The Young Turks - Israel's Underhanded Scheme - May 21, 2025

Episode Date: May 22, 2025

Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month Shopify trial and start selling today at ⁠shopify.com/tyt Netanyahu admits allowing for limited food aid so the genocide in Gaza can continue. Bernie Sanders goes scorched earth on D.C. the Democratic party and the Israel lobby, while exposing how billionaires buy political influence. Hosts: Ana Kasparian & 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. Welcome to the Young Turks. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and we've got so much good stuff prepared for you all today. I can't wait for today's show. Lots of stories to get to some foreign policy, a big leak in regard to. Unfortunately, Israel planning a strike against Iran. Now we'll give you the details of that story and the likelihood of Israel actually going through with a strike on Iran's nuclear sites. We're also going to talk a little bit about a house hearing that took place today with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Representative Pramila Jayapal, a progressive asked a great line of questions in regard to some of these students who are here in the United States on student visas and are essentially getting getting arrested in broad daylight for the high crime of writing an op-ed, critical of Israel. So we're way in on that. And then later in the second hour, we'll talk about Nancy Mace and ask, is she okay? I mean, there's a lot going on with Nancy Mace lately. And I don't want to minimize some of what she claims to have gone through, but I don't know if she's really going about things properly, or at least in a way that leads to empathy. understanding and more importantly, policy that would solve some of the issues that she claims

to be concerned about. So we'll talk about all of that in the second hour. But as always, just want to encourage you to like and share the stream if you're watching us live. Also, we do this every day, okay? We've got like a long list of polls that we ask you in every story. And sometimes we'll address the polls, sometimes we won't. But we do want you to participate in the polls if you're watching us live because we want to know what you think about the stories that we're covering. All right, with all of that out of the way, let's get to our first story. She wrote an op-ed. She wrote an op-ed. And I'm talking to you about her particular case. That's her lawyer's claims and your claims. Those are not the facts.

Reclaiming my time, you revoked her student visa because she wrote an op-ed. Would you revoke? We're going to do more. We're going to do more of them. Today, Secretary of State, Marco Rubio testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. And as you just heard from that clip, Progressive Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal grilled him on the arrests of students who are here in the United States with student visas. These are individuals who end up getting their visas revoked because of the fact that they were either part of some of the pro-Israel boycott protests on college campuses or because they simply wrote an op-ed in their student newspaper that called for the boycott of Israel as long as this brutal. The total war on Gaza continues. And so the person that she was asking about specifically there, of course, was Turkish national Rumiesa Ozturk, who we had shown you all a video of getting arrested in broad

daylight by masked federal agents because she wrote an op-ed calling for Tufts University to divest from Israeli companies as a result of this war that has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Gaza. And so the clip we showed you was midway through an extended battle between Jayapal and Rubio. I want to show you how it went down in the very beginning. So take a look. The State Department approved the revocation of a student visa for Ramiza Ostirk, a Turkish citizen who is a graduate student at Tufts University, apparently simply for writing an op-ed. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Secretary of State can override?

the first amendment protections of free speech. Is there a footnote that I missed? There's no constitutional right to a student visa. So it, but is there a constitutional right? Is it, does it say somewhere that Marco Rubio gets to determine whether which speech is appropriate and revoke student visas based on what you think constitutes free speech? There's a statute, there's a statute that says the Secretary of State gets to determine whether someone is a threat. We deny visas every day all over the world. So what you can hear Pramila Jayapal getting at in her line of questioning is, hey, listen, this is an issue of a student who is here on a student visa.

She is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment to share her opinion on these issues. And that is true. There is precedent on this. The Supreme Court in the past has ruled on this for people who are in this country, whether they're citizens or non-citizens, they are protected by the same rights, including the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Now, Marco Rubio continues regurgitating the same talking point over and over again. Well, Secretary of State holds the right to blah, blah, blah. Okay, but what I want to focus on here is the fact that she was specifically targeted, Oostrk was specifically targeted because she co-wrote what I feel is a pretty milk toast op-ed for the Tufts University student paper. And all she did by co-authoring it is co-sign on the idea that the university should

divest from Israeli companies because of the genocide that currently is taking place in the Gaza Strip. And for that reason, because of the fact that that type of op-ed offends a foreign government, the government of Israel, we have the United States government rounding up students who are here on visa for sharing their opinion. It's insane. So there was more. Okay, Jaya Paul asked Rubio why it was necessary for masked officers to do this. And here's what he had to say.

Why did the administration need to use masked, armed, unidentified agents to with somebody off the street and deny her counsel for almost 24 hours after arrest? Well, you'll have to ask the agencies that did that work. I'm not responsible that I'm responsible for the invoking the visas of these people that come to tear this country. I'm talking about this particular case where you revoked the student visa of a Turkish citizen, a Turkish citizen who was a graduate student who wrote an op-ad that you didn't like. And suddenly you allowed for masked men to whisk her off the street. And you have multiple jobs, apparently, you're the national security advisor as well.

So don't tell me it's not your job. Who snatches her off the street? We don't do the snatching, but I can tell you, we do the visa revocations, and we're going to keep doing them. security consequences of people, masked men on the streets, snatching people off the streets. If these are legitimate law enforcement agents carrying out proper arrest, why are they hiding their identities? Because then radical crazies will try to hurt them.

Yeah, look, Jayapal didn't buy that argument. I don't buy that argument at all. Now, Marco Rubio arguing that he has the right to do this, as it pertains to individuals who are in the country and pose a threat to national security. You need to show how Osterk is threatening American national security when she co-authors a milk toast op ed for Tufts University. Like how exactly is that a threat to our national security? It's not, obviously it's not.

Look, we all know what's going on here. Everyone who's actually honest and looks at the details of this story knows what's going on here. You have pro-Israel groups, non-profits here in the U.S. We don't know where they're getting their funding from. Let's just keep it real. They're putting together lists of people that Israel's offended by because they're sharing their criticisms of Israel. They go to the Trump administration. These are the people we want you to deport. These are the people we want you to arrest. And embarrassingly, the Trump administration is carrying it out, carrying out the dirty deeds of a foreign government. And that's my problem with this. Okay, that's my problem with this.

Because take the political messaging out of it entirely. Obviously, I'm very critical of Israel for obvious reasons. We talk about it on this show every day. But let's just take the politics out of it entirely and focus on, I guess, the act of the United States government arresting, deporting individuals who are here based on the desires and demands of a foreign government. That's what I have the big issue with. Let's say you have, I don't know, a Turkish national who's here on a student visa and they engage in some sort of protest against the acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide.

Now, I would find that deeply disgusting and offensive. I would. But the idea that I would sit on this show or sit in this chair on this show and cheerlead Armenia succeeding in convincing the American government to deport that student is laughable to me. I would never do that. I would never defend that. Because guess what? In this country we're Americans and we should be represented by an American government that seeks to serve us. An American government that seeks to do what's right for American and people within the borders of this country, but right now, we seem to have a government that is far too influenced by a foreign government, so much so that they'll target innocent

people who haven't done anything wrong. It's totally disgusting. And I want to jump ahead here because, you know, Marco Rubio is Cuban, Cuban American. I have a little bit of experience with Cuban Americans. My husband's Cuban. And Cuban Americans, especially. have very strong feelings about the current communist government in Cuba. Marco Ravio happens to be one of the critics. And I want you to take a good, hard look at what he purports to be one of his biggest values. When he's talking about Cuba, when he's talking about freedom of speech in a context that's convenient for him. Take a look.

The average person on the street cannot go on the internet in Cuba. It's not just a capacity issue, it is prohibited. In fact, I'm going to send out a tweet right now. Now, if I sent this tweet in Cuba, I would be put in jail, okay? And I'm going to send it right now as an example of what people in Cuba cannot do. You're gathered today for a cause that's much larger than yourselves. You are speaking freely for those in Cuba who lacked that right, who cannot express themselves for fear of persecution or harassment. Why would our allies or anybody be irritated by free speech and by someone giving their opinion? We are,

after all, democracies. The Munich Security Conference is largely a conference of democracies and which one of the things that we cherish and value is the ability to speak freely and provide your opinions. I mean, Rubio, if suddenly you've decided everything you've said in the past, including that last statement that you heard from 2015, literally he made that statement this year. If you're now changing your mind on all of that, then why don't you go serve as a government official in the very country that your family fled? You know, you seem to like that type of anti-speech authoritarianism.

So why don't you go to a country where that type of disgusting behavior is warranted, celebrated, protected? Because I'm not really interested in having foreign governments dictate what our government does to the people within the borders of this country. I mean, at least in Cuba, and I don't support this, but at least in Cuba, the Cuban government, violates the free expression of their own people because their own people might want to criticize them. Here in America, we could criticize our government however much we want. You criticize the government of Israel. Well, if you're here on a student visa, you better be careful. Because our government works for them. They barely work for us. It's just so embarrassing. And you could see it in his face, soulless, a man of no principles,

No morals, no values, just greed, obsession with power, ambition and careerism. That's not a public servant. That's an absolute clown. That's who Marco Rubio is. He doesn't grow his intellect. He doesn't grow his interest in serving the people. The only thing that's growing on that guy are his ears, literally. It's pathetic.

Anyway, let's move on. There's other news, including this. Do you want to see Israel take action against Iran, even if we are not, we don't have a role? What I want to see is Trump give an absolute warning, say within 30 days if Iran doesn't dismantle all of its nuclear programs, enrichment of centrifuges, there will be an attack. I would hope Iran would back away, and there wouldn't have to be an attack. But if there has to be an attack, let Israel do it. Let the United States provide them on

combusting bombs and B-52s. Well, it looks like Warhawk, like Alan Dershowitz, is in luck because the new intelligence shows that Israel is, in fact, preparing for a possible strike on Iran's nuclear. nuclear facilities, even as the Trump administration pursues diplomatic means to get a new nuclear deal to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. But as was the case with the nuclear deal that President Barack Obama secured back in 2015, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not interested in peace here. He wanted to torpedo the original nuclear deal. Unfortunately, he succeeded in doing that in Trump's first term.

And now as Trump tries to secure a second nuclear deal, you have Israel thinking, maybe we do a strike anyway. And then after we do a strike, what choice does the United States have? Of course they're going to help us. So let's get into the granular details here. The intel comes from multiple U.S. officials who are familiar with the latest intelligence, who caution, it's not clear that Israeli leaders have made a final decision. And that in fact, there is deep disagreement within the U.S. government about the likelihood

that Israel will ultimately act, whether and how Israel strikes will likely depend on what it thinks of the U.S. negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program. So there are multiple people who spoke to CNN for this story. And another person that's familiar with this intelligence that's been gathered by U.S. officials on this issue says that the chance of an Israeli strike on an Iranian nuclear facility has gone up significantly in recent months. And the prospect of a Trump negotiated U.S. Iran deal that doesn't remove all of Iran's uranium makes the chance of a strike more likely. So let's just talk about that briefly, because it's important to understand how these negotiations are going. Now, the United States

in Iran concluded their fourth round of negotiations over the weekend. They're going to continue talking. So this pursuit of diplomacy, which we should give Trump some positive reinforcement for, continues, and that's a good thing. But right now, the real sticking point is the fact that the United States doesn't want Iran to enrich any uranium at all, which is a problem, because Iran, especially under the original nuclear deal, was able to enrich some uranium for their energy needs. Now think about how things operate in Iran. Yes, it is an oil producing country, but oil is really the heart of their economy.

They export their oil in order to keep their economy going, and they want to enrich uranium, have like the minimal amount necessary to generate enough energy for their country. So it's not enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon, but it is enough for them to provide energy to the people of Iran. And so that's the sticking point. The Trump administration is like, no, no, no uranium at all, no enrich uranium at all. And Iran's like, bro, we need energy. So that's what they're negotiating right now.

Now according to CNN, the heightened concerns about a strike come not only from the public and private messaging from senior Israeli officials. officials, but also from intercepted Israeli communications and observations of Israeli military movements that could suggest that there will be an imminent strike. For example, Israel has reportedly moved some of their air munitions and has completed some military exercises and air exercise to be specific. Thus far, Trump has stuck to the policy of diplomacy. And guys, regardless of what you think about Trump, he should be given kudos.

for that because the positive reinforcement might work, right? If he does something that we want, that we think is a good thing, cheering him on might encourage him to keep going in that direction. But we'll see, we'll see, because Trump is easily swayed, he's very impressionable, he can turn on anyone at any given moment. So far he has resisted a war with Iran, but let's not forget, he is the one who ripped up the Iran nuclear deal in his first term. Trump is also the guy who decided to assassinate Qasem Soleimani, who was the top general

in Iran's military. And that could have led to, I mean, a full-fledged war, a hot war between the United States and Iran at the time. Luckily, it didn't. But Trump was definitely playing with fire in his first term. Going to war with Iran would be disastrous. And thousands of American soldiers would die if it gets to a point where we have boots on the ground. We must avoid war with Iran, especially considering the fact that we'd be getting dragged into a war with Iran, but by a foreign government, that would be insane. But let me give you some more details here. Now Trump has also publicly threatened military action against Iran if his administration's

efforts to broker a new nuclear deal fail. So I'm really concerned about that. Now negotiations are ongoing. They have stalled recently because of that conflict in regard to enriched uranium. Iran's leader has called the United States demand for Iran to not enrich uranium. You know, a big mistake. Now Trump's reluctance thus far to green light an attack against Iran may be the only thing causing Israel to hesitate.

Netanyahu wants to shut down any possible nuclear deal between the United States and But we shouldn't be surprised by that. I mean, he was railing against the original deal from the very beginning. But he also doesn't want to alienate Donald Trump. You know, he sees the American government as his puppet. He sees Trump as his dog that he takes for a walk now and then. The question is, is Trump gonna keep allowing Netanyahu to dog walk him? Or is he gonna be a strong leader that avoids wasting American lives and

American resources on a war that we shouldn't be fighting? That's the real question here. Jonathan Panikoff, who's a former senior intelligence official specializing in the region, says the following. At the end of the day, the Israeli decision making is going to be predicated on U.S. policy determinations and actions and what agreements President Trump does or does not come to with Iran. And according to CNN, Panikov added that he did not believe that Netanyahu would be willing to risk entirely fracturing the U.S. relationship he has by launching a strike without at least tacit approval. I don't, I think

he's giving Netanyahu way too much credit. I don't think that's the case. I think Netanyahu is willing to do whatever it takes to get what he wants. I don't think he cares about any relationships. I, you know, so I would not rely on Netanyahu wanting to remain buddies with Trump as the only way to prevent this war from happening. I think Trump needs to show that he is a strong leader who is not going to back Israel up if they try to drag us into a hot war with Iran. Now, one anonymous source argued that I think it's more likely they strike to try to get the deal to fall apart if they think Trump is going to settle for a bad deal. By the way, Netanyahu thinks any diplomatic deal is a bad deal. But this anonymous source, who I wish would come out

publicly with his name or her name is right. I mean, I'm more inclined to believe this prediction or this analysis as it pertains to Benjamin Netanyahu and what is likely to happen. The Israelis have not been shy about signaling that to us, both publicly and privately, totally correct about that. It has consistently been the Israeli position that the military option is the only option to stopping Iran's military nuclear nuclear program, one U.S. official noted. And look, if Netanyahu does move ahead with a strike, it looks like the U.S. may fall in line anyway, and that's what I'm worried about. And you think

Netanyahu doesn't know that? You think Bibi doesn't know that. You think the Israeli government doesn't know that the U.S. government will effectively be pressured into following along, into providing the resources, the bombs, essentially whatever Israel needs to continue fighting Iran. It's just, and look, according to one official, the U.S. has stepped up intelligence gathering to be ready, to be ready to aid Israel if its leaders decide to strike. So in other words, Israel might force Trump's hand. I mean, I don't necessarily think it needs to play out that way if they decide.

to launch strikes in Iran, I think it's totally fine and in fact the sign of a good leader to say, oh, you're trying to drag us into a war with Iran when I said I wanted to pursue diplomatic means. All right, go fend for yourselves. That's what a strong leader would do. Now, would Trump actually do that? It depends, who signed his last check. But let me continue. Another source close to the Trump administration says the U.S. is unlikely to help. So you get you have sources saying two different things, okay? So another source says, no, no, no, no, the US is unlikely to help Israel carry out strikes on Iranian nuclear sites

at this moment, short of some major provocation by Tehran. So there are some Democrats, by the way, I want to focus on them just for a second, because they're more concerned about the fact that this information leaked to the press. They're less concerned about the United States getting dragged into a war with Iran. And that individual is Democratic lawmaker Jared Moskowitz. Let's take a look. There was just a leak that is now national news, that Israel is poised to strike Iran. Where did that leak come from in the administration?

Do we know what department leaked that? Is that being looked into? Well, I'm not aware of the leak that you're discussing. I'm obviously, I wouldn't discuss intelligence matters and even verify whether it's even true. I also don't think it's a mystery, though. Irrespective, I'm not talking about the leak. I'm not coming about the news story that Israel has made clear that they retain the option of action to limit Iran from ever gaining a nuclear capability. Listen, that's fair. Israel's free to do what it pleases. Israel's a foreign government. I'm not interested in influencing Israel. I'm not interested in our government dictating what the Israeli people do. I see Israel in the United States as two separate countries. So if Israel wants to go to war, go right ahead, go to war. The real question,

here, Rubio, is whether or not the American people are going to fight and fund that war on behalf of Israel, as they did with Iraq in 2003. And some people get real touchy when that's mentioned, right? Because we're all supposed to believe that we did a preemptive war in Iraq in 2003. In response to 9-11, no, no, Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Was it for oil? No, actually, maybe that was a little bit of a factor, but no, that wasn't the main reason. It really wasn't. Why did we go to war with Iraq? Let me take you back 22 years ago when all these pieces were being published right before we went to war with Iraq. Now, if you're paying close attention, you know, these stories weren't widespread, but if you were paying close attention, if you were addicted to politics, you saw the pressure coming from Israel.

to invade Iraq. And it's just incredible to go back and read these pieces. Now I'm going to go to this piece that was written in February 27th, 2003. So weeks before we invaded Iraq with a preemptive strike. It's titled Threats and Responses, the Middle East. Israel says war on Iraq would benefit the region. They really wanted that regime change in Iraq. That's interesting.

With the Oslo agreement in tatters, the Israelis are now putting hopes in an American war on Iraq. Fascinating, Israel signaled its decision to put public pressure on President George Bush to go ahead with a military attack on Iraq, even though it believes Saddam Hussein may well retaliate by striking Israel. What's funny about that is that was what Israel was saying to the United States. It's like, you know, it really puts us at risk. They might strike us, you know, considering the proximity, it could be dangerous.

But there was other reporting showing that the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, did not feel that Iraq was actually going to strike them, but they didn't even have the capability to strike them if the United States decided to go to war with Iraq. And as we all know, our soldiers did have their boots on the ground in that country. More than 4,000 of them died fighting that useless war. In August of 2002, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's aide, Renan Gishin argued that US officials not delay a military strike in Iraq, arguing that any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose. It will only give him, Saddam Hussein, more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction. Yeah, Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. By the way, at the time, Israeli intelligence shared with the United States that

they believe that Iraq had chemical weapons, that they had bio weapons. And that wasn't the case either. Interesting. Okay. And how can we forget, Benjamin Netanyahu himself, even came to the United States in 2002 to pressure the United States to invade Iraq in a preemptive war. If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region. And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people and many others will say the time of such regimes of such justbots is gone there is a new age something new is happening the way to deal with terrorist regimes well with terror was to deal with the terrorist regimes and the way to deal with the terrorist

regimes among other things was to apply military force against them the application of power is the most important thing in winning the war on terrorism if i had to say what are the three principles of winning the war on terror it's like what are the three principles The three principles of real estate, the three O's, location, location, location. The three principles of winning the war on terror are the three Ws, winning, winning, and winning. The more victories you amass, the easier the next victory becomes. The first victory in Afghanistan makes a second victory in Iraq that much easier. Was there a victory in Iraq?

By the way, what's hilarious about this, and it's not hilarious at all, it's actually devastating, is the fact that while Israel was pressuring the United States at the time to invade Iraq, once the U.S. made that decision, you think Israel was allied with us and joined in on that war? No, no, no, they didn't. They're like, go, yes. Risk the lives of the men and women in your military to fight our war for regime change in Iraq. Have fun. It's just so utterly disgusting. So look, I give you that history, because the United States cannot be tricked into fighting another Middle Eastern war on behalf of a foreign country. I'm done with it.

Everyone in this country should be done with it. The anti-war rhetoric that was uttered by Donald Trump during the election cycle was appealing to people because of the fact that they do not want to continue. in these interventionist nonsense wars that just use up our resources and do nothing for the American people. So Trump loves to talk about what a disaster Iraq was. He should keep that in mind as he's being goaded into war with Iran. What does he want his legacy to be? Does he want it to be more bloodshed? Does he want it to be more war? And does he want to get dog walked by a foreign country.

One of our viewers wrote in, Savage Liu, says, instead of attacking Saudi Arabia and revenge for 9-11, Israel dog walked the State Department to attack Iraq. That's absolutely true. You think the Bush administration confused the American people and lied to them and made it seem as though Iraq had something to do with 9-11 on accident? No, he did that on purpose. And one more comment from Civic Folly 86.

These are our members. Thank you so much for supporting the show. Netanyahu fears an Arab coalition. That's the reason why Israel has backed regime change in Libya, in Iraq, in Syria. The list goes on and on. So let's be smart about this. The pressure should come from the American people toward the Trump administration to avoid a war with Iran. Full stop.

That should be the goal. That should be the objective. We'll see how this plays out. out, but I do fear that if Israel does a strike, the U.S. will get dragged into it. All right. Let's take a break. We'll be right back. What's up, everyone?

updated on what's currently happening with the House budget bill. This is the big reconciliation bill that has run into all sorts of issues because the Republican caucus is kind of divided between the fiscal hawks and the more moderate Republicans who won seats in blue districts. So, or blue states, I should say. So with that in mind, let's give you a sense of where they currently are with these negotiations. Let's get into it. Massey understands government. I think he's a grand standard, frankly. He'll probably vote. We don't even talk to him much. I think he should be voted out of office. And I just don't think he understands government. If you ask him a couple of questions, he never gives you an

answer. He just says, I'm a no. He thinks he's going to get publicity and you have that. There you have President Donald Trump once again attacking libertarian congressman Thomas Massey, who is not in favor of Trump's agenda. particularly the big, beautiful reconciliation bill that includes massive tax cuts in addition to hundreds of billions of dollars in additional spending for the border. Now Thomas Massey is one of those rare lawmakers who granted, I don't agree with him on a whole host of issues, but he's principled. He says that he's worried about the deficit and rather than just pretending like he's worried

about the deficit. Now he puts his money where his mouth is. And he's willing to take the attacks by all the people who I want him to vote yes, by voting no. And he's public about it, he's honest about it. And you know what? Even if I don't agree with his politics, I commend him for being a principled politician. And because he's a principled politician, all these attacks by Donald Trump don't work. Trump has tried to primary him, doesn't work. It just doesn't work because guess what? But Thomas Massey has proven that he believes in what he's saying, and he actually cares more about his constituents as opposed to, you know, carrying out policies that might be great for, you know, political donors or for the whole of the Republican Party. He actually cares about the deficit. Now, putting Thomas Massey aside, let's talk a little bit about where the current negotiations are as it pertains to the House budget bill, right? So this is the bill that includes the tax cuts and funding for the border.

So there are divides among the Republican caucus over the deficit and also healthcare spending. So the deficit hawks, and this is where of course I disagree with Thomas Massey considerably. He wants to see deeper cuts in programs like the Medicaid program. Okay, the far right members of the House Freedom Caucus want deeper cuts on social programs. programs. Now those cuts are highly unpopular. Cuts to Medicaid, deeply unpopular. Trump knows that. So he has allegedly told Republicans don't F around with Medicaid. So look, Trump, I don't think Trump actually cares about Medicaid. Trump cares about political popularity. And he doesn't want Republican voters in red states who might be on Medicaid to turn against him because his

big beautiful bill cut funding for state Medicaid programs. So there's the fiscal hawks, and then of course there are the moderate Democrats. And the moderate Democrats, A, don't want any Medicaid cut because of how unpopular it is, but they're also worried about the salt cap. What's the salt cap? Oh, living in California, I have a lot of experience with this. So there are state and local taxes. Prior to Trump's 2017 tax bill, you could deduct an unlimited amount of state and local taxes that you've paid in your federal taxes. So it has, now that Donald Trump's 2017 tax bill caps the amount that you can deduct at $10,000, a lot of people in blue states, because blue states, of course, are addicted to taxes, they taxed

the hell out of us, especially the regressive state taxes, sales taxes, I should say. They can't get enough, anyway, since usually it's blue states that have higher state taxes and local taxes, those states are the ones that are like really, really hurt by that salt cap. Now, there are Republican lawmakers who have one districts in blue states. And they're like, yo, homie, you got to raise that $10,000 cap. So believe it or not, House Speaker Mike Johnson wanted to bring him over and say, look, let's make a deal. If you vote yes on this bill, I will ensure that we will raise that salt cap from $10,000 to $40,000. Is he not merciful? Apparently that worked. Apparently the moderate Republicans in the House are like, all right, sold, we'll do it.

But the fiscal hawks ain't buying it. And Trump is getting super salty about this. So Trump has been meeting with the, you know, fiscal conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus and the Republican Party. Today, he did so yesterday as well. He's trying to kind of bully them into supporting his bill. Now, as it stands right now, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the current bill, as it is, you know, sitting at the moment, would increase our national debt to the tune of

$2.3 trillion over the next 10 years. So as you can tell, you know, the number keeps changing based on how the provisions are amended or changed. So Trump met with the House Freedom Caucus today to handle the holdouts. He says that failure to approve the bill will be the ultimate betrayal. And the House Rules Committee worked through the night to essentially push the bill passed a procedural test that would allow for a final vote on the House floor. But lawmakers were still debating its provisions this afternoon. They started the session at one in the morning. And by this afternoon, they were still negotiating. So obviously, a lot of disagreement within the Republican caucus. House Speaker Mike Johnson can only afford to lose two votes.

So there's obviously far more than two votes that are against, you know, the current bill. So that's why they keep negotiating this. Now some refuse to sign onto the bill despite pressure, including, well, House Freedom Caucus chair Andy Harris, who said the following in regard to Trump's bullying. There's nothing the president could tell me tomorrow that would change my mind at this point. I'm a hard know on it. It increases the deficit. We'll see. We'll see, Mr. Harris. Then you have Republicans from the moderate wing who, again, do have issues with some of the proposed cuts to Medicaid, which might be the reason why Trump allegedly said this to Republicans. Don't F around with Medicaid. Okay, so that was reported recently by Politico, and that's also according to two Republicans granted anonymity to describe private meetings with the president.

He said that he was focused on saving, saving Medicaid by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, echoing, comments he made to reporters outside the meeting. So I worry about that because we've seen the Trump administration cut important funding to critical programs and argue that they didn't, they didn't do anything wrong. They were just cutting out the waste, fraud, and abuse. I don't know. I'm worried that there's going to be deeper cuts than we even know about, and they're just going to reframe it as, no, no, no, no, no, this is just a cut on the But if they try to sell that to the American people, I don't think they're gonna buy it if they have family members or if they themselves are noticing that, you know, their state Medicaid isn't covering, you know, the procedures they might need, or certain benefits have been dropped from their state Medicaid program, or if they notice that they're not qualifying for it, if there are cuts and people are impacted by it and they're experiencing it in their lives, it doesn't matter how you frame it. They're gonna know what the truth is. And look, I think Trump realizes that, which is why so far he's been hands off with

Social Security and Medicare. But I think, you know, if anyone is under the impression that Medicaid is less popular, they'd be mistaken. So we'll see what the Republicans end up doing about this. But just to reiterate, some Republicans who are against this bill remain undeterred from voting no. Massey said he's unbothered by Trump's bullying and that he's still a no on the legislation. Massey also said this of Trump. I don't think he wants to talk about cutting spending, Massey said of the president's presentation to the House Republican conference. He just said, go after waste, fraud, and abuse. It means quit talking about it, freedom caucus. Trump probably wouldn't take off one beneficiary who's not an illegal alien or felon.

I mean, but why would he? Why would he want to take Americans? Why would you want to rip Medicaid away from Americans who need it? Like I, see, this is where obviously I disagree with Massey, but he's showing that he's principled because I'm sure he's catching a lot of heat from Trump on this. Nonetheless, he says, I don't think he cares about the work requirements. If he did, they would be real and they would kick in now. So what he's referring to is the fact that the work requirements for Medicaid would not come into effect, even during Trump's term. And so that might be on purpose to ensure that Trump doesn't face the political consequences of cutting Medicaid or the work requirements associated with Medicaid.

And Massey has a problem with that. So again, lots of disagreement, lots of fighting. But this is how it works, guys. This is how politics works. Not everyone agrees on everything, especially within the same party. So they're hashing it out to come with the come out with the right conclusion. And it's good that there are moderate Republicans involved. So the House Freedom Caucus and the far right wing of the Republican Party doesn't get

to monopolize what this bill ends up being. So for now, we don't know what the final bill is going to look like. But once we do, of course, we're going to give you guys the details. They're hoping to pass this bill before Memorial Day. We'll see if they managed to do it. But remember, they've got some obstacles in the Senate as well. So we'll wait and see what happens for now. We're going to take a quick break.

And when we come back, we'll talk a little bit about how the American people feel about the massive deficit that the United States is facing. We're 36 trillion dollars in debt. We're spending a trillion dollars a year now to service that debt. That is a problem. It is. So we'll delve into that and more when we come back. Don't miss it.

Okay, you guys are really, you're sending me some real bangers here. Okay, Navinix writes in in our member section and says, you've got to use the Sam Harris Meditation app to truly feel the positive reverberations of Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Hilarious. Art guy writes it, art guy writes it and says, I'm sure Anna knows exactly what the salt cap is. True, true, in more ways than one. All right, we got to get to our next story. Let's talk about deficits.

Cut taxes, even if the deficit increases. Look at this. 60% overall say cut those taxes, baby. What about Republicans? You know, they're the ones who are supposedly so concerned over the deficit. But even there, 74% say cut taxes, even if the deficit increases. That's amazing. Most Americans not worried about the deficit. And honestly, who can blame them? Because the deficit

hasn't really hurt us too much yet. Now, yet is an interesting way of putting it. Of course, Moody's just recently came out and lowered America's AAA credit rating, meaning that they have less confidence that the United States government will pay its debts. They're worried that there's a higher risk that the U.S. could default on its debt. That's pretty terrifying. Now, to be fair, this is the third time the U.S. credit rating has dropped. And the past two times, it was mostly symbolic. It didn't end up being a disaster. I believe 2011 was the previous, more recent time that our credit rating was lowered. But it doesn't really inspire confidence, Moody's did this in response to Trump's big beautiful bill.

They're worried that because of how much debt it will add to the ballooning U.S. debt, which is at $36 trillion, it's gonna make it more and more expensive for the United States to service its debt. Last year, we paid close to a trillion dollars to do so. That's a problem. And it's not something that most Americans are feeling yet, but it could balloon to a point where they're gonna feel it. So with that in mind, look, they're not worried about the deficit because what's hurting

them in the immediate environment is the fact that they don't have a lot of money in their pockets. This economy is crushing a lot of Americans and they want a little bit of relief. So the idea of paying a little less in taxes is exciting for Americans. And so I want to get into that. So here's how Americans felt like 30 years ago, American might have felt a little differently. So Harry Enten decided to delve into that polling from last December that showed how voters want the tax cuts regardless of how it impacts the deficit.

And that is a massive change from how Americans felt about the deficit only 30 years ago. All right. So things do change, and here's what I mean. Cut taxes even at the deficit increases. Now, you know, it's that 60% we spoke about. But back in 1996, the real last time where there really was a movement to bring that deficit down, bring that debt down, it was just 23% who said cut taxes even at the deficit increases. So we've nearly seen a tripling, far more than doubling of the percentage of Americans who say that we should cut those taxes, even if the deficit increases. And that's where we're standing right now, basically amongst the American public.

Who says 1996 instead of 1996? Harry Anton does. Look, I think Harry Anton does a great job with broadcasting, and I love that he delves into these polls and shows like the historical context, because yeah, things have changed. I suspect that things have changed because Americans are feeling more crushed by the economy today than they did in the past. I, and look, this is all speculation. I don't have evidence to back what I'm about to say up, but just based on my own personal feelings lately about taxes, Look, no one likes to pay taxes, like everyone would like to keep more of their money in their pockets, obviously. However, I'm also very much open to paying more in taxes if the money specifically goes towards social programs that improves the lives of my fellow Americans.

I want to improve this country. I want the lives of Americans to be better. Now, if there is a program, it's detailed, you know it's going to be well run, you know that there isn't a grift associated with it where nonprofits are going to leach off that money and pad their own pockets with it, I'm all for it. But where have our taxes been going? Really? I'm happy that there's a specific line in my pay stub that shows how much of my paycheck went specifically to Social Security, love social. security, it's a great universal program. We need to increase that cap on taxing income. So Social Security can remain solvent. But Social Security, great. Medicaid, great. But a lot of our tax dollars go toward pork barrel spending that I ain't got any interest in, that the American people ain't got any interested. But those programs or those little pork barrel things, like keep getting funded. We keep seeing our money go toward defense contractors, weapons manufacturers,

you know, the Pentagon, which can't pass a single audit, not one. They haven't passed a single audit, guys. And then compounding this issue for me personally is living in the state of California where we pay the highest taxes, highest tax state in L.A., it's the highest tax city and the highest tax date. And our governor, Gavin Newsom just announced, we have a $12 billion budget deficit. And unlike the federal government, states actually have to balance the budget. They have no other choice. How is the highest tax state facing a $12 billion budget deficit? You want to know what Gavin Newsom wants to do? He's going to get the state Medicaid program. This is his proposal. If you are so poor that you qualify for the state Medicaid program known as Medi-Cal,

he wants the recipients to pay $100 a month premium. You mismanage the state's resources and you're going to take it out on the poorest people in the state? Just absolute scumbag. So look, Americans would like to keep more of their money. money, likely because it'll help them with their own finances, of course, but also because they look at the government, they see where their money's going, and they're not happy by it. They're not happy about it. And I don't blame them. Who can?

Who can blame them? Americans keep paying more and more in taxes. They see their quality of life diminish. Who can blame them? Now obviously here I'm talking about working class Americans. When it comes to corporations, when it comes to the wealthiest among us, they get to enjoy all sorts of little tax breaks and deductions that ordinary working class people don't get to enjoy. And I think it's unfair that if we're going to pay taxes, oftentimes they pay a far smaller

percentage of their income in federal taxes compared to working class Americans. That unfairness needs to, something needs to be done about that. Obviously, you have lawmakers heeding the warning that fear mongering about the deficit is not going to play well with the American people. So I want to give you a sense of how they're messaging and what their priorities happen to be. So while Republicans want to cut Medicaid to lower the deficit, Bernie Sanders doesn't. This is what he wrote on X. There are 85 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured. embarrassing that that's the case. Republicans want to make a bad situation worse by slashing

Medicaid in order to give massive tax breaks to billionaires. Wrong. We should do what other major countries do and guarantee health care for all. Now look, there were various analyses done in regard to Medicare for all when Bernie Sanders was running for president. And I remember when a libertarian think tank came out with their analysis and it showed that a Medicare for all system was actually going to save like two trillion dollars in 10 years. So I mean, we pay more than any other developed country for our health care. And we get less. We have a higher percentage of our population that is underinsured or uninsured. Hakeem Jeffries didn't go nearly as far, but still honed in on the issue of Medicaid cuts, saying Donald Trump is on the hill to

demand that House Republicans and Medicaid, as we know it in America, they can all get lost. Oh yeah, you really, you really showed him. Now look, there are all other reports. I want to be fair here, indicating that Trump told Republicans in the House don't eff around with Medicaid. We'll see what ends up happening, right? I don't know who to believe, especially when it's anonymous sources, telling reporters that that's what Trump is saying behind the scenes. We also heard that Biden was pressuring Israel to do a ceasefire. And that turned out to be complete and utter lies. So I'll believe it when I see it. However, Alyssa Farah Griffin and Republican strategist, Sher Michael Singleton,

think that messaging is a dud as well. Why? Well, let's take a look. If there's kind of been so much posturing, if they're going to slash this, if they're going to slash this, until people feel it, I feel like it can kind of feel like empty noise from the guys. I agree 150%. And if you're a Democrat, I think you have to be careful here, because from Republicans, argue, we could frame this as if you're an abled body person, should that person go out and work? Most people would say, well, hell yeah, Kate, they should work. We're not saying that if you don't make enough beyond a certain threshold that you shouldn't still be able to tap into a safety net. But they've also got millions of people are going to lose benefits. They can lean on

that. They can, but I just don't know how effective that's going to be when the average person is saying, I'm working my butt off. Everybody else should also be out there working. You know, that statement from Sher Michael Singleton is pretty accurate, actually, right? I think that there's a lot of resentment right now among working class Americans who are barely getting by. And unfortunately, there's a lot of propaganda out there that makes it appear as though people are getting paid to be lazy bums and not work. It's important to know what the reality is, though, because that resentment unfortunately comes from a place of being misinformed, you know, of course you're always going to have bad people

take advantage. And but the important thing is you have to take a step back and look at what the trends are. Is this a wide scale issue when it comes to Medicaid recipients? And the fact of the matter is it's not. Now, unfortunately, more than 60% of voters, including 47% of Democrats support the idea of a work requirement in order to receive Medicaid. Work requirements are significantly more popular than straight up cuts to Medicaid, which is good, right? I mean, it's not good that people are like, look, I'm not against work requirements necessarily. I'm against the idea that Medicaid recipients are all like lazy bums who don't want to work and are taking advantage of the system.

Like I find that so offensive, especially because of what I know and what the data shows. And Americans are really hardworking people, generally speaking. Americans want to feel they have a purpose in life. They don't want to sit around and do nothing all day. Yes, you're gonna find examples of people who do fall under that category. But I'm talking about generally, Americans want to, you know, have a purpose of in life. So let's get to the work requirements and how they fare compared to straight up cuts to Medicaid. So just 17% of respondents said they supported cuts to Medicaid. 40% said

they wanted to keep spending unchanged and 42% said they would like it increased. So that might be due to misconceptions about the program. That's why I get irritated by this conversation or this whole debate, because guess what? A majority, 62% of the public incorrectly believe that most working age adults on Medicaid are unemployed. But they're not. So like about 40, I'm sorry, 64% of Medicaid recipients are either working full-time jobs or part-time jobs. The rest of the individuals who are not working are either going to school or they are caretakers for elderly or elderly family members or individuals who have fallen ill in their family. So the way that the work requirements are currently being proposed for this reconciliation

bill, you work what? 40 hours, I believe it was, for the whole month and you would qualify for Medicaid. Well, nothing would change. The only thing that would change if the bill passes with those work requirements is that there would be extra paperwork for recipients to have to file to get approved for Medicaid. And some people might have difficulty with that paperwork. Some people might have a difficult time navigating however their state sets up the bureaucracy in order to carry out that program in order to check to make sure they're working. And if it's too difficult, it might serve as an obstacle between them and getting the healthcare that they're entitled to and the health care that they need.

And that is what happens technically, or typically, I should say. Some states, by the way, don't want to do the work requirements because guess what? You have to prop up a bureaucratic system to process applications and do the checks to make sure these people are working. And that costs tens of millions of dollars. In Georgia, it costs $40 million, according to one analysis. So it ends up actually costing more in taxpayer money to do this work requirement program than not. So let's get to seven years ago where the state of Arkansas tried to implement Medicaid work requirements.

And here's how it turned out. The state used the requirements to remove 18,000 adults from the Medicaid rolls in just four months. Yet subsequent studies found that it had no positive employment effect. And when you take a look at who received Medicaid in 2022, let's take a look at that, look at that, 46% were either children or 65 years old and up, meaning they were elderly. Of the remaining 54%, only 6% were not working long term. That's just 3% of all Medicaid recipients. That was an analysis that was done using Census Bureau information back in 2022.

We'll see how this whole bill ends up, but it's definitely not going to balance the budget, that's for sure. But on top of that, I think what's being targeted by the Republican Party kind of shows you what their priorities are. I mean, there are definitely areas where we can save a lot of money. Maybe we stop, you know, funding foreign wars. That's one possibility. Maybe we allow our Medicare system to negotiate pharmaceutical drug prices. So American taxpayers aren't getting fleeced on pharmaceutical drugs. But notice how those are the areas that are totally being neglected when it comes to balancing the budget. Nickel and diming the American people on health care programs is pretty sick.

But that's what they're focusing on. And Americans don't care about the deficit. So there you have it. We gotta take a break, but when we come back for the second hour, we'll talk about the ladies of the view freaking out over Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's new book about Biden's mental decline. That's always fun. And then we've got some drama involving an unlikely figure calling out Donald Trump's corruption. We'll be right back.