The Philip DeFranco Show - JIMMY KIMMEL IS BACK, Disney Backed Down & Trump’s Charlie Kirk’s Memorial Speech Exposed Whats Next

Episode Date: September 22, 2025

Jimmy Kimmel returns Tuesday after Disney was shouted down over free speech concerns & Trump and Stephen Miller’s Charlie Kirk Memorial speeches showed us what comes next Kickstart your passion project with a free trial today: https://www.Squarespace.com/Phil  & enter offer code “Phil” to get 10% off your first purchase!   LISTEN TO THE SHOW iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-philip-defranco-show/id1278424954 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ESemquRbz6f8XLVywdZ2V WATCH/LISTEN TO MY NEW PODCAST w/ Wes Moore Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2CePXwDrvdQTes844wflKp?si=55a6b6049c4841ed Youtube: https://youtube.com/acw?sub_confirmation=1 iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/in-good-faith-with-philip-defranco/id1827016835 JOIN OUR COMMUNITY 📸Instagram: https://instagram.com/PhillyDeFranco  🐦Twitter: https://twitter.com/phillyd  🎵TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@philipdefranco  TODAY’S STORIES 00:00 - Trump, Other Republican Leaders Speak at Charlie Kirk Memorial 10:06 - Disney Backs Down! Jimmy Kimmel Returns to ABC 13:32 - Sponsored by Squarespace 14:34 - Trump Says Murdochs Could Be Among Group of TikTok Investors 16:16 - Pentagon Ramps Up Press Restrictions 20:03 - Trump Imposes $100,000 Fee for H1B Visa Applicants  24:12 - Snag Yourself Some Awesome Beautiful Bastard Gear 24:33 - Trickle Down Economics Is a Lie Feat. Ed Elson THE TEAM Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxwell Enright, Julie Goldberg, Christian Meeks, Matthew Henry Art Department: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Chris Tolve, Star Pralle, Jared Paolino   ———————————— #DeFranco #JimmyKimmel #CharlieKirk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show. You daily dive into the news, and with this being the first show of the week, we have a lot to talk about today, starting with this. This massive Charlie Kirk memorial service that happened just yesterday honoring Kirk almost two weeks after he was killed, it highlighted and exposed a lot, especially with where we are in this moment and where things will or at least can go from here. So just to start things off, I'll let you know that you had tens of thousands of people gathering in and around State Farm Stadium in Arizona, including at least 20 members of the Trump administration, many of whom were given speaking. spots as well as several current and former Republican lawmakers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senator Ted Cruz, and former Congressman Matt Gates. Right. And then you also had conservative commentators and right-wing influencers like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, Laura Loomer, Kyle Rittenhouse, Elon Musk. And actually with Elon Musk, I mean, that's one of the first big takeaways. Musk sat next to Trump for part of the service. The two of them were seen shaking hands and

chatting. You know, a very different scene from just months ago where they had a very public falling out, Musk insinuating that Trump was implicated in the Epstein files. And then actually, after their chat, you had Musk posting a photo of them at the service with the caption for Charles. But then, going back to the memorial, it began with Kirk's friends speaking about him and his work, as well as key members of his Turning Point USA discussing what's next for the organization. We're going to make TPSC so, TPSA so big that it reaches you in heaven. And to that point, according to Turning point, the organization has received more than 62,000 requests since Kirk's death from students across the country to either start a chapter or get involved with an existing chapter and

donations they've also reportedly been pouring in but then as far as what else we saw you had a number of religious figures speaking as well as christian musicians performing right and that is also something that had a lot of people on the left and the right noting that this was seemingly a combination or a coming together of religion and politics one of the ways that people kind of saw that being connected was when you had jd vance saying this he is a hero to the united states of america and he is a martyr for the christian faith though there you had many noting that the authorities presented evidence that Kirk's religion played any role in his death. With that, you had people saying that this event as a whole,

it showed the extent to which conservative Christianity and even Christian nationalism is making its way into the mainstream of the Republican Party. And then with that in mind, you had people pointing to things like War Secretary Pete Heggseth talking about this like it's a war. Over time, he realized like so many of us have that this is not a political war. It's not even a cultural war. It's a spiritual war. And then others like R of K seem to compare Kirk to Jesus.

Christ died at 33 years old, but he changed the trajectory of history. Charlie died at 31 years old because he had surrendered, he also now has changed the trajectory of history. Definitely the person who kind of got a lot of attention on this front was White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who repeatedly referred to the enemies that they were facing and also framing the situation as a fight between good and evil. The light will defeat the dark. We will prevail over the forces of wickedness and evil. They cannot imagine what they have awakened. They cannot conceive of the army that they have arisen in all of us.

And to those trying to incite violence against us, those trying to foment hatred against us, what do you have? You have nothing. You are nothing. You are wickedness, you are jealousy, you are envy, you are hatred. Then outside of the Trump administration, you had Tucker Carlson invoking religion in a way that many criticize as being anti-Semitic. It actually reminds me of my favorite story ever. So it's about 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem, and Jesus shows up and he starts talking about

the people in power and he starts doing the worst thing that you can do, which is telling the truth about people. And they hate it. And they just go bonkers. They hate it. And they become obsessed with making him stop. This guy's got to stop talking. We've got to shut this guy up. And I can just sort of picture the scene in a lamplit room with a bunch of guys sitting around eating hummus thinking about what do we do about this guy telling the truth about us. We must make him stop talking. And there's always one guy with the bright idea and I could just hear him say, I've got an idea. Why don't we just kill him? That'll shut him up. That'll fix the problem. It doesn't work that way. With that, you had a lot of people reacting to that, saying that Carlson kind of just espouse what's considered a common anti-Semitic trope

that the Jews are responsible for killing Jesus. But then, after all of that, it eventually came time for Charlie's wife, Erica, to speak. And you had her celebrating what she called the inspiration that Kirk's murder had given to his supporters to embrace Christianity. After Charlie's assassination, we didn't see violence. We didn't see violence.

rioting. We didn't see revolution. Instead, we saw what my husband always prayed he would see in this country. We saw revival. This past week, we saw people open a Bible for the first time in a decade. We saw people pray for the first time since they were children. We saw people go to a church service for the first time in their entire lives. But then all of that, it led to what's been seen as one of the most powerful moments from the whole thing. And that was Erica saying this, the man who killed her husband. My husband, Charlie, he wanted to save young men, just like the one who took his life. That young man, I forgive him.

The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the gospel is love and always love. Love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us. And then, after Erica, you had Trump, who, uh, he, He joked or said that he didn't agree with Erica. Shortly before Charlie arrived on campus, the day he was assassinated, his staff member, texted him that there were many critics and students who were opposed to his views and rather strenuously in the crowd.

And that actually made him feel good because he wanted to convince them. He understood. He really did. He understood what was right. And he was right about that. A lot of it was based on common sense, by the way. Charlie wrote back to the staff member saying, I'm not here to fight them. I want to know them and love them, and I want to reach them and try and lead them into a great way of life in our country.

In that private moment on his dying day, we find everything we need to know about who Charlie Kirk truly was. He was a missionary with a noble spirit and a great, great purpose. He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent. And I don't want the best for them. I'm sorry.

I am sorry, Erica. But now Erica can talk to me and the whole group, and maybe they can convince me that that's not right, but I can't stand my opponent. And then with that, you had Trump repeating his claim that political violence comes largely from the left and that left-wing protesters are often paid agitators and saying again, his administration would be looking into it.

The Department of Justice is also investigating networks of radical left maniacs who fund organized fuel and perpetrate political violence. And we think we know who many of them are. And with all that, Trump's speech at times, it sounded more like a campaign speech than a eulogy to many. He spent several minutes talking about his administration's efforts to reduce autism rates and his decision to deploy the National Guard and federal aidants to Washington. And he actually claimed that Kirk had urged him to dispatch federal. troops to Chicago. One of the last things he said to me is, please, sir, save Chicago.

We're going to do that. We're going to save Chicago from horrible crime. Though with all that, Trump's comments about hating his opponent have definitely drawn kind of the most attention. Not only because it would go against what Erica Kirk herself said and which he claimed her husband believed, but also because they're not just words. They appear to be backed up by what Trump is done and continues to do. With another one of the big things this weekend being directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to do more to prosecute his political enemies, including FBI director James Comey, Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. And it's not like, according to anonymous sources, right? You had him writing on social media.

Pam, I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that essentially same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam Schifty Schiff, Latisha? We're all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done. We can't delay any longer. It's killing a reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice and indicted me five times over nothing. Justice must be served now. And connected to that, you also had him complaining about the now former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Eric Siebert, calling him a woke rhino who is never going to do his job, and adding, he even lied to the media and said he quit and that we had no case. No, I fired him and there is a great case and many lawyers and legal

punditsy say so. Now with that, Siebert technically resigned on Friday, though clearly with little choice in the matter. And that is reportedly because his district is actually the one investigating Letitia James and James Comey, but he wouldn't bring charges against them without sufficient evidence. And in fact, similarly, administration officials have reportedly ramped up pressure against the U.S. attorney in Maryland, Kellio Hayes. She's a career prosecutor who has spent more than a decade in that office, and she's been leading inquiries into Schiff, as well as Trump's former national security advisor turned critic, John Bolton. Hayes has also reportedly indicated that she won't bring charges unless her team discovered evidence to support

them, which I should note, of course, is what prosecutors are supposed to do. Of course, you know, we're going to have to wait to see what happens. You know, Hayes still has her job for now. And then also, to take Siebert's place, you have Trump recommending an attorney who is on his personal legal team and has never been a prosecutor. Right. And so just ultimately, I mean, it looks like you of Trump taking his personalization and politicization of the Justice Department to a whole other level. And then, of course, as we're seeing Trump and other officials directly tie Kirk to the stuff that they're doing, we're going to have to wait to see how that continues to develop, but it seems like they are emboldened and empowered. And of course, in the meantime, yes, this is a news

show, but I also wanted to be a conversation. So I'd love to know your thoughts, opinions, reactions, and even questions that are popping up in your mind as you're seeing all this. But the next step in the news, let's talk about the continued Jimmy Kimmel fallout and the reactions, especially because, one, as I was putting up today's show, we got the breaking news that ABC's putting Kimmel back on the air starting Tuesday. And two, before all that, I mean, we saw name after name chiming in on this whole situation and what it means for free speech. Because after Disney and ABC pulled him off the air last week, there was a ton of discourse about government censorship because ahead of the suspension, you had FCC chairman Brendan Carr, suggesting that he might take regulatory action against

ABC over comments that Kimmel had made about Charlie Kirk's death. Right, and a lot of the criticism it was coming from people on the left, upset that the Trump administration was seemingly wielding power in this way and that ABC so quickly caved to it. And of course, that, as you had many MAGA voices, cheering the decision on, classifying it as simply a corporate move on ABC's part. But also now, in more recent days, some on that side of the aisle have vocalized concern here, including Senator Ted Cruz. With Cruz saying that, well, he's personally glad to see Kimmel unemployed and even thinks that he deserved it, he's not happy about the FCC's role in this mess. Look, I like Brandon Carr. He's a good guy, as the chairman of the FCC. I work closely with it.

But what he said there is dangerous as hell. He says, we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way. Yeah. And I got to say that's right out of Goodfellows. That's right out of a mafioso coming into a bar going, nice bar you have here. It'd be a shame of something happened to it. I think it is unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying,

we're going to decide what speech we like and what we don't, and we're going to threaten to take you off air if we don't like what you're saying. And it might feel good right now to threaten Jimmy Kimmel. Yeah. But when it is used to silence every conservative in America, we will regret it. And Cruz, you know, he wasn't alone. You know, like the Ben Shapiro joining in saying if the FCC can do this to a liberal voice and to the Trump administration, this is a two-way street where Democrats could use this

against conservatives once in power. I do not like that the FCC muddied the waters here. I think it is bad politics and I think it is bad policy. The FCC should not be threatening action against ABC or its affiliates or Disney. based on Jimmy Kimmel being a jack. Because one day the shoe will be on the other foot. But ultimately there, you know, we're going to have to wait to see if voices on that side grow louder or if it even sways the conversation at all.

Because if you look out there, there are a lot of people that are saying, you know, this is about revenge, saying that Republicans have been previously wronged and so the government should actually get involved. But with all this happening, you know, you're sort of seeing the usual suspects still taking a stand against ABC and Trump amid all this fallout. Or just this morning, you had hundreds of Hollywood figures teaming up with the ACLU to sign a letter, defending free speech, writing that in an attempt to silence its critics, our government has resorted to threatening the livelihoods of journalists, talk show hosts, artists, creatives, and entertainers across the board,

saying this runs counter to the values our nation was built upon and our Constitution guarantees, saying we know this moment is bigger than us in our industry. And the people you had attached to that included Tom Hanks, Selena Gomez, Merrill Streep, Lin-Memuel Miranda, and hundreds more. Also on the political and slightly entertainment side of things, you had local outs in New York reporting that Democratic mayoral candidate Zora Mamdani pulled a Planned Town Hall with WABC. And you had Mamdane saying, ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel off the air after the FCC sought to pressure them. The message that it sends to each and every American across this country is a message the First Amendment is no longer a right that can be counted on, but rather it is government

which will determine what should and should not be discussed and what can and cannot be spoken. We cannot normalize these kinds of acts nor offenses. These must be the basis upon which we act. And then I've got more news for you in just a second, but first let me say, I am speaking to you here. you with that passion project, the side hustle, that list of business ideas that's just rotten away in your notes at. I want you to make today the day that you commit to making that thing real. Because I totally get it. I procrastinated on building my book club website forever. And thanks to today's sponsor's Squarespace to DeFranco Book Club, it went from someday to launch an under an hour. And I mean, it just could not be easier to make a site for people

to go through or to start selling content, courses, physical, or digital products, whatever you've got in mind. You want to charge a one-time fee, offer a subscription, both done and done. And they've got beautiful templates that make it look like you hired a designer and their fluid engine editor, it lets you drop, drag, customize, no coding, no stress, no excuses. My team even uses Squarespace for our daily dip newsletter where tens of thousands of y'all get your PDS fix in your inbox every weekday. All made easy. News polls, giveaways, PDF, show notes, all run through Squarespace. And like clockwork, a daily dip issue went out today and your project vision, it could be next. Say, hey, take that first step today with a free

trial at Squarespace.com slash Phil or scan that QR code because today is launch day. When it's ready to go live, just use code Phil to get 10% off and let them know we sent you. But then next up in the news from that, we should talk about TikTok. Because Trump, he was talking about the deal to get U.S. ownership of the app, and apparently the Fox Corporation's involved. I hate to tell you this, but a man named Lachlan is involved. You know who Lachlan is? That's a very unusual name, Lachlan Murdoch.

Mr. Murdoch. I believe, and you call him, and Rupert is probably going to be in the group. I think they're going to be in the group. A couple of others, really great people, very prominent people. And they're also American Patriots. They love this country, so I think they're going to do a really good job. President Trump talking about the bosses of the Fox Media Empire, and if the Murdox were to invest in the app, reports say that they would do that via the Fox Corporation, not as individual.

Though also some big things, Trump didn't say how much the deal was worth or the extent of their role. Or because Trump, he also noted that one of his supporters, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, as well as Michael Dell, the CEO of Dell Technologies, are among the list of potential investors. Well, there is still just a lot that we do not know. Right now, it looks like for American users the TikTok algorithm would run through Oracle. The TikTok would reportedly lease its algorithm to the group of American owners and then Oracle would rebuild it. When all is said and done, it all goes to plan.

This U.S. group would own 80% of TikTok's U.S. business and BightDance's ownership will get a little less than 20%. Also, a big thing is that previous report suggested that U.S. users would need to download a new app for this whole plan, but it seems like that might not be the case and we can just stay right on TikTok as we know it. Now, in addition to that, you also have a number of people concerned that with these specific investors, they'd have the ability to influence content on the app. Right. In that, it's got a lot of people concerned and or pissed off, right? People noting that Elon Musk is behind what we see on X, Mark Zuckerberg's behind Facebook and Instagram. And now, TikTok could have the influence of the Fox News family and Larry Ellison. But for now, that's just where we are and we're going to have to wait to see how things develop.

But the next up in the news today, we need to talk about how this latest move from the Pentagon. It's being described as a direct assault on independent journalism, the most egregious violation of the First Amendment and a cause for alarm for every single American by experts and advocates. Right, because over the weekend, the Pentagon sent out a 17-page memo requiring credentialed journalists to sign a pledge, promising to not report anything that hasn't been expressly approved for release. And that includes unclassified information with the memo then threatening to remove the press pass for any journalists who don't follow the new policy. Also, the new policy restricts where journalists can go inside the Pentagon. Specifically, it designates

large chunks of the building as off limits to press without an escort. And that's actually pretty notable because while many offices and meeting rooms are restricted, the press corps was previously allowed access to most of the building unattended. That apparently did not sit well with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who took to Twitter after the new policy was circulated, saying, the press does not run the Pentagon, the people do. The press is no longer allowed to roam the halls of a secure facility. We're a badge and follow the rules or go home. Now that said, this new policy, right, it's not coming out of nowhere. Hegset's actually spent months tightening restrictions on the Pentagon press and limiting military personnel's communications with them directly. Also, the briefing room's

reportedly gone dark, which is a pretty stark difference from the twice-weekly televised Q&A sessions that happened there just last year. And Hegseth's chief spokesperson and his press secretary, they reportedly rarely hold media briefings. But also a big thing is despite all that, or maybe because of it, we've also seen several big leaks from the Pentagon this year. Leaks that led to a staff even briefly trying to use polygraph tests to find the leaks before being ordered to stop by the White House. But the reason that we're talking about all of this, the small and the big is because these new rules, they're taking things to the next level and they've even prompted alarm and outrage from experts, advocates, and even officials within the Pentagon itself. Right. And with that,

you had National Press Club President Mike Balsamo saying, if the news about our military must first be approved by the government, then the public is no longer getting independent reporting. It's getting only what officials want them to see. That should alarm every American. Right. And that was echoed by many repeatedly with a, for example, a statement from the Society of Professional Journalists saying the policy reeks of prior restraint and calling it, quote, the most egregious violation of press freedom under the First Amendment. And you also had Seth Stern of the Free Press Foundation saying this policy, it goes against decades of legal precedent of journalists lawfully obtaining and publishing government secrets. And with that, saying that he hopes that journalists don't just capitulate and

even says that he hopes that they forego their Pentagon access, if need be, and adding, agreeing not to look where the government doesn't want you to look and, by extension, not to print what it doesn't want you to print, is propaganda, not journalism. And you've got no shortage of journalists and press advocates calling this an intimidation tactic and even fundamentally anti-American. And possibly maybe the best demonstration of the significance here, it came from two-time Pulitzer winning reporter Bill Merrimow, who wrote. Under Pete Hegset's new rules, journalists would have had their press credentials canceled for reporting the Johnson administration's lies during the Vietnam War.

For John Hersey's groundbreaking New Yorker report about the aftermath of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, the stories about JFK's disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, the torture of Iraqi detainees of the Abu Ghraib prison, and countless other stories of importance. And again, the backlash here, it doesn't stop with journalists and their organizations. I mean, even current Pentagon officials,

they're taking issue with the policy. You've got The Intercept reporting that unnamed officials have called us, quote, a mockery of American ideals and something that one would see in some of the most repressive and unstable nations on the planet. And he would another, specifically pointing to Heggshead, saying this is yet another method where he's trying to dodge accountability. Now, with all that said, as far as a response to the backlash, you had a Pentagon spokesperson quick to defend the new policy.

We're saying that the new guidelines are already in line with every other military base in the country and adding that they are basic common sense guidelines to protect sensitive information. Now, maybe the most surprising reaction actually came from Trump because reporters asked him whether the Pentagon should be part of deciding what journalists can report and he responded, no, I don't think so. Nothing stops reporters. But also, as I always say, words are words and actions or actions. And right now, there's not really any indication that he's going to do something about this. And so, you know, definitely something we're going to have to keep our eyes on. And in the meantime, of course, I'd love to know your thoughts, opinions, and reactions here. But then another new is, 730,000 is your number of the day. Because that is the number of H-1B visa holders believed to be in the U.S. right now.

But when you also consider their dependents, right, spouses and kids, you're looking at a total of 1.28 to 1.3 million people in the country. And we're looking at those today because, one, employers use those. visas to bring in high-skilled foreign workers, and two, Trump is looking to overhaul them. And by overhaul, I mean, the fees to hire an employee through H-1B, it totaled a few thousand dollars at most, but now companies are going to have to pay $100,000 for it. And also an interesting thing here is that when Trump announced this change, it sparked confusion, panic, and chaos. Because Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik seemed to suggest that the new fee it would apply not

just to new visa holders, but also to current ones, and that it would end up totaling $600,000 per worker. Renewals, first times, the company needs to decide do they want. Is the person valuable enough? It's annual. And it's for total. It can be a total of six years. So $100,000 a year. And with that, announcing the change was said to take a fact just after midnight, Saturday, meaning that companies apparently had a little more than a day to prepare for these huge fees on thousands of their workers. And so you saw firms, including Amazon, Microsoft, and JP Morgan, pulling the fire alarm, warning visa holders not to leave the country. And, urging those already abroad to fly back as soon as possible.

Though then, on Saturday, you had the White House clarifying the $100,000 fee would only apply to new applicants and not renewals or current visa holders and that it's a one-time fee, not an annual one. But still, you know, this is expected to disrupt several sectors of the U.S. economy. And really the only question is whether the disruption is going to be good or bad. Right now, on the Trump side, you have supporters claiming that corporations have abused the H-1B visa to import lower-paid workers where they could have hired native citizens, effectively taking jobs away from Americans.

And with that, you had the White House citing data that, appears to show increased unemployment among computer science and computer engineering majors, for example. But then with that, you have critics countering that the economy is not a zero-sum game and that H-1B visa holders and their families, they contribute roughly $86 billion to the U.S. every year. That's in addition to them providing some of the world's top talent, not just to tech companies, but also to Wall Street universities in the medical industry. With executives from India now running Google, Microsoft, and IBM, and Indian doctors making up nearly 6% of U.S. position.

And so you have people critical of this saying that it could weaken American competitiveness in tech AI as well as cripple our healthcare system. And possibly, you know, giving an idea to how steep the cost is to businesses, the median salary for a new H-1B worker in 2023, it was $94,000. Right. And so that means most of these people, they don't even make as much as the $100,000 fee. And so that, it's why you have many experts saying it really only the biggest companies out there are going to be able to afford to pay or to an extract an exemption from the White House. Right, arguing that it leaves a startup just shit out of luck with, for example, venture capitalist Alec Patrickoff telling the New York times. There is not a single company that I have invested in in the last 10 years that could afford to pay this.

And so instead of paying a view of experts saying that they might end up just opting for remote contracting offshore delivery and gig workers. All of which is why the US Chamber of Commerce reacted to the news with we're concerned about the impact on employees, their families, and American employers. But if you ask Trump and Lutnik about this, corporate America is just thrilled about having to pay more for foreign workers. All of the big companies are on board. We've spoken to them about the gold card. They love it. They love it. They love it. They're really. They really love it. They need it. Also, regarding that gold card, it is finally here.

All you got to do is just write a check for $1 million to the U.S. Treasury, and you can legally live and work in the United States. Or if you're sponsored by a corporation, your employer can pay $2 million. But then with all that, what I will say, you know, one place that is definitely not in love with the whole H-1B change is India, where over 70% of H-1B visa holders originate from. The H-1B program, it's helped lift up a new middle class in India, and it's given many talented Indians a pathway forward for a better future for their families. So you actually have the Indian government warning that the disruptions done to families by this new policy, it presents a humanitarian

concern and saying that it could damage the people-to-people diplomacy achieved over the past three decades. But then of course, that's not where the situation ends, because like with so much of what Trump's trying to do with policy nowadays, you can expect that this is going to get challenged in courts. And in fact, you already have the American Immigration Lawyers Association leading the charge and partnering with other groups scouting for plaintiffs and seeking a temporary block on the policy. But then finally, today, I want to end with, I guess, a little bit of self-promo, and then one more thing. The little bit of promo is if you haven't snagged yourself something from Beautifulbaster.com in a bit, no better time. Whether we strive for better times, don't let

dread in or move with serenity, or our classic bestsellers, like emotionally exhausted, full of microplastics and existential dread, and one day will all be skeletons. Of course, all available at Beautifulbastion.com. But then the final thing that I wanted to share today is, you know, I spoke with Ed Elson from Prof. G. Markets on my podcast in good faith. And something that he hit on and it felt like he really wanted to get out there was the importance of billionaires being taxed on their wealth because they literally can't spend the money anywhere. And of course, you can get the full hour-long thing on YouTube, Apple Podcasts or Spotify, links in the description down below. But here's a taste. The Triggledown economic story was one of the greatest lies ever told to America.

And I don't think it was that insidious. I think that the theory was a nice, it was a nice theory. we can pay less in taxes and it actually helps us with growth. It means that people spend more. It means that people are participating in the economy. It was an amazing story because it basically told us we can have our cake and we can eat it too. And I don't decry us for believing the story. What I do decry us for is the fact that after we saw how the story did not work, how it wasn't true, we decided let's keep

doing it. And let's keep telling the story. Let's keep talking Reaganomics. Let's keep talking about trickle-down theory. And it's very plain and very obvious for everyone to see. It does not work. And the way that we can see this playing out is, again, you've got to go back to the inequality problem. What happens when rich people, really rich people get really, really rich? Do they spend all of their billions of dollars on how? on going out to eat food, on restaurants, do they spend it on getting their car washed? No, you can't spend billions of dollars. They keep it.

They buy stocks and they buy assets and the assets grow and grow and price. And then they just sit on it because that's all you can do. I mean, if you're Elon, you're worth $350 to $400 billion, he cannot spend that money. He cannot inject that money into the economy. That does not trickle down. Billions and billions of dollars in the hands of one person. There is one thing that you can do with that amount of money, and that is sit on it.

And then give it to your children. That's all you can do with this money. So essentially what's happened is all of the money that we have decided to give to rich people because we said, we're going to cut down on your taxes and we're going to make the environment extremely favorable to the very, very top 1%. We basically said to them, you know,

Just enjoy the cash, and we're going to have it locked up there in your bank account at Goldman Sachs. Or we're going to have it locked up in your, I mean, look at Ken Griffin, who spent a billion dollars on a house. You know, he spent a billion dollars on a house. That's ridiculous. I don't know that. Yes. He bought, he went. Didn't know you can do that.

It's crazy. And it doesn't make any sense. So all of that money is locked up in there, and it's not being reinvested into the economy. And that, by the way, is why GDP in the past 50 years has grown three times faster than wages in America. And while that, it brings us to the end of this video, you got even more, just a click away. Or because I've just been doing more and more podcasts. I got a brand new podcast with Ed Ellison from Prof G Markets over here. And I also just did this new podcast with Mr. B.

You can click or tap to watch either of those. But also, I've got links in the description to our Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube version so you can get filled in wherever you like. But no matter what you do, let me just say thank you for watching. I love yo faces, and of course, I'll see you right back here tomorrow.