize. But if I was a New York Knicks fan and they're so, you know, hard scrabble, they had no chance of winning ever. And then they win, obviously I would have been shocked too. Maybe I would have tried to steal a garbage can in my 20s, in my 20s. But I would have done it under the cover of darkness. I mean, this is in broad daylight.

Somebody's filming it. Then they're taking pictures of her on the subway with it. she's clearly excited. That's the mistake here. It's insane. Too stupid to work at J.P. Morgan Chase. And good for them for Canada. Very bad criminal.

Very bad criminal. So dumb. God, I hate dumb people. My next soundbite is from someone who is not dumb, but said something, I don't know if it's dumb. It's just so annoying. Like speaking of DEI and wokeness. Larry David, whose show I enjoy, I think curb your enthusiasm is so clever and very

funny. but I just wish he would stop with the political over-the-top stuff. Here he is commenting on the 250th and the UFC celebration that Trump had at the White House. Take a listen. This is your way of celebrating America. The White House did it much differently with the UFC fight. What did you think about that? It was a travesty.

Yeah. What else can you say about it? It was embarrassing. I was embarrassed to be an American. Okay. There's no question Larry lives in either Beverly Hills or Bel Air and is living it up big and looked at these guys, Chimoth, and had absolutely nothing that he could relate to on this more of a working class American sport, turned his nose up at it and walked away saying I'm embarrassed to be associated with them. You know what I find a problem with this is not the

opinion because you're allowed in America to have opposite opinions. I just think that people memory hole the arc of all of these things. If you remember in the Biden White House, you know, they put rainbow flags on the beams

of the South Lawn of the White House of different colors and there was like this kind of like parade or carnival type atmosphere during pride. I saw Trannies fake breasts. Yeah. So I think that that probably made a certain class of Americans

feel equally uncomfortable, whether it's for religious or other reasons. So every president in recent memory has essentially tried to find a part of the American culture that they want to amplify. And it necessarily does upset other parts of the American culture. I think, though, that when you're somebody that's public, you have to have the wherewithal to see that and actually say, well, we did one thing one way. and the president who's sitting now did one thing the other way.

And actually in both of these things, there's a little bit more balance and we should all just move on. What I find problematic is I think that we look at these kind of like media folks, actors, and they're not what they used to be.

And I think that we almost like ask them like they have some sort of cultural anchoring in shaping how we should think about things. And they used to, to have that power making. They don't have that power anymore. I think more people care what Jake Paul thinks than what Larry David thinks. You can debate whether that's right or wrong, but that's just the nature of where we are. And so part of it as well is you have a person that's just a little bit out of the center stage now. And so, you know, they kind of step into this thing

without thinking about it logically. The logical thought should be there are things that happened in Biden that a lot of people didn't like. And there are going to be things that President Trump does that other people don't like. And in the end of it, as long as it's fair to some cohort of people that gets seen, that's what's reasonable. And when you're the president of the United States, you have that power. Yeah, I think Larry David, I don't, I don't see a ton of Republicans, like after we had trannies on the White House lawn showing their fake boobs saying that they felt un-American. There's nothing Joe Biden could do to make me feel un-American. I feel disgusted with his choices. No, you're right. I mean, let me be very specific.

there was somebody in nipple tassels on the White House lawn. And you have to compare that and say, what's worse, UFC or somebody exposing their bare breasts in public? And I think for me, personally, the latter is much more offensive. And so without having the wherewithal to actually remember these things and just, you know, just let the TDS guide your decision, I think is very simple and reductive. And I think misses the mark. Yeah. I don't like UFC because I don't like violence. I don't like boxing.

I don't like any violent. I can't handle it. I can't handle it. But it's not a class thing. Like it clearly is for hilarious. No, I like box. I'm the same as you. I like boxing.

I get very nervous at UFC. But when I see blood, I get very squeamish. Even when I get my blood drawn, I get squeamish. So I'm like not built for UFC. It's been amazing on your children's birth. I can't even talk about it. I can't talk about it. I can't talk about it.

Five times. Five times I just, I couldn't deal with it. It's better, you know, like, there's something to be said for the, with the cigars in the waiting room role that men traditionally played for some guys. I get it. Let's end it on a happy note. And that brings me to Josh. Josh is from England and he has the following message to Americas, to Americans in the wake of all the World Cup celebrations that have brought so many from the UK over here. Take a listen to SOT 17.

America, you deserve and are owed an apology. And I'm going to say sorry on behalf of all the countries outside America and their media and the narrative they paint about America. Hundreds and thousands of fans for the World Cup are now seeing America through their own eyes, realizing the narrative they've been fed is false. And they're now realizing America is not the place that they thought it was. And I am sorry the media in these countries outside of America paints you the way they do. America is rich in culture, scenery, the people are amazing. And the media in the countries outside of America, paint this weird narrative that is a place that you shouldn't go.

But now the tides are changing. There is a shift that is happening. I'm sorry you've been painted in this light for so long. And I'm so happy America is finally receiving the flowers that it deserves. Love. You know what Schmouth, hearing him and others like him? Yes, it's reminded me. I think that the World Cup has done more to renew American patriotism than the 250th and the celebrations that have happened so far around it.

I think people are loving the reaction from all these, you know, foreigners, our friends from across the pond coming and watching them discover America for the first time. It's some of the best videos making. I don't know if you've seen it, but it's like you see like people from Korea or Japan who've come to the U.S. for the first time, you know, very little English using a translation app. but, you know, sampling American food, or I saw this one great clip of these Norwegian fans going to Bass Pro Shops for the first time and just totally being out of control. Germans tasting ranch sauce at like Hobies. I mean...

They all love ranch dressing. It's amazing. Look, let's be clear. This is the single best country in the world. And he is right. Josh is right. We have had people push a narrative that is mischaracterial. America abroad, but we've also had, you know, a media inside the United States that has

pushed an error that has tried to mischaracterize it from within. And whenever you can have a moment where people can let their guard down and see what it's truly like, what you realize is this is the most special and incredible place on earth. And it has a set of rules that were made by men 250 years ago that were divinely inspired and I think we should be so thankful for that and you know I owe everything to this country and I'm just so proud to be an American

and so it makes me very happy to see that and you know I hope more people come away with that and I also hope that people in America start to think for themselves please think for yourself it's not nearly as bad as everybody says it is it's pretty freaking awesome

Yeah. That's right. It's, it is pretty freaking awesome. And I'm looking forward to celebrating it. Big. We're going big. Even bigger than normal this year on July 4th. Further updates to follow. Chama, thank you. Congrats. You are, by the way, you're absolutely steamrolling everybody. So congrats on your success. It is unbelievable. I see from Neil Mohan and YouTube and all these other guys how you are destroying people. It is your business, your reach is crushing and you deserve every single bit of it. Really proud to call your friend. Thank you. Thank you. Likewise. Say hi to Sacks and all my, and don't forget my buddy Jason. My friend, Jason, spent too long. I miss him. We'll see you soon. Tomorrow we're going to be joined by the guys of Real Clear Politics. There's a lot to discuss with them. I can't wait to hear their reaction to some of that political news we went over and much, much more. Thanks to all of you for joining us today and every day. We do appreciate it. And you can give me your thoughts on today's show on AI. I'd love to hear from you.

Megan at Megan Kelly.com. See you tomorrow. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.