The Young Turks - 100 Days Disaster - April 28, 2025

Episode Date: April 29, 2025

CNN’s Harry Enten trashes Trump’s ‘just horrible’ 100-day poll numbers. Trump sets the record straight on possible third term rumors. Three children who are U.S. citizens — including one with cancer — deported with their mothers to Honduras. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Virginia) says he will not seek reelection after cancer returns. Hosts: Jordan Uhl & Cenk Uygur SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. Well, the Young Turks, the online news show.

Thank you. with Jordan Ewell with you guys. Exciting day, first 100 days for Donald Trump. So exciting, I wonder how he did. Well, we're gonna give you an update on that. And then we've got a lot of different fun topics for you guys today. Democrats have Young guard versus Old Guard.

We're gonna talk about that, of course. And then various disasters under Donald Trump, including now sending American citizen children abroad deporting them without of course as always due process. So lots of disasters. And then you know how we're doing more interviews now at 8 o'clock Eastern after the main two hour shows over? Today Larry Krasner, DA in Philadelphia, kind of a legendary progressive prosecutor. So that should be a super interesting conversation in a lot of different ways. So don't miss that one. All right, my brother Jordan Yule is on Rebel headquarters.

of course, where he is a bit of a murderer. And he's also the host of the insurgents podcast. I mean, you're killing it. So hence, you're a murderer. Sure. All right. Jordan, how you doing, brother? You know, I'm doing all right.

We've got some really fun ones. And I'm excited for the story at the end of the hour, where you and I might have a little bit of a disagreement. No. Me and you have a disagreement? Okay, that'll be fun. Let's get to it. All right, so let's do the first start. Take a look at this.

And these numbers are just horrible. There's no way to sugarcoat it. And 41% approval of him now. It was 44% back in 2017 around the 100th day mark. You see the 41% that is 12 points below Joe Biden. That's three points below where he was in his first term. Look at Obama was 63%. He's 22 points below that.

And George W. Bush at this point in 2001, he is, I mean, again, 21 points below. And as you pointed out in your opening, Jessica Dean, I look back at all of the polling you possibly go long before I was born. And Trump's 41% at 100 days is the worst on record. Tomorrow will mark President Donald Trump's 100th day in office. And according to that CNN poll, the American people aren't happy with how Trump has kicked off his second term. There is a lot more data and more interesting numbers to discuss, including some data on how the 2026 midterms are shaping up. But first, Jank, what are your thoughts on that first clip? Yeah, he's heard dog. Don't ask him if he's all right. And then later in the show,

we're going to show you some of the things he's backpedaling out of because it's such a disaster. But for the purposes of this story, what I'm interested in is what is driving down his numbers? Because in the beginning of his term, his numbers are actually pretty good. And for Trump, they were quite terrific. And they've taken a massive turn in the last couple of months. Why? I think that's really interesting. We'll get to that in a sec. So the two issues that Trump focused his campaign on, immigration and the economy,

have fallen out from underneath him. But according to that poll, Americans still think he's doing a good job handling one issue. Let's watch more. There's only one data point where Trump is above 45%. It comes to his handling of gender identity policy. He's at 51%. Every other issue, immigration where he has long been above water, look at this below water, 45%. How about the economy?

My good disgrace, he was elected to fix the economy, just 39%. And of course, the tarifford, 34% on that. I mean, the bottom line here is just very simply, the numbers for Donald Trump are awful. awful, awful in this poll. And then, of course, you look again on the economy. We compare it to where we were back in 2017. You see the 49% there. Look here, 39%, 10 points below. And Donald Trump on the economy here, it's not just the lowest for this term. It's the lowest for any president on record 100 days into a presidency. Now, Americans aren't just unhappy over how Trump is handling the issues. so unhappy with how he's using his authority. According to CNN's polling, in December of last year,

46% of Americans had no confidence Trump would use his presidential power responsibly. That number has jumped to 54% of Americans now. That's more bad news for Trump. According to an aggregate of three polls, Trump isn't just dragging down his own numbers. He's also putting House Republicans in a tough spot for 2026. Here's more on that. If the House GOP is under any illusions that Donald Trump's fall in the polls won't bring them down as well while they are living on Fantasy Island. What are we talking about here?

Let's take a look at the generic congressional ballot. Democrats versus Republicans, we have three polls out within the last few weeks. What do they all show? They all show the Democrats up by two points in the CNBC poll. The Fox News poll that was out on Friday. Look at that. Democrats up by seven. The New York Times poll that was out this Friday as well, Democrats by three. Where are we seeing it? We've spoken about it, Mr. Berman. We're talking about independence. This is how you know that Trump is bringing down the House GOP. Look at Trump's

net federal rating. In October of 2024, according to New York Times, it was minus nine points. Look at where it is now. Minus 30 points among independence. That's horrific. That's historically awful. So I went back through history, right? And I looked at the opposition minority party. That, of course, is the Democrats right now. They're a minority in the House to the opposition of the party in the White House, Donald Trump or Republican. The average House seats won by the opposition minority party, 234 when leading the generic ballot this early by at least four percentage points that happened in 2006 and 2018.

Unsurprisingly, Trump is unhappy with those bad numbers, and he took to truth social to vent about it, writing great pollster John McLaughlin, one of the most highly respected in the industry has just stated that the failing New York Times poll and the ABC Washington Post poll about a person named Donald J. Trump, me, are fake polls from fake news organizations. The New York Times has only 37% Trump 2024 voters and the ABC Washington Post poll has only 34% Trump voters. Unheard of numbers unless looking for a negative result, which they are. These people should be investigated for election fraud and add in the Fox News pollster while you're at it. They are negative criminals who apologize to their subscribers and readers after I win elections big, much bigger than their

polls showed I would win, loose a lot of credibility, and then go on cheating and lying for the next cycle only worse. They suffer from Trump derangement syndrome, and there is nothing that anyone or anything can do about it. I wish them well, but we'll continue to fight to make America great again. Now, in the New York Times poll that John McLaughlin referenced, 38% of respondents voted for Trump, 38% voted for Kamala Harris, and 16% didn't vote in the last election. So the poll was, in fact, evenly distributed. The ABC Washington Post, Ipsos poll is a similar case. 35% of respondents voted for Trump, rounded up, 35% voted for Harris, and 30% didn't vote in the last election. So, Jake, it seems balanced. Just seems like Donald Trump doesn't like the results.

Yeah, so a couple of issues here. First, let's talk about Trump's reaction, because this is usual buffoonish. So, you know, he misspells the word loose. Like he says, he means lose and he says loose. No one corrects it. He doesn't correct it. I know it's not a big deal, except the president shouldn't be a child and he shouldn't rant in the middle of the night. And he should have staffers who check to make sure he gets things right. Okay, fine. And we all got used to the fact that he's spells like a third grader. He talks like a third grader. And I know that that's advantages in some ways.

And I, you know, but when he, and then he says, Donald J. Trump, that's me. Everybody knows it's you. Everybody knows it's you. And so like, I, the fact that folks haven't gotten tired of what a buffoon he is in that sense, it's greatly frustrating, right? And so now when it comes to the important matters. So they should be investigated for election fraud. Brother, the next election isn't for like a year and nine months.

What are you talking about? And this stupid, stupid idea he has in his head. If somebody writes to something bad about me, it's election fraud. That's not a thing, man. If that was true, we'd have no freedom of the press. The First Amendment would be in the trash and so no, or freedom of speech. So when Biden was in mental decline, if anyone said he was in mental decline, should they have been locked up for election fraud? Because that's Trump's dumbass idea here.

If you insult the president, the delictive, no, it's not. You're a stupid politician. We get to insult you all we want. We get to criticize you all we want. And stop crying for God's sake, man. Pull yourself together. So then secondly, this isn't even criticism. This is just a poll.

And I'm so sick of politicians on definitely on both sides. Whenever they're winning, they're like, oh, we look at the polls. We're up, we're up, right? Whenever they're losing, you got to tell you how Paul's on. I have to on polls, they're just numbers. Sometimes they're a little off, sometimes they're more off than we hope for, sometimes they're exactly on, but overall they give you a snapshot. It's not the end all be all, elections are end all there, but it's a snapshot.

Is the snapshot accurate here, whether every single number or not it is or not, that Trump is declining, definitely. Okay, so let's say that he's not losing independence by 30, he's losing him by 27. Does that make you feel better if you're a Trump supporter? What difference does it make? Oh, it's wildly off, he's only losing independence by 23 points. And by the way, it could be the other way. What if it's off in the other direction, he's losing him by 37, right?

Okay, fine, say 23, it doesn't matter. His poll numbers are definitely going on. It's the same polls that before when he was finally above 50% in the beginning of his term, the Republicans were celebrating. And the same Henry Enton, you know, segments on CNN when he was showing really good poll numbers for Trump. And of course, back then the Democrats were like, no, I don't believe it. I don't believe any poll. If Kamala Harris is losing, I don't believe any poll.

Now all of a sudden the Democrats are back to believing. Trump is back to not believing. So, guys, if you're a viewer, voter out there, et cetera, please stop listening to politicians, right? So just take a look at the same poll and what's the trend, right? Back in the beginning of his term, his trend was pretty good. He was doing better than he did in his first term. And it made sense. He just won the popular vote, and he did a couple of things now.

We get to why they're going now. He did a couple of things in the beginning. They were actually very popular. And again, if you're a Democrat, I know. That's it. You hate me forever because I said that Trump did something that was popular in the beginning. Go ahead. Go nuts, okay?

But we're going to just keep telling the truth here at the Young Turks. So when he closed down the border, that was very, whether you like it or not, that was very popular with the American people, right? And the economy seemed to, it was good because Biden had an economy that was doing pretty well. And we talked about that a lot. So what went wrong? Well, he started going nuts. So he both sides don't understand that most of the voters are not in your bubble. They're not in your bubble. So by the way, there's a number in that poll that you show there's the only thing that Trump is still popular on is transports. Sorry. Okay, there's a bubble on the left that thinks, no, that's not the case. It is the case. Okay, it's the only thing he's holding on to. Okay, so then you look at the right wing, oh, they're, I mean, Trump and all the things he's doing poorly on. That's a much longer list, okay?

So he's now underwater on immigration. He closed the border. He was so overwhelmingly popular on immigration a minute ago. And now, why is he underwater? Because he's going unconstitutional. What was the need to go unconstitutional? Why didn't you have to get rid of new process, the cornerstone of Western civilization? Why are you constantly ignoring the court?

Why are you ignoring the Constitution? This is exactly what I talked about in my debates with conservatives before the election about Trump. Like, oh, you hate the establishment. Why are you voting against Trump? Because Trump, forget the establishment. Forget the current corrupt system. First of all, he's not doing anything about that. All he's doing is he's about to do another $5 trillion at a minimum of tax cuts for the establishment.

Total fake populace. But on top of that, my number one concern was the Constitution. Because he said, if I lose, we should terminate it. There's a massive fraud. Everything with him is, oh, massive fraud. So I get to burn the Constitution. I get to arrest people without due process. And I want to stop anyone from criticizing me or polling me, right?

No, that's not how it works. And your infantile mind doesn't understand that. Okay, so, and I'm talking about Trump here and not his voters. So he lost people on immigration issue he had massive support on because he always goes too far, always. And why is he going too far? because he's, golly, geez, really determined to keep America safe? No, he's always testing the boundaries of his power. We're going to talk about that a little bit in the next story here on the show.

Obviously, watch live 60.8 p.m. get all the stories. But he's, oh, can I run for a third term? Can I ignore the courts? Can I burn the Constitution? Can I violate that law? Can I violate that article in the Constitution? Because he's, he loves power. He's obsessed with power.

Me, Trump, me, Trump. That's like him in a nutshell, right? Finally, 39% on the economy. What a buffoon. I mean, Biden handed you record low unemployment. And by the way, in the first term before COVID, he'd done well on unemployment. We're a fair show.

We give you actual facts. This isn't about partisanship, okay? He had done well on unemployment in the first term before COVID. But now he's got, we're worried about unemployment going up because of the tariffs. We're worried about inflation going up because of the tariffs. We're worried about the stock market. We're worried about the bond market. We're worried about average Americans having to pay higher prices.

That used to be his pillar. The economy was the strongest part of his polling for the entirety of his career. And now that's in the toilet. Why? Because people didn't vote for this. They didn't vote for global nuclear tariffs. They didn't vote for higher prices. They voted for lower prices.

He's in his bubble where he's like, oh yeah, everyone around me, Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, everybody else. We're all such extremists. So people love radical extremists, don't they? No, they don't. They just want to lower inflation, low prices, and they wanted the border shut down. So the reason why he's, and this is more news for Trump supporters.

If you're bewildered why these numbers are lower, it's not complicated because you might think, oh, these radical ideas are awesome. And the Constitution, take it or leave it. But the overwhelming majority of Americans do nothing. Jordan. Yeah, I think that's what's so interesting about these polling numbers. It's not necessarily that his base is turning on him. I think they're just going to stick with him in the long run. It is the people who didn't vote who are most interesting to me. And I'd be curious to see breakouts. But you've got to imagine that this downward shift in these approval ratings on these different issues comes from people who don't have strong affinity or loyalty for Trump and the MAGA movement. They want to see some sort of change on these

issues specifically, like the economy on prices. Trump made that the bedrock of his campaign. And now that he's in office, he's telling people, oh, no, it's not that bad. Egg prices aren't that high. Yeah, they are. Profits for the largest egg manufacturer in the country tripled. Profits tripled, not revenue, profit, pure profit, year over year. So they are exploiting an avian flu and keeping prices high to justify or to continue to enrich their investors and their executives at the cost of working people. And Trump doesn't care. He'll just try to lie to the American consumer base saying, no, it's not that bad. He loosely kind of threatened auto manufacturers, oh, don't raise prices, and then turned around a couple days later

and said, oh, I don't care if they do because of these tariffs. He is creating these problems and rising prices through a haphazard implementation of tariffs that most economists say will not work and will not achieve the desired outcome that he and his team, which is largely comprised of people who are just yes men, think they think it will. So I guess I'm not surprised that these numbers are going down because they don't know what they're doing. They're doing things that will deliberately inflame these problems. And no one is in his circle. No one's close enough to steer him in the right direction or steer him in a better direction. The one thing that's just kind of ludicrous that people are at 51% that's, I wouldn't say overwhelming, but barely

approve of is just gender identity, which none of that affects our material conditions. None of that affects people's kitchen table issues doesn't help them make ends meet. That's just pure animus. So if that's all they can hang their hat on, good luck. But when it comes time for midterms, as they talked about later in that segment, that's not going to be enough to win. So Trump has been in this in this situation before. He got into office by promising people a lot of things, couldn't deliver, there was voter backlash, and they lost in midterms. So hopefully it's a repeat of the same situation. All right, last couple of things here. First, as the founder of Rebellion Pack,

I'll say if you actually care about all the issues like higher, you know, higher wages, lower drug prices, all the economic populism to Trump promised, but never delivered, go to RebellionPact.com. We're running candidates who actually will deliver as Democrats. And although independents have also signed the populist plank, which is on t.com slash populist plank, including Dan Osborne, a great independent out of Nebraska. Now, a last set of polls here, 66% of Americans find Donald Trump's terms so far chaotic. 59% find it scary. So I'm going to get to more in a second.

But this is why. This is why he's lost popularity. This is why the Republicans have lost popularity. They're doing unpopular things that are extreme. And people are finding it chaotic and scary, including a significant number of Republicans. Speaking of which, so when they ask about the sending U.S. citizens to El Salvador, I know, if you're a certain portion of MAGA, I know he didn't say send homegrown citizens to El Salvador. Yes, he did.

Okay, by the way, half of them are like, yeah, of course you should. Send him to El Salvador. And half of them are like, no, he didn't say that because that's embarrassing if he said that. And I'm talking about hardcore MAGA. Meanwhile, the independence left the building already and MAGA doesn't even realize it. So to that point, on that issue, overall on Americans, should he be allowed to send people to U.S. citizens to El Salvador without due process? as he has said definitively that he wants to. 10% of Americans say yes, 73% of Americans say no, no, hell no.

11% of independents say yes, 73% of independents say no. Oh, good news, you're only losing independence by 62 points in that case. And finally, how about Republicans? They're still on board with him, right? No, even among Republicans, only 21% said yes to that harebrain scheme. And 56% said hell no. And then there's some that are in the middle. So why?

Why would you talk about sending American citizens to a foreign dungeon? Why are you kidnapping people off the streets because they criticized Israel? And again, later in the program, even Chuck Schumer's like, what are you doing? Yeah, I'm worried about anti-Semitism, but you're cutting off money to Harvard. You're kidnapping people off the streets? No, no, don't do that. In fact, seven Jewish senators wrote a letter to Trump saying, what are you doing? No, we didn't answer to this.

This is crazy. And that's the problem with Donald Trump. He is, as my dad says, they're crazy. And he can't help himself. So this is this, look, we have a poll. I'm curious how you guys voted. The first 100 days from, better than expected, worse than expected, or what you expected. And I got to say, unfortunately, and this is why I voted against him.

This is exactly what I expected. I'd vote C, okay? So people say worse, what is the 6% say better? Okay, how could this be better? Even if you're a MAGA, really better than you're expected? Okay, you wanted higher prices, you're super psyched about that? You hated the Constitution and you love that he keeps threatening to take away giant chunks of it.

Okay, have added, Haas, but the rest of the country has left the building. All right, we're gonna take a break here. We'll take the break. Some of your comments during the social break, of course, as we usually do. And then when we come back, we're going to talk about that issue that I was telling you about, which is Trump running for a third term. So what does he say about it now? And why is he saying?

That's very interesting. We'll be right back. All right, back on T.R.T. Jenkins, Jordan, with you guys. Also, J.G.214. Thank you for joining. Brother. We appreciate it. They hit the join button below and C.L. Gifted a Young Turks membership on YouTube and thereby became an American hero. All right. Jordan, what's next? Take a look at this. I have had more people say, please run again. I said, we have a long way to go. before we even think about that. But I've had a lot of people. People are asking me to run

and there's a whole story about running for a third term. I don't know. I never looked into it. They do say there's a way you can do it, but I don't know about that. Donald Trump has been sending the American people mixed signals about whether or not

he's serious about running for a third term. And, Jank, you seem to have a theory about why that is, right? I do. So I think that he is constantly testing the limits of his power. If you said to him, here's a button like your Diet Coke button. And if you press it, you become dictator.

We are done with the Constitution, but you rule forever. And you have as much money as you want. Do you know how quickly he'd press that button? I mean, even take out the money part, right? He'll find him. I mean, if he's dictator, he can have whatever he wants, right? So he's like, like most American people think like, no, no, no, no. You know, even if you don't, well, for the folks who don't like him now, they might finally be here at that point.

But I've been saying from day one, because he says it all the time. He's always talking about all dictators are amazing. They can kill anyone they like. And when they ran through the room, everyone has to applaud. And I love their military parades. And I don't want to leave when I lose. I want a third term, et cetera. He would press that button so quickly.

Like, da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da, right? So, but now there's a twist of the story. Why is there a twist? Because my theory is, he does turn around when he gets unpopular, really unpopular. So well, let's see how it played out in this story. Go ahead, Jordan. So last Friday, the Trump organization started selling Trump 2028 merchandise. Then today, the Atlantic published a long interview they conducted with Trump that covered an array of topics, including him potentially running in 2020. Ashley Parker and Michael Shear write, we asked Trump about a rumor we'd heard

that he had tasked his justice department with looking into the legality of his running again in 2008. He said he hadn't, but then seemed to leave open the possibility. That would be a big shattering, wouldn't it? He mused laughing. Well, maybe I'm just trying to shatter, he noted. Twice that his supporters regularly

shout for him to seek a third term, but concluded, that I'm looking to do. And I think it would be a very hard thing to do. But that's not exactly what he told Kristen Welker at NBC less than a month ago. A lot of people want me to do it. But I mean, I basically tell them we have a long way to go. You know, it's very early in the administration. Asked to clarify if he was serious about running again, Trump said, I'm not joking, but I'm not, it's far too early to think about it. When asked whether he has been presented with plans that allow him to seek a third term, Trump said, there are methods which

you could do it. Welker asked about a possible scenario in which J.D. Vance would run for president and then pass the role to Trump, a tactic some of his allies have already started promoting. Trump responded that that's one method, but there are others, too. So he could be joking, he could just be entertaining the fanfare. But to me, Jank, especially with the merch, it seems like they're at least considering it. They're exploring a way in which they might be able to try it. Yeah, of course, that's what he always does. He does these test trials.

Now what if I don't listen to the courts? Let's see how that one pulls. Let's see how people react to that. Oh, in the beginning, oh, pretty good, pretty good. Oh, Rogan says it's he likes due process. Okay, okay, let's see if we rethink that one. Let's see how things go. And on this one, part of what they do, guys, is they'll say it and they'll say, and as Trump has said, that he wasn't joking, right? Because in the beginning when you're testing it, you don't want to say you're joking. Otherwise, it ruins the test. So he says, yes, I'm thinking of running for a third term. There's a lot of ways to do it. No, I'm not joking.

And if it had come back with a lot of MAGA and a lot of independence and good polling, coming back and going, yeah, boy, we hate the Constitution too. Let's go burn it together. If that had been the reaction, he'd have kept going and going and going until he ran for a third term and an 18th term. Right. So, but instead, what he got back was, what are you stupid? No. And even from Republicans, the polling shows, we covered it a little bit earlier in the show, but when they were asked about this, of course Democrats are dead set against it. Independence hated it. And even Republicans are like, no, no, just do your job, right? So not all, but a good number of Republicans were

in that category. So it didn't play well. And we'll show you some of the numbers in a second. And then so now that his polling is dropping and it's not working, now he's back to, yeah, yeah, I was just joking. I was just joking. And that allows every mager guy to say every time he tries to do something unconstitutional. Oh, he's just trolling, man, he's just trolling. And by the way, is that what we want out of a president? Someone who's constantly trolling like an idiot, like a, like a, like a, like a literal, I was going to say like a troll online. But that's literally what he is. And he's the president of the United States and the commander in chief, Jesus Christ, man, grow up. If you're in the opposition and you're, you know, 13 years old or 21 years old and

you're having fun trolling, woohoo, yeah, I trolled them, I dream. Okay, or you're Ken Klippenstein and you're just having fun, no problem. But you're the president of the United States and you're still trolling about setting the Constitution on fire? How is that fun? So, all right, I mean, this is what exactly what we were worried about. The guy who said he'd terminate the Constitution after he lost. Here he is, try to terminate the Constitution. But when he gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar, I was just kidding. I was just kidding, man. Yeah, sure you are, buddy. Now, I want to remind people, if you, if you could remember this, in March of 2024, Brett Ehrlich, Mark Thompson, and I were on a power panel on March 29th. And we covered an op-ed

that a Project 2020-25 partner wrote, about how Trump could seek a third term. And I remember the conversation back then, people just dismissed it. Oh, no, he won't do that. He can't do that. We're just past a year later, and they're looking at it. They're evaluating it. They're selling merch over it. So again, we're going back to, hey, project 2025 and people in that orbit were telegraphing everything they wanted to do. And much of that had to do with undoing the Constitution. And here we are. Their argument then was the 22nd Amendment only applied to consecutive terms. So they said Trump was entitled to two consecutive terms. The first one, for some reason, didn't count. And of course,

we know that's ludicrous and this would be patently unconstitutional under today's standards because of the 22nd Amendment, but they don't seem to care because it's all about power for them. All over their rhetoric about constitutional principles or going back to the origins of the the founders, notwithstanding that this came later because of FDR, none of that really matters or holds weight, it's just a inconvenient burden or obstacle in the way of some sort of objective that the right wants. And you're seeing it play out here. My only thing that makes me think he might not want to run is just that he's exhausted. It's a tiring job. He just wants to go off into the sunset, golf, relax, but still maintain some sense of importance and

fanfare. He likes the attention. He likes the cameras. So if there was some sort of arrangement where he could be kind of like a president and have the president aesthetic while not having to do any of the responsibility, that I think would be the ideal solution for him. But the only thing, I think, preventing him, Jack, from a third term or seeking a third term would just be the workload that accompanies it. Yeah. It's, there's a hilarious Fox News article about this where they say, this is just six days ago, they're like, yeah, polling for him running for a third term does not poll well, very, very badly. But it's such a bad number. They don't even state it in the article. But they do at the end of the article go, okay, fine, even 53% of Republicans think

bad idea, don't do that. So now he sees the polling and he goes back. I was just joking. Woohoo! The president's a cloud. Okay, all right. I'll take it. I'll take it. I'm glad he's going back and he's, I hope he shuts up about it and they, instead of burning the Constitution, they burn those stupid Trump 2028 hats and we move on with our lives. But by the way, guys, that's a huge thing, right? What are we most worried about is that they mess around with elections, they mess around with the Constitution. So the fact that he's walking it back now that it's deeply unpopular is a good thing. The fact that he ever proposed it is maniacally bad, right? but at least he's responding to the polling, including among a majority of Republicans,

and thank God he's walking it back. born here who were deported along with their mothers from Louisiana down to Honduras. And according to advocates, one of them is a four-year-old child with stage four cancer. We don't report you a citizen. The mother was deported along with the children. The children aren't deported. The mother chose to take the children with her. When you enter the country legally and you know you're here legally and you choose to have you an assistant child, that's not you.

That's not on this administration. If you choose to put your family in that position, that's on them. The Trump administration is defending their decision to deport three children with U.S. citizenship to Honduras with their mothers, including one child with cancer. The children are from two different families who are living in Louisiana. Both families were detained earlier last week during routine check-ins with ICE in New Orleans. They were in the intensive supervision appearance program, a professional. probationary program that allows people undergoing immigration proceedings to stay in the country. But both the women had reportedly missed one of these check-ins previously, so judges filed

deportation orders. On the day they were detained, ICE agents were waiting for them to arrive at their appointment. Lawyers said the families were taken to Alexandria, Louisiana, three hours from New Orleans, where they weren't permitted to communicate with legal representatives. The lawyers weren't able to reach their mothers until the mothers until after they arrived in Honduras. The mother of the two-year-old is pregnant, and the four-year-old, a boy, has a rare form of late-stage cancer, the family's lawyers said. They said the boy had no access to his medications or his doctors while he was in custody with his seven-year-old sister and mother. The administration is defending, sending these kids to Honduras, claiming the mom's requested the children stay with them. But lawyers for both families dispute that saying the

moms weren't given an option to leave their children in the United States. Lawyers representing the father of the two-year-old U.S. citizen who was deported, identified as a VML in court documents, filed an emergency petition in the Western District of Louisiana on Thursday, seeking her release. But the child was put on a plane to Honduras the next morning before the court even opened. Hours after the deportation, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty, a Trump appointee, issued an order expressing his concern that the girl had been deported against her father's wishes while stressing it is illegal and unconstitutional to deport U.S. citizens.

Dowdy set a May 16th court hearing to investigate his, quote, strong suspicion that the government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process, end quote. According to Gracie Willis, one of the lawyers representing the families, another attorney's effort to keep the four-year-old with cancer in the states were other were also ignored. Take a look. That attorney filed what's called an administrative stay of removal, which is a request for ICE to just temporarily halt any deportation in the interest of something happening. And in this case, the lawyer requested the opportunity to file paperwork, complicated paperwork with the court to provide immigration options to the mother

and especially to allow this four-year-old to continue treatment. The attorney filed paperwork with ICE explaining what this child's medical situation was, explaining the diagnosis, and didn't receive any kind of a response until the family was already on a plane on Friday morning. Nonetheless, Marco Rubio, like Tom Homan, is denying any wrong. doing. Take a look. On the headline, that's a misleading headline. Three U.S. citizens, ages four, seven, and two were not deported. Their mothers who were legally in this country were deported. The children went with their mothers. If those children are U.S. citizens, they can come

back into the United States if there's their father or someone here who wants to assume them. But ultimately, who was deported was their mothers who were here illegally. The children just went with their mothers. But it wasn't like, you guys make it sound like ICE agents, kicked down the door and grab the two-year-old and threw him on an airplane, that's misleading. That's just not true. But again, the families and their lawyers dispute the fact that the moms wanted the children to go with them, and they were sent out of the country before the court had a chance to intervene. Jank, what do you make of this story?

Yeah, there's two different things here. Number one, the content of the story. So the Trump administration now puts out statements so absurd. They're in the ballpark of Baghdad Bob, the official Saddam Hussein spokesperson who would talk about how there were no Americans in Iraq as American tanks were literally rolling behind them on camera, right? and maybe approaching the absurdity of IDF statements. IDF, oh yes, 12 children were killed today in Gaza? No, they were all 87-year-old Hamas leaders. Okay, whatever, man.

So now, oh, yes, we have a handwritten note from one of the moms in Spanish. Maybe, maybe we don't. The other mom we don't have anything on, but trust us, She wanted to take her four-year-old who has cancer that has metastasized to Honduras instead of continuing to get treatment in America. No, we don't trust you. And that's not what the family says. The family is saying, please bring them back.

They didn't even take the medication with them because they didn't know they were going to get hijacked and kidnapped. They were U.S. citizens. We didn't know that a bunch of thugs were going to come and take them away without their cancer medication. So, look, man, there's no end to the excuses for people who are in favor of this stuff. So, but guys, the second point is more important. The second point is about due process.

So I know some on the right will say, hey, listen, I believe Marco Rubio. Good luck with that. I believe Donald Trump. I good luck with that. And Holman and all those guys. And the moms are undocumented and there is a court order. and if she wanted to take the kids. I understand your point on that.

But do you understand what U.S. District Judge Dowdy is saying? We didn't go through any procedure here. You tell me, the family's telling me that you deported these American citizens. You're saying, no, they left voluntarily. But I never had a hearing. They never had a hearing. So I have no idea who's telling the truth. That's why we do hearings.

That's why we have courts. That's why we do due process. And we don't just take your word for it. I mean, Trump's already talked about potentially deporting U.S. citizens to El Salvador. Again, you know, in his mad ramblings, presumably in the same way that he's doing now, without any due process. So what else can you do to a U.S. citizen without due process and then tell us later, oh, yeah, it's okay. Can you murder a U.S. citizen without asking a judge?

Just go, no, trust me, trust me, yeah, the family wanted it. I took the, you know, a 27 year old down to Guatemala and I slid his throat. But it's okay, it's okay, he wanted his throat slit, or he was MS 28 or whatever he was. It's okay, I gave you some BS talking point. Trust me, trust the Israeli government, trust Baghdad Bob, it's okay, no, that's not how our system works. This is America, we have a constitution, we have due process, those are the cornerstones of Western civilization and we don't give those away because there's a man man in office who wants to look like he's tough on immigrants.

I say and you if you think oh Jake you're getting carried away now what kind of absurd hypothetical is this you bring a 28 year old down and slit their throat in Guatemala the four year old in Honduras doesn't have their cancer medication and it's metastasized we've been trying to get back all sane people in America have been trying you, which is now over 70% of Americans want them back. Abrago Garcia, the Trump administration has admitted that it was an error and they won't bring him back. So how long is it going to take to bring back the four-year-old U.S. citizen who's a cancer patient and has no medication down there? And what if they die? What if they die?

Is Maga still going to be flipping about it? Like, ah, yeah, so I, man. That four-year-old died. Now, by the way, I'm pro life. And by the way, I love the Constitution, except the Constitution. I hate it, and I don't think we should follow it. And I think we should burn the courts down on the Constitution down. If this is what you think is making America great again, I got, you know, I got bad news for you. The rest of America doesn't agree. It is absurd.

It's overreach. It's crazy. It's un-American. I just want to point out why they were deported. And this was allegedly that they missed a meeting and then they were transferred three hours away and weren't permitted to meet with their lawyers. Now that part specifically I want to zero in on because that is not new. That happened under Obama. There were facilities, family detention facilities, which are really just prisons for families who are seeking refuge here as they waited their credible fear interviews as part of the asylum process.

And as they were held in these facilities in like Carnes County in Texas along the border, Obama's officials also would not let lawyers meet with these people. So we need to, of course, express outrage over this happening now, but we also need to hold Democratic administrations to the exact same standard. And like Jank is talking about, we need to think about how we want this country to operate, what we want this country to be, and what what we think represents the best of us. And to me, I think many people watching this, it is an inclusive society where we extend rights and liberties to everyone, regardless of documentation or status. That's fair, that's equitable, and that's just. But that also means holding

Democratic leaders to account when they're an office and it comes time to extend due process rights to undocumented people under a Democratic administration. And unfortunately, under the Obama administration, that wasn't happening. Yeah, I'm going to add one quick thing to that. So this is why we would piss off people on both sides. They want raw, rod cheerleaders for one side or the other. Sorry, we're not going to do that. We're going to tell you the truth.

Barack Obama not only did what Jordan's talking about and deported more people than any other president, but you want to talk about due process. He killed an American citizen without asking any courts. and then his ridiculous attorney general Eric Holder said that due process is not necessarily a judicial process. That's just absurd, totally, utterly absurd. And we're not calling that out now. We called it out then.

And what happened? It wasn't just other Democrats. This is why mainstream media has massive, massive problems. This is why the country hates the establishment so much that they voted for Trump. Because mainstream media, when Trump does it, okay, they're on it. Good, that's a good thing. They should be on it. it, right? When Obama does it, they're like, what? A merry U.S. citizen, due process.

What name so? Deporting two million people without doing it the right way. What name so? I don't know. It's beloved democratic leadership. Beloved corporate politicians, they've taken some sort of oath to never, ever criticize them. So I'm sick of it. Do real reporting, do real journalism, hold all sides accountable. If you're in media, you're not supposed to kiss up to the powerful, you're supposed to challenge the powerful. I know it's a new concept for them. Both sides should check it out. And most importantly, journalists should check it out. Bring those kids back right away. U.S. citizens, if their family wants them back, bring them back. And most importantly, but you've got to follow due process. If you don't do

that, then as Trump would say ironically, then we don't have a country. If we don't have due process, we have a dictatorship and it ain't America. Okay, you must check. with the courts. That's how it's supposed to work, no matter whether you're a Republican or Democrat. All right, we got to take a break here. When we come back, Jordan and I might debate. for you jordan go ahead another democrat in congress is retiring but this time it resurfaces a recent fight between establishment democrats and progressives virginia democrat jerry connelly announced today that he will not seek re-election due to his cancer diagnosis when i announced my diagnosis six months ago i promised transparency after grueling treatments we've learned that the cancer well initially beaten back

has now returned. I'll do everything possible to continue to represent you and thank you for your grace. He also added that he'll be stepping down from a prominent committee post. The sun is setting on my time in public service and this will be my last term in Congress. I will be stepping back as ranking member of the oversight committee soon with no rancor and a full heart. I move into this final chapter full of pride and what we've accomplished together over 30 years, my loving family, and staff sustain me, my extended family, you all have been a joy to serve. Some may remember that Connolly and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were both vying for the position of ranking member on oversight. But House Democrats narrowly voted last December to give

that position to Connolly. That was befuddling to many progressives and even some Democrats who supported AOC for the position, as oversight is a critical committee. If we're keeping the administration in check, and given that Connolly had just been diagnosed with esophical cancer the month prior, many wondered if he was up to the task. But let's look at what Connolly and his allies were saying when committee assignments were being deliberated. Connolly's trademark vigor made colleagues comfortable that he could take on the Trump administration despite his age and recent cancer diagnosis, multiple lawmakers told Axios, said Connolly, We're looking at capability. We're not looking at age. Is somebody capable, irrespective of how old they are? And if they bring energy and enthusiasm. And I think this one takes the case. The cake, Representative Don Bayer of Virginia added, Jerry's a young 74. Cancer, notwithstanding. Now, Jank, I know you've got more you want to get into after this. But on finally stepping down, I mean, 100 days in, I don't remember.

much from Connolly's time as House oversight chair, which makes you wonder, why did he need that position so bad to begin with? Yeah, I don't remember much about Connolly's tenure as U.S. congressman, period. And to be fair to Connolly, though, I don't remember much about, you know, about 200 Democrats in Congress that just sit in a cave somewhere. Every once in all, I'll hear about a new Democratic congressman, but like, really? Like, and I don't mean new as in they're new. I mean, I knew, I heard about it recently. And they'll be like, oh yeah, that guy's from Philadelphia who's been a congressman for 28 years.

But the reason why they never come out, whether it's, you know, whether we're going to find out if it's spring or not, right, is because they think, well, I got this comfortable position. I have status, power, fame, whatever I have, right? Well, well, not much fame since they never show themselves in public. And so I'm just going to sit here on my ass and do nothing. So tell me what amazing things Conley did in his career. Anyway, so the reason I bring that up is not because I'm trying to hate on Connolly. Okay, I wish him well with his treatment. You know, he was a Democrat, so and you need those votes, et cetera.

But I'm tired of the establishment telling us how wonderful their 70, 80, 90 year old members are. How amazing they are. What did you pass? What did you guys all collectively pass that you're all so wonderful? And then we just can't live without you. Oh, we can't go to the new guard. No way. Because the old guard's been killing it.

Have they? Have they? So, and so to answer Jordan's question, why do they want to keep him and have him in that position? And why did he easily win that vote? because most of the Democratic Congress people are super old. And they waited like 20, 30 years to get these irrelevant positions that they were going to do nothing with. So they're like, wait a minute, I'm not going to have these young whippersnappers just because they're effective and are aggressive and can actually fight back.

Do the job right. No, I'm going to do it because I've been waiting 28 years for this. on seniority is more important. Incumbency is the most important. Protecting our status and privilege is the most important thing in the world. No, it isn't. I don't care about your status and privilege at all, at all. So yeah, obviously AOC should have gotten that position in the first place. Gee, I wonder who's going to be a more charismatic speaker and effectively fight back, AOC or Connolly, who you've literally never heard of before.

Yeah. you know, AOC isn't even on that committee anymore. She's on energy and commerce and while they have some role in evaluating and calling out what the administration does, oversight is a very, very important committee. Raskin shared that committee in the last term. It just, it was, to me, it was always purely about keeping progressives at bay. And many people on the left who are a bit more cynical on how you can work within the system have been pointing out, like, look, you're playing.

the game, you tried to cheer on the Biden administration. You tried to help propel Kamala Harris to victory. You spoke at the DNC. You were very flattering of the administration and their purported efforts for a ceasefire. And this is how they treat you. And I think to many people, they'll look at that and say, why should we even work with them? Why should we even try to work within this system if this is how they're still going to treat us? I don't think that they're entirely wrong in that criticism. It fuels cynicism about how Democrats will treat progressives. And I think it's going to take a lot of people trying to buck the system, trying to take it on head first rather than try to work within it. Yeah. I mean, my favorite part was the quote about Connolly's

trademark vigor. That was a trademark lost on me, brother. Okay. Really? He is a trademark vigor. That's why he's been breathing fire against Republicans and insisting on passing the most popular parts of the Democratic policy plagues. All right, look, last thing on old guard versus new guard, recently we talked about David Hogg starting a PAC and he's now the DSC vice chair. And so he wants to raise $20 million run in blue seats against incumbents. I'm 100% in favor of that. I believe Jordan's 100% in favor of that. But I did say on the show, that you know, that I get it and it makes sense. And Jordan's right, the establishment has a

terrible track record. The DNC has a terrible track record of being, and that's what I talked about. The DNC's track record of being hypocritical on this issue the minute progressives do something, hey, we found a rule. And when establishment guys' incumbents do something, oh, golly gee, we just couldn't find a way to be fair, right? But I think that Ken Martin at the DNC is trying to pass a rule that makes sense, which is the DNC officers should be neutral. And so 99 out of 100 times, they're not neutral in the establishment direction. In this case, it happens to be, you know, in the progressive direction. And so I get it. And Jordan will say how convenient. And that's what I said earlier. But I do like the rule, Jordan.

I think the DNC officers should be neutral. And if it's a potential moment for a Marbury versus Madison type of moment where the Supreme Court ruled against their political interests but gave themselves the power to be able to adjudicate cases coming from the executive branch. So in this case, if you call it the Hogg rule, and okay, David has to make a decision about at least taking himself off of the electoral part of the PAC and staying as the NC vice chair or just going full-borne to the PAC, at least then we could apply that very, very clearly to every other DNC officer and make sure that they do not touch any PACs and rig any rules in favor of the establishment.

I mean, yeah, of course, it's how convenient. I would like to see them do this in any other circumstance, right? Until then, I'm just going to disregard it and just chalk it up to more business as usual. Because what Hogg is doing is saying, hey, let's get new people in there. Let's get rid of the old guard who is just preserving. the status quo and let's get some people who actually want to go in and do work. And the DNC is saying, no, we can't do that. You've got to, you got to remain neutral. We can't interfere with the poor, sweet old guard, the establishment Democrats.

Like, if they were doing this and their roles were reversed, I'd be shocked. But every single time that they put their thumb on the scales or issue some new rule or or tut-tut somebody, it is to preserve the people who are already. entrenched in power. I remind people that after the Sanders campaign of 2016, they threatened to blacklist any vendors or consultants, any groups, any strategists who helped any sort of progressive challenger. That was also specifically to try to thwart Justice Democrats influence. You had Josh Gottheimer, who worked with the Chamber of Commerce in business interests to undermine the key parts of Biden's legislative agenda.

the build back better plan. He was working with businesses to kill that. He's teaming up with Akeem Jeffries for a pack. Team Blue Pack. He did this a couple years ago. Ryan Grimm has written about it. Team Blue Pack to protect Democratic incumbents against progressive challengers. They're fine with all of that. So I want to see them do some sort of throwing their weight around when it comes to anybody else. Because all I have seen for years is them saying, no, It's fine. We got to protect the status quo. We got to protect this, the incumbent Democrats. And every single ruling, every single issuance of guidance or anything always comes at the expense of outside challengers. So I refuse to give Ken Martin or the DNC any credit because I haven't

seen this applied in any sort of fair way. And maybe it will, but until then, I'm withholding judgment. Okay, I have a proposal, see if we can get to a compromise. So, Because look, we agree on so much of this. We both agree that the pack is great, that nothing wrong with the pack, definitely running yes in comments, right? So number two, let me see if I can get an agreement on this. We both agree that the DNC's pass has been terrible, they've been entirely biased. Anyone claiming that they weren't biased is out of their minds, right?

Now, but on the other hand, Ken Martin has a track record of being very progressive in Minnesota and helped to pass a lot of progressive legislation actually got things done. etc. So I think it's a little unfair to put the entire DNC history on Ken Martin. I also think Ken Martin has to understand that that DNC history exists. Are we okay so far, Jordan? Is that fair so far? Sure. Okay. I think there's more to it than that, but I want to see if there's anything else. Okay. So now the compromises, why don't we do both at the same time? All right, And I'll offer one of two things. Look, when you talk about the terrible things of dancing that did in the past is a giant list, right?

Like Debbie Wasserman Schultz had money flowing from donors to the state parties to Hillary Clinton, but not to Bernie Sanders. That level of cheating was 10,000 times worse than what Hogg is proposing here. Would they have actually ousted her? No way. And they didn't, of course. And they didn't, they covered it up. Have they condemned it since? No, even though it was a massive case of cheating at the very highest levels, etc.

Now, and that's literally cheating. It was against the bylaws. It was against everything, okay? So now there are two things, but that's gone. So there are two things that we could do. Okay, all right, I get the need for neutrality for the DNC officers that, and I'm now apparently calling it the hog rule. So I like that, and I think Ken Martin is right about that.

Okay, then does it also apply to Democratic leaders? Because if we're talking about leadership of the Democratic Party, so does Hakeem Jeffries have to stop his pack, which is aimed at protecting incumbents and against primary challengers who are very often progressives and populists? So this is not a deal that I mean, I don't know if you'd accept a deal, Jordan, but I'm curious whether the DNC will accept a deal. Or are we going to have two different sets of rules, one for progressives and for one for the beloved establishment, Hakeem Jeffries and the rest. Okay, if you don't like that one, how about this one? Jordan talked about the blacklist, right? So how about the blacklist? Did anyone ever even take away the blacklist?

Did they ever bring those people back? Did they ever lift it? Does that garbage still exist? I mean, at least like a clarification on it, right? And did anyone get blacklisted for working on a campaign against Jamal Bowman or Cory Bush? Can we go back and blacklist them? Because I thought we had a blacklist against incumbents. Look, what I'm looking for is consistency.

And I'm okay with consistency applied to progressives, including David Hahn. But it's got to be applied to the other side as well. So if the Democratic Party now says, no, I'm going to continue blacklisting progressive, anyone who helps a progressive primary challenger. And I'm not, and I'm not going to blacklist the vendors that help the incumbents, I mean, help conservative Democrats, corporate Democrats run against incumbent progressives. And no, Hakeem Jeffries and Godheimer is not a leader, but Hakeem Jeffries and others, they can run any pack they like, only progressives like Hog can't, then okay, then you're not being

consistent. So what do you think of the proposal to do them at the same time, short? Yeah, but again, it's all hypothetical. If they were to do that, of course, yeah, I guess be a step in the right direction. But the one thing for me is that makes me less optimistic that it would be ever applied in an equitable and fair and all-inclusive way is that the DNC is a machine and they ultimately operate at the behest of their big donors, special interests, corporations. They rely on funding, in part, from those entities. And those people don't want progressives to win. Those donors don't want progressives to win, but they need that money. So I don't think they're ever going to be in a position where they could operate in that way.

You saw major corporate donors at the DNC convention. You see groups like Democratic majority for Israel, very present. and have a robust presence at the DNC, distributing booklets, promoting Kamala Harris's support for Israel at the DNC. They're not dismissing or pushing those people out of their circle. They're not getting them, they're not keeping them in arm's length or admonishing them. These people are spent, especially Democratic majority for Israel, spending millions on races to unseat progressives. How many, many millions spent unseating Cory Bush, like you talked about. They don't care. They're fine with that. As long as it helps preserve corporate Democrats

and their power. So while Ken Martin may have good intentions, while he could have been a good and like you say, he was a good progressive in Minnesota, he is now part of machine and he's a figurehead for a machine that is ultimately adversarial to progressive interests. has been. There are good progressives that support of Bernie that support Ken Martin and this rule. But the DNC has been that institution. I think they need to acknowledge that. And they need to give an olive branch back, right? If they say, okay, I mean, I know they'll never, ever do this, right? But okay, Democratic majority for Israel, APAC, and all the other Israeli lobbies and if there's any other foreign lobbies that worked against incumbents like Bowman

and Bush, if they're banned and they're blacklisted like progressive organizations were, okay, now that's an olive branch and now we could have a deal. Now we all know they're never, ever, ever going to do that because they love that kind of pack money. So you can't have it both ways. That's the thing we all agree on, right? So I like the neutrality rule, but if they're going to going to do that, let's, I think the most reasonable, you know, compromises, then Hakeem Jeffries and any other Democratic leader in the House also has to divorce themselves from their PACs. Because what you want, unilateral disarmine on one side, but not the other. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. So let's have even rules that are neutrally applied.

So I like the neutrality rule, but the neutrality rule should be in the context of actually to being neutral. That's my proposal. Okay, and my guess is they'll say there's nothing we could do about Hakeem Jeffries. There's nothing we could do about A PAC or Democratic majority for Israel. There's nothing we could do about black lists. There's nothing we could do about anything. But to be fair, I haven't checked on what their latest thing with the black lists are and whether people got to take it off the blacklist. So, but I'm, look, my point is, I'm principled. Neutrality is the right rule and we should apply it equally to both sides. we see quality, then it's a different question and a different bug.

All right, we got to go. We're way over. Jordan, you're awesome. Everybody check about at Rebel HQ and you're near golf course. Nearby golf course. Okay, all right. Much love. When we come back, Sharon's going to join us and Bernie Sanders calling out a fellow Democrat.

Finally. All right, Bernie. We'll be right back. I'm going to be. Thank you.