The Young Turks - Playing With Fire

Episode Date: February 27, 2025

Framework For Trump’s Agenda Narrowly Passes In The House. Watch: MTG Says Federal Workers Don’t Deserve Paychecks. Stephen A. Smith Calls Out Hakeem Jeffries’ Weak Leadership. Exposed: Trump Administration Obscured Plan To Give Tesla $400 Million. Hosts: Ana Kasparian 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. I'm so upset. Oh my God. Would you explain what a jagoff is? The guy! Welcome to TYT, I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and you remember that $400 billion contract that Elon Musk was supposed to get from, well, at first it was reported that Trump was giving him. him that contract. Then that was later corrected to include that no, it was actually Biden,

who was willing to sign on to that kind of contract. Well, there's another twist to that story, and we're going to give you the details of that twist later in the first hour of the show. And yes, we're going to get into the details of the budget blueprint. House Republicans managed to vote in favor of yesterday. We're going to talk about the details and what I think is going to be the rug that gets pulled under Americans in regard to social spending on Medicaid. And honestly, I think Snap is really where they're going to try to cut the most. So we'll talk about all of that. In the second hour, John Iderola will be joining us to weigh in on some of the lighter

stories, including a fascinating TIF that could lead to a brawl between Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw and conservative host Tucker Crenshaw. Carlson. So stick around for the details on that cat fight. It's pretty incredible. But man, Crenshaw loves to be this tough guy until he gets confronted. And then all of a sudden, what, what, what? I didn't say anything. I didn't say anything. Just a little teaser for that story. All right. Well, obviously the biggest story in the news today is the budget blueprint that was just passed by House Republicans. So let's get into the details on that. Guys are 217, the nays are 215, majority voting in the affirmative, the concurrent resolution

is adopted. Not exactly a rounding applause after Republicans went through an inordinate amount of arm twisting to pass basically an agreement to start working on a budget. And that vote should scare a lot of people tonight, including millions of Americans who voted for Donald Trump. Indeed, I agree with that assessment. Now, President Donald Trump's big, beautiful budget bill, which includes massive tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the rich and cuts to critical programs that, of course, benefit the poor, has passed its first hurdle. With a 217 to 215 vote, House Republicans managed to narrow. pass the framework for Trump's agenda. This wasn't the final budget bill, but rather a budget resolution which instructs committees to come up with spending cuts that would theoretically pay

for Trump's tax cuts. But the math really doesn't add up at all. So here's what the Republican budget plan lays out. Budget resolution aims to cut at least $2 trillion in federal spending over 10 years. Includes at least 4.5 trillion in tax cuts hoping to extend Trump's 2017 cuts which expire at the end of the year and raises the debt limit by $4 trillion. While specific budget cuts haven't been determined, Democrats warning Medicaid, the health care program for low income Americans and those with disabilities is expected to be slashed. It's actually a lot worse than that. So why don't we get into the specifics of what Trump, along with Republican lawmakers is trying to ram through Congress.

First, the president wants an extension and possibly an expansion of his 2017 tax cuts. Major parts of those tax cuts from Trump's first term, of course, are set to expire. And look, most taxpayers, including working class Americans, will in fact experience a tax hike if Congress doesn't vote to extend them. However, extending them will cause quite a bit of money. Those provisions could add roughly $5 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, according to congressional bookkeepers. But Trump wants more and has ordered Republicans to include provisions

that would further cut the corporate tax rate from 21 to a mere 15%. He also wants to end taxes on tips, social security benefits, and overtime wages, which honestly, I'm personally open to hearing more about, but how those provisions are written really does make all the difference in the world, because look, you don't want a loophole that would allow high income earners to reclassify their salaries as tips. Trump would also raise the $10,000 cap on state and local tax deductions, also known as salt, So filers who live in high tax states, like California, can deduct more on their federal taxes. Just based on these taxes alone, these tax cuts alone, the price tag on Trump's budget would absolutely explode.

Together, the package could add as much as $11.25 trillion over the next 10 years to the United States' existing $36.2 trillion in debt. And that's according to the nonpartisan committee for a responsible federal budget. And Republicans also made sure to tack on additional spending for the defense department, even though Elon Musk and defense secretary Pete Heggzith have been pretending as if they're going to cut the Pentagon. The GOP has sworn off cutting the defense budget, $825 billion in fiscal 2024. And its reconciliation plan would actually increase defense spending by $100 billion over 10 years. So please explain to me how exactly, how exactly is it fiscally responsible for a country that just spent a trillion dollars servicing its debt last year to spend more while taking

in way less tax revenue? All right, Republicans want to pretend they can pay for all of this with deep cuts to programs that the poorest among us rely on. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, which controls the purse strings for Medicare and Medicaid, for instance, was issued instructions to cut at least $880 billion from the national debt over 10 years. So while there's no specific mention of cutting Medicaid in this budget blueprint, it does have instructions directed toward the committee that handles Medicaid, Medicare, Social

Security, essentially telling them you need to cut $880 billion. Gee, I wonder where the money's gonna come from. Now, while those cuts will absolutely devastate Americans who need these programs to survive, they still wouldn't close the massive gap left behind by Trump's tax giveaways. And if you're hoping that the legislative filibuster in the Senate will block whatever finalized bill Republicans hatch up. The reconciliation process only requires a simple majority of 51 rather than 60 votes. And I want to pause here for a second and really reiterate that. When Republicans want something, all of a sudden we don't hear a damn thing about the Senate parliamentarian.

We don't hear a damn thing about the legislative filibuster because they do what it takes to pass a reconciliation bill that only requires a simple. A simple majority of 51 senators, but when Biden was pretending like he wanted to pass important provisions in his agenda, you know, things like ensuring that there's paid family leave when a family brings a child into this world. Financial support for, you know, maybe the sandwich generation, they're taking care of kids, but their parents are also aging and they're tasked with taking care of their elderly parents and they're missing out on income as a result of having all this responsibility thrown on their shoulders. All of those provisions, oh, we can't do it.

We can't do it because we need 60 senators to pass these bills to pass Biden's agenda. And we can't do it because of that legislative filibuster. All of a sudden though, we're not hearing about a legislative filibuster. It's amazing, isn't it? It's almost as if the Democrats didn't actually want to pass those provisions as part of Biden's agenda. But the GOP still has a long way to go before legislation makes it to Trump's desk, because there are some serious cracks within the party.

Conservative hardliners want deeper cuts to programs that Americans across the country rely on. On the other hand, the more moderate Republicans know they'll have hell to pay once their constituents are denied Medicaid due to what's currently being proposed. Trump even got on the phone to pressure any Republican who was waffling on passing this budget blueprint. He called Tennessee Congressman Tim Burchett, Indiana Congresswoman Victoria Sparts, Ohio's Warren Davidson, and Kentucky's Thomas Massey. All of them folded, except for Massey. But Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massey not budging, concern about the overall costs. We are cutting taxes and we're not going to cut spending to match it.

So the deficit is going to go up. That's what this bill does. I gotta say, man, he might literally be the only principled member of the Republican Party. Doesn't matter how much Trump tries to pressure him. Doesn't matter how much the entirety of the Republican caucus tries to pressure him. Thomas Massey stays focused, he's on the straight and narrow, I might not agree with him, but look, credit where credit is due when someone actually has principles in Congress, because there aren't many people that I can say that about.

Now funny enough, Congresswoman Sparts was the one who talked a big game prior to the vote, declaring that I never changed my vote without changes in the rules or changes in procedures or changes in the taxes, never did and never will. She changed her vote. But it's easier to pass the framework of Trump's agenda without passing an actual policy bill, and the GOP hasn't done that yet. And to be sure, there are still some sticking points for House Republicans in Congress. For instance, moderates fear it's $2 trillion in spending cuts will force the GOP to slash

Medicaid benefits, a political third rail in toss-up districts. But hardliners say budget cuts don't go far enough. And while every House Republican fears the wrath of Daddy Trump, like the absolute weenies that they are, they're also kind of worried about the political consequences of ripping resources away from poor and working class constituents only to partially pay for tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest the most. Take Representative Juan Kiskamani from Arizona, who represents a swing district that heavily relies on Medicaid. Look, he should be panicking right now because he has a difficult

decision to make. Does he protect Medicaid for the people of his district by standing up to his colleagues, or does he screw them over by denying them health care? Now, Representative Jeff Van Drew from New Jersey, who actually used to be a Democrat, said that he called Trump to ask him to reiterate his pledge to not cut Medicaid. This is what Drew was, or referencing. Social security won't be touched, other than if there's fraud or something we're going to find it's going to be strengthened, but won't be touched, Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched.

Nothing. You don't have to. Now, if there are illegal migrants in the system, we're going to get them out of the system and all of that fraud, but it's not going to be touched. So Congressman Van Drew wanted Trump to repeat that, to basically ease the nerves of Americans who are concerned that resources will be ripped away from them, that Medicaid will still be intact. Now, Congressman Van Drew pleaded, quote, don't touch seniors Medicare, don't touch or don't cut Medicaid, because it isn't just for lazy welfare people, it's for real people.

That's the new Republican Party, a populist party, a party of working people, a party of blue collar people. Well, I mean, we'll see what happens. I think there might be Republican voters who think that. There might even be a populist Republican in Congress or two. Jeff Hawley in the Senate, you know, certainly comes to mind. But I don't know if I'm really buying that the whole of the Republican Party, I mean, the politicians are all of a sudden these big populace. Now, Trump didn't say anything at the urging of Congressman Van Drew, but reporters did ask Trump to weigh in on the possible cuts to Medicaid today. Here's what he said. The spending bill that passed last night aims to cut $2 trillion.

Can you guarantee that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security will not be touched? Yeah, I mean, I have said it so many times. You shouldn't be asking me that question. Okay, this will not be read my lips. It won't be read my lips. anymore. We're not going to touch it. Now, we are going to look for fraud. I'm sure you're okay with that, like people that shouldn't be on, people that are illegal aliens and others, criminals in many cases. And that's with Social Security. We have a lot of people. You see that

immediately when you see people that are 200 years old that are being sent checks with Social Security. Some of them are actually being sent checks. So we're tracing that down. Okay, so they don't want to take Medicaid away from Americans who need it and deserve it. They just want to root out any fraud within the Medicaid system and were to believe that there's $880 billion of waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicaid system, I'm really not buying it. The math just doesn't really add up here. And even if they managed to do that, which again, I'm skeptical, it doesn't pay for the tax cuts, not even close. And honestly, sorry, Jeffie Boy, the party you defected to has had its sights set on cutting Medicaid and screwing over the people that you say you want to protect. In fact, earlier this week when Speaker Mike Johnson was asked if he was willing to offer concessions to Republican lawmakers who were worried about slashing Medicaid,

he simply replied, no. To be fair, he also reminded reporters that the budget blueprint doesn't include any specific cuts to Medicaid yet. But the committee that controls the program is now directed to cut nearly a trillion dollars from the program over the next decade. No biggie, right? Now different Republican lawmakers took issue with other areas of the budget framework, including three Miami area members who apparently spoke to House Speaker.

Mike Johnson to demand that he reinstate funding to protect Venezuelan migrants who have temporary protected status, which prevents them from deportation. Trump has actually moved to end their temporary protected status, but the South Florida Republicans could lose support from their robust Venezuelan constituency if that happens. In addition to the dissent among House GOP, Senate Republicans are also on a completely different page. For one, they want to pursue two separate reconciliation bills instead of one big, beautiful bill that Trump prefers. There's also a great deal of disagreement among Senate Republicans in regard to the Medicaid cuts. Senator Josh Hawley told reporters that there are going to be

a lot of concerns over the Medicaid cuts. I realize it's just a broad instruction to that committee, but I think there will be concerns about that and what that may lead to. to. Political reports that Holly said he expected Republicans to support work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries, but reject any cuts that could hit working Americans. But how the hell will this fat tax cut bill be paid for? Senate Republicans also aren't committing to keeping the houses planned $4 trillion debt ceiling hike. Some Senate conservatives have warned they won't support a budget resolution that includes a debt limit hike, though most of the House's hardliners ultimately accepted it. Again, a lot of politicians love to talk a big talk,

but when push comes to shove, they tend to fold, especially when Trump is urging it. Now further complicating things is the fact that Republican leadership, like Senate Majority Leader John Thune, want a permanent, a permanent extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts, which is insane, but that wasn't included in the House's budget blueprint. So we're uncertain what the final bill is going to look like. We know that there is some infighting with Republicans, but make no mistake about it, right now at this very moment, for Democrats who are serious about the future of their party, and honestly these days I really question if any of them even exist, they should be doing what Senator Bernie Sanders has been doing. doing in touring the country, going to Republican strongholds to inform constituents about what is transpiring in regard to proposed cuts to these social plans, to these social programs

that help the most vulnerable among us. Look, I don't believe for a second that the majority of Trump supporters signed on to cuts to Medicaid. I think they agree that there is waste, fraud, and abuse, they want to root it out. In fact, the majority of Americans, including Democrats, agree that something needs to be done about waste fraud and abuse. But when they think about waste fraud and abuse, I'm going to go ahead and guess they're thinking about the Pentagon, which has failed to pass a single audit. They have failed seven audits in a row. They're probably considering the fact that our Medicaid system is being price gouged

by pharmaceutical companies, which have this amazing benefit of never having to negotiate drug prices with our Medicaid system because Medicaid is literally banned from doing so. How is that okay? Why are American taxpayers being price gouged through our Medicaid system by pharmaceutical companies? But those things aren't really being talked about, are they? So while all this focus is on cutting SNAP benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, I want to know, why aren't the Republicans focusing on where the real waste is? Why are they focusing on cutting programs that help the poor only to partially pay for tax cuts that will overwhelmingly benefit the rich. I don't know, I guess we're going to have to wait and see. For now,

let's take a break. When we come back, we'll talk about the cowards and losers in Congress, who basically have no plan, no strategy, and are now even being advised to roll over and show their soft belly to the Republicans as they dismantle government programs. We'll be right back. by the way, if you're a member, you can always write in questions or comments and we'll try to get to all of them during our social breaks. So you can become a member by clicking on that join button or going to t.yt.com slash join. But Diane wants to know how should she approach her hairstylist, who she says is an incredibly sweet woman, doesn't have a mean

bone in her body, but is under this assumption that so far everything Doge is doing is great. So look, I think that it is important to have these conversations and this dialogue and I think people are a lot less willing to listen to anything you have to say if it's coming from a place of anger or if you're, if they feel like you're judging them. So I think the best way is to approach it kindly and just ask her for specifics. Which areas are you happy with? I want to know specifically what Elon Musk has done that you're really happy with. But then, you know, find areas of agreement, but then bring up the areas of disagreement, kindly, don't be judgmental. And I think, look, my experience is when you approach people you disagree with in that way,

they're way more likely to listen to you and they're more receptive to what you have to say. So again, appear, you know, meet the person with grace. I think that makes all the difference. But anyway, all right, we have more news to get to. I'll read more of your comments in the next social break. For now, let's talk about Marjorie Taylor Green. Federal employees do not deserve their jobs. Federal employees do not deserve their paychecks.

And these are jobs that can be fired at will. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green, who is part of a pathetic and embarrassing branch of government that can't govern and has ceded power to an unelected billionaire, has the audacity to claim all federal workers, a third of which are veterans. don't deserve a paycheck. She made her disgusting comments while defending Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency, which has been anything but. Now, Green was responding to comments from Illinois Democratic representative, Raja Krishnamorthi,

who urged House Republicans to avoid the privatization of the U.S. Postal Service. So I want to be clear, what spurred her reaction is an effort to prove. protect postal workers. Postal workers. The ones who go out and deliver mail and packages to rural parts of the country, parts of the country that UPS doesn't deliver to, FedEx doesn't deliver to. Everyone loves the post office, except for, I guess, Marjorie Taylor Green, who doesn't think that those workers deserve a paycheck. Let's watch. Democrat colleagues across the aisle are complaining and pitching tantrums over Elon Musk and his Doge teams, cutting waste, fraud, and abuse from the executive branch in the federal government.

Claiming this is unconstitutional is an outright lie. Article 2 of the Constitution clearly states that the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America. President Trump exercised that power by appointing Mr. Elon Musk as a special, government employee. This is not unconstitutional. 72% of Americans, this is on both sides of the aisles, you guys. These are people in your district. These are people in my district agree that we need to cut the ridiculous amount of waste, fraud, and abuse because Americans, all of us together,

are $36 trillion in debt. $36 trillion in debt is what should be unconstitutional. Yeah, I mean, green is right. 36 trillion dollars in debt is a lot. In fact, we spent a trillion dollars servicing that debt last year. That's a lot of money. So she's right about that. Greene is also correct in stating that most Americans like the idea of rooting out waste fraud and abuse in the federal government. I mean, who wouldn't favor that? For example, a Harvard Harris poll released on Monday found that 72% of respondents support the existence of a government agency that focuses on cutting waste. Specifically, let's take a look. 67% of voters say the current level of US federal

government debt is unsustainable. I agree with that. 83% of voters favor reducing government expenditures over increasing taxes. I think taxes need to be increased in some areas, particularly corporate taxes. We have corporations like Amazon that are incredibly successful, incredibly profitable, and because of the Trump era tax cuts from 2017, get tax refunds from the federal government, I think that's insane. Now, 77% say a full examination of all government expenditures is necessary, which I also agree with. 70% of voters say government expenditures are filled with waste, fraud, and inefficiency. Democrats, 58% of them agree. 78% of Republicans say the same, and 75% of independents agree. And 69% support the goal of cutting $1 trillion of government

expenditures. But notably, this is important. That poll doesn't get into these specifics of what respondents mean when they're thinking about waste. And given the high favorability, Americans consistently expressed toward the United States Postal Service, I highly doubt. Those are the workers they want to ax. They're likely thinking about the Pentagon, which can't pass a single audit if their life depended on it. They've failed seven in a row. What about the fact the pharmaceutical companies are free to price gouge our Medicare system for the price of medication? Why isn't Doge fighting to allow Medicare to simply negotiate for

better drug prices so American taxpayers don't get fleeced? But I will admit that Trump is great at marketing. Because according to the same poll, 60% of voters think Doge is helping make major cuts in government expenditures. But that 60% might be a lot. an outlier because it hasn't been replicated in other polling. The Washington Post and Ipsos found that many Americans believe Elon Musk might be taking things too far. 52% disapprove of Musk shutting down federal programs that he deems unnecessary compared to only 26% who approve.

Other polling yielded similar results, only 28% believe Musk's role in the government is a good thing, according to a poll from CNN and SSRS published last week. When asked whether the space X CEO has too much power in decision making, 55% agreed in a recent Quinnipiac University poll versus 36% who said the billionaire has about the right amount. And over half, 54% of Americans surveyed by Pew at the end of January had a more negative take on Musk's Doge, while an Emerson college poll last week found that 45% disapproved of the job he was doing compared to 41% who approved. So when it comes to government waste, the devil is in the details.

But the details don't matter much the likes of Congresswoman Green. Not doing everything we can to save the American people their hard-earned tax dollars. You can protest all you want outside of departments of this government. You can protest all you want, but the American people disagree with you. You're protecting the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is not a business. Those are not real jobs producing federal revenue. By the way, they're consuming taxpayer dollars.

Those jobs are paid for by the American tax people who work real jobs, earn real income, pay federal taxes, and then pay these federal employees. Federal employees do not deserve their jobs. federal employees not do not deserve their paychecks and these are jobs that can be fired at will but you want to know why the american people can't pay for it anymore let's talk about federal government employees who don't deserve a paycheck because you know she seems to fail to realize that she's a federal employee that collects a yearly salary of a hundred seventy four thousand dollars and gets the best health benefits in the country and what

have her constituents gotten in return? Fundraising for her campaigns and performative shenanigans? Congress members work fewer than half of the days in any given year. But those work days account for only legislative days defined as an official meeting of the legislative body to do the people's business, according to federal

records. The House works about two days a week and the, oh my God, two days a week and the Senate works a little more that. You want to talk about who doesn't deserve a paycheck? Take a look at Congress. According to House records, the House of Rep, according to those records, the House of Representatives has averaged 146.7 legislative days a year, a year, okay? They work 146 days a year. Since 2001, that's been the case. But Green actually thinks she deserves more pay and she deserves to sit there and judge other federal workers and essentially make a blanket statement about how none of

them deserve a paycheck. But she deserves more pay. Get a load of this. Becoming a member of Congress has made my life miserable. I made a lot more money before I got here. I've lost money since I've gotten here. I have people come up to me and say crazy things to me out of the blue in public places that they believe because they read it on the internet or saw it on some news show about me. So it's not, it's not a life that I think is like something that I enjoy. You should resign. If it's so miserable, you should resign.

Meanwhile, the cuts Doge is carrying out are definitely gutting the federal government. Now, Dante Dantonio, who's a labor economist for Moody's analytics, told Fox Business that we currently expect that the size of the federal workforce will shrink by about 400,000 throughout 2025 due to a combination of the ongoing hiring freeze, deferred resignations, and Doge initiated layoffs. Now, who those federal workers are, what role they play, whether or not they're actually necessary to, you know, ensure that the federal government is functioning properly. We have no idea. But don't make the mistake of thinking taxpayers will enjoy massive savings.

Because as we shared with you yesterday, nearly 40% of contracts canceled by Doge are expected to produce no savings. Why? Well, because the money had already been allocated and spent. So it seems like there's a lot of smoke and mirrors in regard to the savings. a lot of cuts, more that are on the way, especially when it comes to the budget that Republicans and Congress plan to pass. And it's incredible to me how this woman who's part of a branch of our federal government that has been completely and utterly worthless in recent decades has the audacity to sit there and point fingers at others for being useless.

If anyone is undeserving of a paycheck, it's loser politician. like Marjorie Taylor Green. The idea that she should go after the post office, disgust me. Anyway, let's move on. Let's talk a little bit about the cowards and losers on the other side. of the political aisle. When are we going to let go at January 6th? We're going to let that go because he, I mean,

the man was impeached twice, convicted on 34 felony accounts and still reelected. I mean, at some point in time, somebody like Senator Durbin and others who was asking Pam Bondi about, you know, or were you willing to admit he lost the election? It's like, enough of that because the American people clearly have spoken, at least 77 plus million of them has spoken. He won the electoral college vote. He won a popular vote. He won the swing states, etc.

They've said what they've had to say. Sports personality and increasingly political commentator, Stephen A. Smith kind of went to war with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries over the many failures of the Democratic Party. And as you just heard, one of Stephen A. Smith's concerns is that Democrats rely too much on the same tired messaging about January 6th and how democracy is on the long. Now, you might agree with that messaging. You might actually think that those are genuine issues we should be concerned about. Okay, but you also have to acknowledge that it doesn't really resonate with voters.

It didn't work in the election cycle, it's not gonna work if Democrats plan to just lean on that messaging more and more in the coming months and years. And so let's see how Akeem Jeffries responded to Stephen A Smith's question. Well, I think in terms of January 6th, look, it's not something that the American people should ever forget. Okay. Because it was an extraordinary event. I was there when we were debating, as Congress does, the certification of the election. And we were told that a mob has breached the Capitol. They're on the second floor.

There are a few steps outside of the House chamber and hit the ground and be prepared to secure the gas mask. that are underneath your seats because they were people who were trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Okay. And this is the greatest democracy in the history of the world. So we can't forget January 6th. I'm not suggesting that it's a core issue moving forward in terms of how we are making our case to the American people. But we also can't ignore the fact that in one of his first acts, President Trump chose to pardon violent felons who brutally assaulted and beat police officers, but you are correct that the core issues that we have to connect with the American people on relate to making their life better.

How do you propose to make people's lives better, Hakeem Jeffries? That is the messaging that the Democrats have failed on, badly, okay? Like it's not that, God, it's so hard to even listen to him speak, they need a better House speaker. I mean, the House speaker should be a compelling speaker, but Hakeem Jeffries does not fall under that category. But aside from his presentation, what he's saying is also worrisome, because he wants to, again, lean on the same messaging that's not resonating with voters. Voters are frustrated by the cost of living, the fact that they can't afford housing, the fact the grocery prices continue to increase, they want relief.

What are Democrats going to do? How are Democrats different from Republicans when it comes to those bread and butter issues? I mean, at this point, it's hard to know because Democrats don't really talk about those things. They don't focus on those things. But anyway, Smith also confronted Jeffries about the Democrats' abysmal poll numbers. In response, Jeffries insisted that Americans will realize that they dislike Republicans more. So just sit back, let the Republicans devastate them, and then they'll come flocking back, I guess.

He also argued that Democrats are currently facing a messaging problem, you think? Let's watch. Well, it was a Washington Post poll that just came out earlier today, and it asked the American people, who would you prefer is in charge in the next Congress? House Democrats to serve as a check imbalance on Donald Trump or House Republicans who, you know, are going to continue to just go along to get along. And by 13 points, the American people said, House Democrats, I think it was 54 to 41. We clearly have work to do. But I also think that the American people are increasingly starting to recognize that in this country,

that we have, you need common sense public servants who are willing to try to solve problems to make life better for hardworking American families. And that's our commitment. And we're going to have to do a better job of convincing the American people that that is what drives us to make life better for every American and every single community in every corner of the country. How? Get specific. You guys need to get specific. Okay, like vague statements, about how you're looking out for working class people is not going to work. Get specific, but I mean that would require them to be genuine in wanting to improve the economic situation for working class Americans in this country.

That would require them to actually fight for those types of policies once they're in a position of power again. And every time we find them in a position of power, every time the voters do the work and get them elected every time we have a Democratic president and control of both the House and the Senate, all of a sudden we get all the different excuses for why Democrats just can't make it happen. And while Hakeem Jeffries is stuttering and having a difficult time messaging in a freaking interview, he didn't seem to have a problem, you know, raising money from a lobbying firm that does work on behalf of Elon Musk's companies and Peter Teal's companies.

Is that where all his energy is going right now? More fundraising? Because the money ain't going to save the Democrats if they've got nothing to sell the American people. Now, the problem is the party can't message anything if the party doesn't actually intend to do anything. That's the issue here. Now, right now, Jeffries is doing plenty for his donors. Yesterday, again, we told you about how he's raising money from that lobbying firm, but there's more. Earlier this month, Politico broke this story.

Hakeem Jeffries met privately with Silicon Valley donors and bid to mend fences. And we report on that story too, of course, because unlike pretty much everyone else in the media, we actually want to inform you guys about what's happening with both sides of the political aisle. Because quite frankly, the American people right now are getting screwed, and I'm real sick of the tribal politics that makes it appear as though one party is better than the other. in screwing them less. So let's talk about James Carville because we've been giving him a lot of credit for speaking out against how terrible the Democratic Party has been in recent elections, how they don't really

have leadership, how they don't really have a plan, how they keep pushing super unpopular, you know, social policies that people consistently say they don't want. Well, now I'm gonna take a little bit of that credit away because he penned an op-ed in the New York Times that absolutely made me sick. And I want to read a few excerpts for you. Now Carville knows that Americans are in for a lot of pain if Republicans accomplish what we're suspecting they want to do in cutting, you know, food stamps, Medicaid. Like if they do that, it's going to cause so much harm to people's lives. Carville acknowledges that. Here's what he says.

President Trump is hell-bent on dismantling the federal government, which will result in one clear thing. Disorder. There will probably be more enormous tax cuts for the wealthy and Medicaid cuts hitting a lot of other people, but there is nothing the American public despises more than disorder and a broken economy. But he basically advises Democrats to respond to this by letting it happen, by letting a Americans really suffer and feel the pain, so voters come flocking back to them, to the Democrats. There's nothing Democrats can legitimately do to stop it, even if we wanted to. Well, do they want to, Carville? I'm curious. He continues, with no clear leader to voice our

opposition, ouch to Hakeem Jeffries, and no control in any branch of government, it's time for Democrats to embark on the most daring political maneuver in the history of our party. Roll over and play dead. Do nothing. Do nothing. Okay. All right. Well, maybe he saves the argument. Let's see. What else is he arguing here? Allow the Republicans to crumble beneath their own weight and make the American people miss us. Only until the Trump administration has spiraled into the low 40s or high 30s and public approval polling percentages, should we make like a pack of hyenas and go for the jugular. Until then, I'm calling for a specific political retreat. Okay, and then what happens? And then what happens? So play dead, you know, don't fight them on anything. Let them, you know, give them enough rope to hang themselves with.

I get the argument. I mean, it's going to cause a lot of damage to the lives of working class Americans. But what happens then? Just when they've pushed themselves to the brink and it appears they could collapse, the global economy, come in and save the day. it. Be the competent party, he argues. Save the day, be the competent party. You won't win or achieve anything meaningful going toe to toe with the Trump administration right now. Who are the competent members of the Democratic Party? Can you explain that to me, Carville?

And for all the people watching the show who identify as Democrats, I get that it's hard to hear that. I have no ill will toward voters at all. In fact, my heart breaks for Democratic voters. I used to be a Democratic voter. I'm an independent now because I'm sick of how incompetent the Democratic Party really is. And honestly, calling them incompetent really is generous. Because in reality, they're not incompetent necessarily. They're just corrupt. So they'd be happy to sit back and watch Medicaid get dismantled or other government programs get dismantled while pretending like they don't like it, because they're funded by the same scum donors that fund Republicans, which is why every time Republicans accomplish something in their

agenda, like the 2017 tax cuts, Trump's 2017 tax cuts. Remember when Biden claimed that he was going to reverse the cuts in corporate taxes? Trump cut the taxes from 35% to 21%. Biden comes in, he doesn't say let's take the corporate taxes back up to 35%. He starts, his starting bid was 28%. And in the end, he didn't even fight for that because they love the tax cuts. The Democrats' donors love the tax cuts. So the idea that Democrats can sit back and do nothing, watch Republicans potentially cut incredibly critical programs like Medicaid,

and then when Americans are really suffering from those cuts, Democrats are going to swoop in and what reverse the damage that Republicans did in cutting Medicaid funding? Does anyone really buy for a second that they're going to do that? Because I don't, they have a proven track record of failing the American people. And that's why I'm so angry about what's happening in this country right now. Yeah, we can point to all the damage that's being done by Elon Musk, by Doge. We can talk about all the veterans who have been fired indiscriminately from the federal government.

We can talk about the fact that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which of course was the only cop on the beat, focused, hyper focused on big banks, has been dismantled. But I mean, who's the opposition? Where's the opposition party? Democrats thought they could lie to their base, engage in a cover-up, anoint Kamala Harris as the replacement to Joe Biden, and everyone was just going to suck it up and support them anyway. Okay, Biden promised a public option in our health care system, didn't even mention it once he got elected. Democrats think they can keep failing the American people again and again and again,

and everyone is just going to tuck tail and support them after experiencing the suffering that's been brought upon them by the Republican Party. But that didn't work in the last election cycle. They have to actually run on something. They have to communicate to the American people, what they intend to do, how they intend to do it, and then they need to accomplish it. And if they're not going to be willing to do that, they're going to keep losing. James Carville has made some good points in recent weeks and months.

I will give him that. But unfortunately, he's suffering from the same brain rot a lot of people in his age group are suffering from. And it's the idea that the Democratic Party of today is the same Democratic Party from literally decades ago. It's not. Okay, the money has flowed into their campaign coffers. They are paid to be useless.

They are paid to be weak in the face of the right. Republican Party. And unless we do something to root out that corruption and get Democrats to understand the money ain't even saving you anymore, they're gonna keep losing. And the idea that Americans should suffer in the meantime is pathetic. Now, if you want an example of a Democrat was actually doing something useful, Bernie Sanders, who's actually older than Joe Biden, is currently traveling the country, going to Republican strongholds, hosting, like, events that are so crowded that there's like a crowd waiting outside hoping to get in. And he's simply talking about his vision for this country and how Americans can organize and

fight back to make that vision come to fruition. He's empowering the people. In the meantime, losers like Hakim Jeffries are going back to their greatest hits. One Trick Pony, January 6th, threat to democracy. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It didn't work, but he's going to go for it. Again, loser, we'll be right back. EYT.com slash join, or you can hit that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. All right, I want to do one more story before we bring John in for the second hour. And this is a big, important update to a story involving a government contract to Elon Musk. Let's get into it.

But if there is a conflict of interest when it comes to you yourself, for instance, you've received billions of dollars in federal contracts. When it comes to the Pentagon, for instance, which the president I know has directed you to look into. Yeah. Are you policing yourself in that? And you can see, am I doing something that benefits one of my companies or not? It's totally obvious. I fully expect to be scrutinized and get a daily proctology exam, basically.

My soldiers camp out there. So it's not like I think I can get away with something. Well, you know, Elon Musk certainly loves to act like he's the king of transparency. You know, he's letting Americans know exactly what he's doing, how he's doing it, why he's doing it. But the story of Tesla potentially receiving a 400 million dollar government contract has even more twists and turns than we originally knew. Now new revelations indicate that Donald Trump and Elon Musk were in fact engaged in some incredibly shady dealings. So let's get into what the details are.

Ryan Grimm of DropSight News first broke the news of this contract originally, originally. He reported that the State Department's procurement forecast, revised as of late December 2024, lists Tesla as the recipient of the largest expected contract with Marco Rubio's department planning to buy $400 million worth of armored Tesla. The procurement forecast is listed as having been modified on December 13th, 2024, a month after Donald Trump's election. Now look, it was after Donald Trump's election, obviously, but he hadn't been inaugurated yet, he wasn't in office yet. It was, you know, still in the transition phase between Biden's White House and Trump's White House. But in other words, the State Department would have issued a contract

under Biden, not Trump. And I remember reporting the story, you know, at the time accurately, because everyone else in the media, including Rachel Maddow, was presenting it as if it was Trump and not Biden, who agreed to that kind of spending or grant toward Elon Musk's company. But the acquisition plan was set in motion by the Biden administration last year as part of a move to convert the Bureau of Diplomatic Securities fleet of roughly 3,000 armored vehicles into zero emission electric vehicles by 2023. And by the way, that made sense. I don't believe for a second that someone like Donald Trump is looking to have the federal government buy a bunch of EVs.

He's not really one of these people who has any concern about the climate emergency or anything like that. But there's another twist guys, there's another twist. Because NPR actually got a hold of the document that suggests Trump was, in fact, planning to reward Musk with significantly more government money. So let's get into the details on that, NPR has obtained a State Department document detailing that Biden's State Department plan to spend $483,000 in the 2025 fiscal year on buying electric vehicles and $3 million for supporting equipment, like charging stations.

So it wasn't $400 million, it was $483,000. It represented less than 1% of the hundreds of millions of dollars likely destined for Tesla vehicles after the Trump administration quietly revised a State Department procurement document. So Biden's State Department and Tesla had agreed to conduct research about armoring electric vehicles, but no money had been set aside to purchase armored Tesla. And while the State Department procurement document showering $400 million for Tesla, was alleged to have been published in December, it doesn't appear in the internet archive for that month. That's weird. So to sum up, as Ryan Grimm explains, quite the scandal,

Biden was prepared to spend a few hundred thousand dollars on Teslas for the State Department, and the Trump administration altered that to $400 million, then backdated the records to make it look like Biden did it. State canceled the contract after drop site news exposed it. I mean, special things to drop site news for doing journalism, which is hard to come by in this country, unfortunately. So that's what really happened. Okay, I can't believe, I can believe that this is something that would happen.

Of course, of course. How shady and disgusting is that? So was this an accident or intentional? A former Biden White House official familiar with the State Department's plans says, I don't think this is a clerical error. It was likely someone who is new in the State Department who decided, okay, we're gonna do this with Tesla. Guys, do you really think that Elon Musk poured in hundreds of millions of dollars into Trump's campaign coffers out of the kindness of his own heart? You don't think that he's expecting anything in return, namely federal government contracts paid for by the American

taxpayer. Of course that's the case. Of course. The FAA just yesterday announced a massive contract for Starlink. And look, again, there have been many federal government contracts for Elon Musk's businesses. But it wasn't in the context of Elon Musk essentially being the unelected president of the United States, which it increasingly feels like he is. Now, when asked about the deal, the Trump administration said it was put on hold. A State Department spokesperson says that the Department of State has no intention to move forward with the solicitation. Yeah, because you got caught, and luckily they backed off. But it seems like Trump's own lockies expected this kind of blatant corruption and wanted to get in on the robbery.

Take a look. Marjorie Taylor Green. She's chair of the Doge subcommittee. After she was named chair, she bought Tesla stock. How much did she buy? We don't know exactly because the House ethics rules just require members of Congress to report them in kind of broad ranges. So she made four purchases. Each purchase was between $1,000 and $15,000. They went to four different accounts. So the total is anywhere between $4,000 and $60,000 worth of Tesla stock. She had already owned some Tesla stock as well that she reported on, but this was a substantial pickup to her holdings in the company. And now, you know, she is working with Elon Musk

and, you know, he's been accused of slashing government to his own benefit there. You know, there was the reports that DOD had a contract to buy cyber to buy Tesla cyber trucks. So, you know, it does seem opportunistic in some ways to all of a sudden, you have oversight over this person running a government agency and now you are tying your financial well being to an extent to their company. So as House Republicans pass a budget blueprint that would potentially cut significantly cut Medicaid, you also have the federal government engaging in all sorts of nefarious trickery essentially to provide more American tax

dollars for Elon Musk's businesses. Pretty gross. We got to take a break. When we come back, John Iderola joins us for the rest of the show. We are going to talk about Jeff Bezos and the disgusting new directive that he just implemented over at the Washington Post. We've got a lot of other stories to get to. Come right back. I don't know. Oh,