The Young Turks - Trans People Targeted - September 4, 2025

Episode Date: September 5, 2025

Visit https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/TYT and use code TYT and get $50 in lineups when you play your first $5 lineup! Daily Wire reporter says the DOJ is considering banning transgender people from buying guns. Trump asks the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling on trade tariffs. On the PBD Podcast, Vincent Oshana explodes over the Trump administration’s handling of Epstein files. 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. All right, welcome to the Young Turks, the online news show, Jake U-Granic is with you guys. So I was watching an old clip and I remember that I used to start the show with absurd stories all the time. Do you have one right now? Yeah, just a little fun little one.

Okay, do it. So normally, you know, I'm a very careful driver, right? And like, well, no, not like. Careful is not the right word. You're more like a scared driver because you're afraid of your spatial reasoning issue. No, no, I'm just like, yeah, I'm a defensive driver. I'm fine, I'm very calm, right? He's a fun driver, yeah.

Yeah, so we go go-carting. I told the audience about it on the Operation Joy on Tuesday, a super random trip. And then so Joe goes with her mom the first time around, they do a double. And she's like, okay, yeah, that was fun. She's like, okay, next time I'll go with dad. I'm like, okay, sure, let's go. And then the problem is that once anything is competitive, I'm like, oh, it's go time. Oh, no.

It's go car time. I'm like, as joy, she's like, are you, were you scared a little bit? She's like, yeah, okay. Okay, so the last time I went go-karting was like maybe 10, 12 years ago, and I also am very competitive and there was a sharp turn and I crashed into a wall of tires. Oh, I did that several times, I got black flagged. Oh, okay, no, no, no, no, you gotta stop, you're crazy, okay, and in the second time around, that was the first time around without joy, second time with joy,

Yeah, I got Malachi crunch because I was trying to squeeze in between two cars. Oh, disaster. And she was like, Baba, that was my first car crash. Wow. Anyways, I tell you that because as I was driving in, I randomly thought of it, I laughed. And then I thought, you know, it's a little bit descriptive of the young Turks. Like if you are not crashing into walls. Yeah, if you're not used to the young Turks way of doing news, you'll come and first you'll have that emoji reaction of, right?

And then you realize, what, this is different than the ride I had before. Yeah, this ride is bumpier, more exciting, and of course, in our case, we hope a lot more true. So thank you for coming along on that ride, and yeah, it does get bumpy and scary sometimes, but that's the news and we try to have fun with it when we try to give you, do the very best we can with you guys to give you the honest reporting. I think we should do the Scott Jennings model of hosting together where we just do like a split screen. And every time you talk, I make super smug faces like.

Yeah. And you can do the same. Yeah, first of all, to be fair, I live in a glass house of reactive faces. Okay, like my facial reactions. No, no, but you're not, I really, I try really, really hard to be stoic when other people are talking because I don't want to be. Look, sometimes I am rude, but when they deserve it, and usually on Pierce Morgan show. But like, you're a grown man. Like, what are you doing?

No, he does it every single time. Yeah. So every time anybody's talking that it isn't him, let alone disagrees with him. Okay, okay, okay. All right, we gotta get to work. We do. All right. So unfortunately, discrimination at home, discrimination abroad.

You know what's coming. And we this starting a war with Venezuela is cray cray. It is. And then that unfortunately looks like it is happening. We're giving you some stunning details on that. And guys, I'm wearing my America Loves Palestine shirt. 100% of the profits goes to Palestine Children's Relief Fund. Check it out at shop tyt.com.

Wear it around. Make sure everybody knows American people are in favor of Palestinians. We're not like our leaders. All right, Anna. Well, today we begin with this. I've seen a lot of calls for action, you know, among these lawmakers saying that we shouldn't have been praying. One that I've seen on the right, actually, is calls for the FBI to institute a new class of domestic terrorism that involves trans ideology. Is that something that the administration

would support? I would have to check with the appropriate people on that. And it appears that White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt did check in with the White House on that, because last week, you just heard that senior reporter from the Daily Wire asking whether trans ideology should receive a terror designation. And it looks like now the White House is considering maybe banning trans people from being able to obtain guns. Which makes me wonder, which makes me wonder, Jank. How exactly would that work, right? When you have, let's say, transgender individuals, like Blair White, who's very convincing, okay, are you going to do a genital test? Like, Anyway, so here's what we know, Mary Margaret Olahan, who is the very reporter that you saw in that video, just reported today.

Breaking, the Justice Department is deliberating banning guns for transgender as part of a range of options blocking mentally unstable individuals from committing acts of violence. The Daily Wire has learned, and an anonymous DOJ source also told the Daily Wire the following. Individuals within the Justice Department are reviewing ways to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria, are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and well and well, and a DOJ spokesman would not comment on specific measures being considered, but said that a range of options is on the table. Now, do I think they're actually going to try to go through with this? I mean, I don't know. It seems like another squirrel that the Trump administration is throwing at us, but just for the sake of this discussion, I want to take this seriously, as if they're being serious about

it and they're literally gonna go out of their way to discriminate against one tiny group of people in this country based on a handful of shootings that happened or were carried out by transgender people. And we're gonna give you the numbers in a second, but you know what this also does? It divides the country, it directs hatred and bigotry toward one group of people in this country. It leads to the types of conversations that we're about to have, where we break down how many mass shootings are committed by straight white males and how many.

How many are committed by transgender people? I'm sick of having these discussions. Yeah. Okay, like, look, by the way, you want to put them in a designated like terror list or something? If you're on a terrorist watch list in America, you can still legally buy guns. Let that sink in for a second. Anyway, Jane, go ahead. Yeah, so lots of things here.

First of all, obvious discrimination. So if you're in favor of this, you don't believe in equality, period. And you can say, hey, I have my, I have good reasons. If you're a radical right, so I don't, I really, I really don't, I really, I really don't like those people, I just think that they're all mentally ill. Brother, I mean, if you're a fascist, there's some, I can make that same argument about you, which is going to be point number two in a second, okay? But no, but what you do, the argument you can't make is I want to treat everyone equally.

You're not, you're saying these group of people should have less rights, okay. Argument number two is related, be careful what you wish for if you're a right winger. Because once you ban one group of people for moaning guns, well, you just open that door. Now we could ban other groups of people from owning guns, okay? And we could do different things like, oh, you're doing it based on identity, trans, right? We could do it based on that, white males, right wingers, etc. You could say, oh, mentally ill, well, I think a lot of you are mentally ill, okay, boom, here we go, open another door, oh, they're domestic terrorists.

Well, I think that there's right wing domestic terrorists opened another door. So if you're in favor of the Second Amendment, this is actually a disaster for you. And you actually should, this is a shoehorn thing where the left, where the left is really bothered by discrimination against anyone, including trans people, and the right, this is opening the door big time to taking your guns away. So I saw a few people commenting about this on social media, media pundits, that type of stuff. And they were arguing, oh, this is a genius ploy by Donald Trump to get the left to defend gun rights. I don't know if you guys have noticed, but over the last few years, I've been pretty defensive about gun rights.

I believe in the Second Amendment. You know, we can have a conversation about some regulations. I think a federal background check is important. I think we should have that. But I think that some elements of the left do go too far in wanting to ban guns. It is a constitutional right. We should have that constitutional right. Now, it would be interesting to see those who are in favor of banning guns overall, you know,

coming out to say that, you know, coming out to defend gun rights specifically because trans people are being targeted. I don't want anyone targeted because of their identity. I don't care if they're trans, I don't care if they're white males, I don't care if they're from the planet, you know, Mars, it doesn't matter. If we have that constitutional right, it should apply to everyone. Now, if we want to have a conversation about certain mental health conditions that would make one more of a risk if they were to obtain guns, let's have that conversation. But to boil it down to one specific group, in this case, transgender people is pretty sick. And I see what they're doing here.

This is also a ploy to continue tearing the country apart. Make no mistake about it, that's what this is about. Yeah, so that's sort of the second thing I was gonna get to. First of all, once you start characterizing people as domestic terrorists, we're off to the races, right? So look, there's an argument to be made when they do a political manifesto and they say, okay, here, I'm going to kill all these black people in the church, or if you found someone in any category, trans, Muslim, whatever, and they're like, oh, I mean to kill all straight people are all white, people are Christians, whatever, right? Okay, you can make it argument. But the whole category,

all like anyone who by definition has done some violent act and is a trans person is a terrorist, that's crazy talk, right? Because now we're just going to label all each other terrorists back and forth. When a Democrat gets in office, all the right wings are terrorists. And remember when there was a report out from the FBI going, no, no, no, these are, we're actually worried about Domestic terrorism because they are organizing as groups, they are armed, and they are saying they're going to do violence, right? That's when the right wing was like, how dare you? You shouldn't call any America's terrorists. Now they're like, oh yeah, sure, let's do the trans people.

So again, brother, be careful the door you're opening. I thought you said you didn't want anybody to tread on you. By the way, let me also just be clear. Look, this story just broke. So I'm going to wait to see like a more comprehensive reaction from conservatives and the right. Initially, though, I did see a lot of, you know, Second Amendment defenders coming out and saying exactly what you're saying, that this is dangerous. And credit to them, because they can see that this does, in fact, open the door to the very thing that they want to prevent. So, guys, the political spectrum is starting to shatter, right? And I love it. I'm here for it.

I would even, people have argued that I'm part of that and I'm very proud of that. Because look, what do we care about whether if you're on the left, right, Democrat, Republican? Do you agree with this thing or do you not agree with this thing? Okay, and if you're a right winger who says on the grounds of the Second Amendment, I do not agree with this thing. I think it is wrong. Okay, great, fantastic, right? We agree.

This is not a thing that you should do. And I want you to note, by the way, whether you're on the right or left, here we are again in culture wars. I know. That's why I think this is intentional. This is intentionally done to just get your eye off the ball and just fight each other, to be honest with you. Yeah, because it's going to force us to give you stats about white males and how they could do the overwhelming majority of shootings. Just to point out the hypocrisy that it's not trans people doing mostly shootings, that's nuts, right?

But then, of course, like if you fall fully into that trap, then you've argued for months and years about who's more guilty, white males or trans people. Okay, you're right in the thick of the culture wars then, and they've got you perfectly distracted in exactly where they want you to continue the robbery. Listen, the horrific shooting that happened at that Catholic church last week. It was last week, right? Yes. Okay, that shooter was obviously, based on the evidence we've seen already, deranged, mentally ill. There were all sorts of problems with that individual, especially with what was scrawled across magazines and stuff, hated pretty. much every group you can imagine, you know, Latinos, Jewish people, it doesn't matter. Muslims. Muslims, everyone, okay? So this person clearly needed mental health care, like needed

help. There was something wrong with this person. I say that because if you are part of the federal government and you are genuinely concerned about your fellow Americans, you are worried about what is happening with shootings in this country, you would actually look for actual serious solutions. You would try to figure out, okay, what is the through line when it comes to these mass shootings? Well, a lot of these mass shooters have serious mental health issues. And rather than just talking about it every once in a while to prevent the conversation about possible gun control, how about these politicians who really have no interest in serving us, in looking out for us, have no interest in figuring out what's in the best interest of the American people.

What they do is they throw red meat, fight each other. Go ahead, plebs. Go ahead, fight each other. And we're not going to do anything to allocate funding for mental health care. Oh, you're drowning in debt. Sorry. We're going to help our private equity buddies snatch up all of the remaining residential real estate in the middle of a housing crisis. Our federal government is just garbage. Okay, Congress is useless. I don't even know what Trump is up to. It's complete and utter chaos. He's all over the place when it comes to his policies. He's talking to about how much he wants peace. And then he is essentially starting a war with Venezuela, a literal hot war with Venezuela.

What are we doing here? Don't get distracted by the red meat, okay? Your enemy is not your fellow American, regardless of what their identity is. Your enemy at this point are the politicians who are pitting you against your fellow Americans. That's what's happening right now. Yeah.

Anyway, do you want me to get into the details? Just give us one or two facts so people understand the context of who's actually doing most of the shootings. And look, as I give you the stats and the details, I just want to preface this by saying, I am not in favor of banning guns for anyone based on their identity, whether we're talking about straight white males or transgender people, okay? Now, is there an epidemic of trans shooters or is trans ideology a national emergency?

Well, there are some researchers who have looked into this, including Michael Jensen, the research director at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and the Study of Terrorism and responses to terrorism, this individual says no. Jensen's research has identified more than 1,000 mass casualty plots where the perpetrator clearly intended to kill or injure as many people as possible since the start of 2023. You can count on less than one hand how many of those were perpetrated by a transgender individual, he said. And we'll also take a moment to note that between 2004 and 2014, Suspected terrorists attempted to purchase guns from American dealers at at least 2,233 times.

Yeah, I mean, look, and 2043 of those cases in 2043 of those cases, 91% of the time they succeeded. Because it is very easy to purchase guns. Like, as we've talked about on this show, like one of the things that I do have a little bit of a problem with is that you can go to a gun show. you can buy a gun from the back of someone's truck without going through a background check. I'm not trying to be super restrictive. I just want to make sure that people who are bad guys aren't able to just legally buy as many guns as they want. Now, as for the demographics of mass shooters, according to data, dating back all the way to 2006, most mass shooters and accused shooters are either white, 38% or black, 29%, followed by Hispanic or Latino, 14%.

Asian Pacific Islander, 5% and Native American 1%. The remaining 10% are of another race or their race is not available. Furthermore, only 16 of the 492 deadliest mass shootings in the United States, just 3% are known or suspected to have been committed by a woman acting alone. Yeah, so if we wanted to ban people based on their proclivity to commit mass shootings, The number one group we would ban is males. Forget race, forget gender, I mean, gender identity, whatever, males, okay? Now, should we ban all males from having guns?

Well, you know, I'm for significant gun control, so don't get me started, okay? And I wouldn't keep it to males, I'd keep it to everyone. But my guess is the majority of the country will say, oh, hell no, that makes no sense. So why are you targeting the 3% instead of the 97%? That doesn't make any sense at all. And so guys, look, we've been honest from day one on all these issues and we've drawn the line where honestly the great majority of Americans have, but almost no one on the left or right has, which is, you know, we think that there's issues with transports and we

think that you've got to be careful with surgery before 18, et cetera, not careful, we shouldn't do it before 18, and all these things that, as it turns out, the polling indicates about where 80% of the country is. But we're also where 80% of the country is when you start taking in a way, rights from transgender Americans, right? So you can't take rights away when it comes to in, you know, whether you treat them differently in the military, whether you treat them differently when it comes to their constitutional rights.

And this is a, I mean, the right wing would certainly agree, this is a core constitutional right. Do you love this country and what it's supposed to stand for or do you not? Do you believe in our constitution or do you not? Because if you think that certain people should be, Or our constitutional rights don't apply to certain people just simply based on their identity, then you don't believe in America and you don't love our constitution. Yeah, and last point goes to one of our members, Wang John on t.com.

Alternative headline, DOJ considers taking away trans people's ability to defend themselves from violent hate crimes. That's a really good point, actually. And isn't it interesting? And that's why I love our audience. And I love that you guys are part of the show and smartest audience in the country. country. And because when you frame it that way, it makes you realize, oh, there is two different ways to frame the same story, isn't it? And it's interesting, the choices that people make, right? When it applies to one group of people, they go with a different headline. Another

group of people, wait a minute, 100% opposite headline. So in this case, yes, you could be talking about taking away the right of trans Americans to defend themselves, period. And that's framing that that is not good for the DOJ in this ridiculous effort to target our fellow Americans. Exactly. All right, well, we got to take a break. When we come back, we'll move on to some other news, including Donald Trump's efforts to take this tariffs battle to the Supreme Court. What does that mean?

What will the consequences be? That and more coming up, don't miss it. This episode is brought to you by prize picks. You and I make decisions every day, but on prize picks, being right can get you paid. Don't miss any of the excitement this season on prize picks where it's good to be right. All right, look, the football season is getting underway, and I love it, and I'm locked in on prize picks. For me, it's the perfect way to test your football knowledge against the projections. And I love to test my knowledge in politics and in sports.

So I was looking at the app this morning, and it was fun, it was simple. You're not dealing with complicated spreads. You're just picking if a player will go more or less on their projected stat. So if you're looking at Sequin Barclay and they're saying more or less than one rushing touchdown, well, I like Sequan a lot. Of course it depends on who's playing, but I got that at more. You're looking at Joe Burrow more or less than two and a half passing touchdowns? Oh, I love that one.

I'm going to go more on that too. But your call and you see how super easy this is. And if you get it right, you win money, which I also love. So look, I love this app. It's so simple. you just pick two to six player projections. If you get your picks right, you can cash it. It's the best way to get action on sports in more than 40 states,

including California, Texas, and Georgia. Prize Picks puts their users first so all withdrawals are fast, safe, and secure. Price Picks offers Venmo, Apple Pay, MasterCard, and more for quick and easy deposits into your accounts this football season. Prize Picks also offers injury reboots if one of your players leaves the game in the first half and doesn't return. Price Picks won't count it as a loss. So download the app today and use code TYT to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.

That's code TYT to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. Prize picks. It's good to be right. Tropical smoothie cafe welcomes you to Tropic Time. I'll be your concierge. Our beach bites, including meat-to-order wraps and bowls, are full of tropic vibes.

And our fresh from the blender smoothies make you feel absolutely radiant. It's like a wincellierce. wellness retreat for your taste buds. You're on tropic time now at tropical smoothie cafe. Got breakfast plans at tropical smoothie cafe hitting your protein goals as a breeze with our smoothies, bowls, raps, and deas featuring up to 32 grams of protein. I'm back on TYT, Jankanana with you guys. Also Laura Holmes' drunken monkey an Avery Maple.

Those are my favorite kind of monkeys. Totally. So it's literally what I was going to say. At first time I ever came to LA, I had a drunk, I think the drunken monkey drink. Oh, and I was like, oh, this is a magical place. Is there banana in it? Of course. And CDN Norse Dog Dad and Stanley Smith both gifted.

Gifted memberships on YouTube. You guys are the best. We appreciate you. Let's next day. We gotta talk about the tariffs. There's a big fight about it. We have trillions of dollars coming into our country. If we didn't have tariffs, we would be a very poor nation, and we would be taken advantage

of by every other nation in the world, friend and foe. We're not gonna let that happen, and we have a very, very big case in the Supreme Court. I can only say this, our country has a chance to be unbelievably rich again, but it can also be unbelievably poor again. If we don't, if we don't win that case, our country is going to suffer so greatly. You know, that White House is really suffering from the excess gold. What's going on there? Like, you like bombing Iran, but the White House looks like you're a Persian guy. Like, what's going on? Come on. Anyway, sorry, I just, I had to comment on the gold. I like brass fixtures in my home but like too much. Yeah, too much. That's Trump's middle name, too much.

Exactly, yes. All right, but let's get to the topic at hand, which is tariffs, much sexier than interior design. So the Trump administration is now officially asking the United States Supreme Court to weigh in on the legality, the constitutionality of his various trade wars, his tariffs policy, and he wants to do this after a lower court has ruled that his sweeping tariffs are, in fact, illegal. So Trump filed a petition late on Wednesday this week to ask for a review of last week's federal appeals court ruling. This is in Washington, D.C., which centered on his Liberation Day tariffs. The court found in a seven to four ruling last Friday that Trump overstepped his presidential powers when he invoked a 177 law to do.

designed to address national emergencies to justify his reciprocal tariffs. You know, I know this is surprising, but you can't just declare that there's a national emergency because you want to do what you want to do without dealing with Congress. I get that Congress is pretty much useless at this point, but maybe we fix that instead of have an executive branch that unilaterally does anything it wants. Again, they were not reciprocal at all despite his claims otherwise. So the federal appeals court said that U.S. law bestinely. shows significant authority on the president to undertake a number of actions in response

to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax. And it also said that many of Trump's steep tariffs were unbounded in scope, amount, and duration, and assert an expansive authority that is beyond the express limitations of the law, his administration has leaned on. In other words, this don't make any sense. That's what they're saying. Yeah, so it doesn't make a sense in a lot of ways, but this is one of the ones where I think the Supreme Court might cheat a little bit and give Trump the victory. So let me explain why they shouldn't, why this ruling is definitely right, and then why they might go in the wrong

direction. So first of all, Congress has the duty of imposing taxes, period. So that's a constitutional issue. And so that's why even this law that Trump is citing says the president can regulate but cannot impose taxes. Again, core constitutional power of Congress, not the president, right? So I know Donald Trump doesn't care about separation of powers. He said the other day, I'm president so I could do whatever I want. That's not how our system of government works. Number two, is there a national emergency around tariffs? No, of course not. It's absurd.

It's not even close. So that doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything. That doesn't mean you shouldn't even pass tariffs or these particular tariffs. But it means you have to pass them into law and then the president signs them. Not I felt like it because I have emergency powers to regulate. But that's where the Supreme Court might go. Well, you know, you say impose, I say regulate. So I think it's within his powers to regulate tariffs.

And Congress gave him that authority through this law, even though the law clearly says he cannot impose taxes, right? So, but they might use that as a way to go, well, okay, we're not going to let him do X, Y, and Z, get rid of due process. That's more important. And they're probably going to rule against him on a bunch of major, major cases because he's so outside the law and outside the Constitution. So they're going to want to give him one here because the optics of this is it feels like maybe the president should be able to do terror. and they're gonna be reluctant to reverse the fact that we've already gotten trade deals. So they're gonna rely on- That's a really good point. Yeah. I didn't think about that. Yeah, so now they're very wrong about it because of one of their own

precedents that they set to block Biden just a couple of years ago. So we're gonna get to that in a second. Yeah. So, but this is one where you gotta watch out Supreme Court could, like I said, go in Trump's direction, even though it's clearly not right by the law. Wow, okay, so the The appeals court paused its ruling, I should note that, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect at least until October 14th, so the administration could file its appeal with the Supreme Court. And Trump, of course, quickly hit back in dramatic fashion, claiming that, quote, if allowed to stand, this decision would literally destroy the United States of America.

Okay, look, it's hard to take this guy seriously. He even said that the US could end up being a third world country. I got news for you, it is increasingly looking like a third world country and the federal courts ruling on your tariffs policy has little to do with it. Yeah, because of massive income and equality that both parties have created. Now the martial law you're threatening by rolling in troops into our cities. You're the one third, ignoring the rule of law. You know, number one way to become a third world country in his terminology.

is to ignore the rules and the constitution of a country and turn it into some sort of autocracy, and that's what destroys countries. In the petition to the Supreme Court, let's get into some of the Supreme Court, Let's get into some of the details on that, which was filed on Wednesday night. The administration continued in this vein, saying that the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity. Your 50% tariffs pushed India into the arms of a foe, China. China, like, what are you talking about?

What is this? Like, okay, yes, world peace. Our tariffs policy is promoting world peace. Okay. saying that the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity and pulling America back from the precipice of disaster, restoring its respect and standing in the world. America is more isolated now than ever before. India was a long time ally. They're now like hitting up China to like attend the military parades.

And Russia and Iran. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Congratulations America. So the Supreme Court still has no, still has to decide, of course, whether or not to take up this case. Solicitor General D. John Sawyer asked the justices to take a, or make a decision by September 10th. But in the case that the lower court's ruling is allowed to stand, what exactly would happen? So let's get into that. The current average U.S. effective tariff rate right now is about 16.3 percent. That would be halved. Okay, would be cut in half. The U.S. could be forced to pay back tens of billions of dollars to, you know, the, because tariffs have already been, we've spent money on tariffs already. So obviously that would have to be refunded. And preliminary trade deals, Trump has struck with

some countries could be derailed. And what about revenue? So Trump keeps saying that his tariffs are going to bring in $17 trillion in revenue, which is. Come on, man. Jesus Christ. Come on. Which is absurd, $17 trillion would represent more than four times all annual U.S. imports or more than half of the total U.S. economy, it's more than double what the White House claimed over the weekend the tariffs were generating. So he just throws numbers out there without even thinking about it. So $17 trillion, okay. And that's, I mean, like that when he does that, I just going to say it was $8 trillion, I mean $17 trillion, you get a sense that maybe he didn't calculate the number. Yeah, yeah, recalculating. According to the Tax Foundation, expected revenue over the next decade would increase from $2.3 trillion to $547 billion if Trump loses his case at the Supreme Court.

And that is significant, but nowhere near the astronomical, you know, $17 trillion figure that he was touting. Now let's talk a little bit about, well, I'm gonna talk a little bit about some of the federal judges who are are worried about the Supreme Court being too deferential to Trump. But did you want to jump in, Jank? Yeah, I do. So first, I want to answer a question by one of our members. Kaylee wrote in, is it just muted as Trump get fast-track to SCOTUS unlike everybody else? No, Kaylee, on that one, it's very normal because the president is taking massive action.

And if it's illegal or unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has to step in. Well, the courts have to step in overall and stop it. And then the Supreme Court has to decide in a hurry, is this allowed on a national scale? were not allowed because when the president acts in this way and there's a significant constitutional question, they got to get that through the courts as soon as possible. So there's nothing wrong with that. But I love that you're participating in part of the show, t.com slash join to become a member and be part of the show.

All right now, look guys, you know how aggressive I am. So if one of our allies is in office, I say have added hoss, etiquette, don't care. Unspoken rules or unwritten rules, well, you should have written them down, okay? So I would push super aggressively to get bills passed that favor the American people. But I would never go outside the law. I would never go outside the Constitution because then you're defeating the purpose. The purpose is to protect and perfect America and to make it better and to serve the average American. And if you're destroying the Constitution to do that, it is counterproductive, right?

So now when you look at the Supreme Court in this case, there's three reasons why they should rule against Trump. One of them is legal and I think determinative. That's why I say the Supreme Court kind of has to cheat here to get to rule for Trump. But first, before we get to that, if they ruled for Trump, they'd actually, ruled against Trump, they'd actually be doing Trump a huge favor because these tariffs are going to drive up inflation. It's already begun, by the way. And it has. And so it's going to really hurt the economy.

So if Trump can say, well, I was going to do the tariffs and they were going to get a $17 trillion and they were going to, but the damn Supreme Court wouldn't let me, that would be a huge. favor for Trump, even though Trump doesn't realize, right? Maybe Trump's playing 3D chess. Yeah, a little less likely, a little less likely. A lot less likely. What's more likely is the $17 trillion in revenue from his tariffs. Okay, that's more likely than Trump playing 3D chess in this situation.

2D checkers is barely capable. Anyway, so the second reason that the Supreme Court might rule against Trump is because they usually vote in favor of corporate interests and these tariffs are against corporate interests. They don't like that. So now, in this is a rare case where corporations are kind of right, right? They're not just doing it for their own. Well, they are doing it just for their own benefit, but they coincidentally happen to be right. But Supreme Court generally cares more about corporate interests than political interests.

Hold on, I got to jump in on that, Jank, because it really depends on the corporation. Because the way that Trump sold his tariffs policy to the American people is not the way he's actually carrying it out. Obviously, he doesn't really care about manufacturing jobs coming back to the United States. In fact, we have less manufacturing jobs. In fact, a new jobs report came out, and hiring has slowed considerably. Our economy has come to a kind of a screeching halt. And now you have various companies basically warning consumers. Prices are about to go up because we've been eating the costs of Trump's tariffs.

But there's a wrinkle in this story, jank, that I don't think is being talked about enough. And that wrinkle is the fact that, you know, there are some corporations, there are some U.S.-based companies who got carve out. from Trump's tariffs. And so there's like some bribery going on with that, which disgusts me. But it also gives the companies who are bribing to get those carveouts an edge in the markets, right? Because they're able to offer their product for less because they're not, you know, having to pass off the cost of the tariffs to the consumers.

Yeah. So look, that's crony capitalism, corporate capture. Yeah, absolutely. All those problems. And both the voters of both the left and the right are sick of that. So finally for me, what is the core legal issue here? Well, the Supreme Court announced something called a major questions doctrine under Biden. And so Biden was trying to do student loan forgiveness.

And they said, no, if it's a major question of policy that affects the budget significantly, then it's a major question that has to be authorized. authorized by Congress and the president cannot do it unilaterally. Now the tariffs, the size of the tariffs, dwarf the student debt forgiveness. So they are much, much larger. So there's no question that it is a major question according to the major question's doctrine that the Supreme Court said as a precedent just a couple of years ago. So they would have to reverse their own precedent, which would then become comical. It would, total clown show.

We meant the president doesn't need authority if it's a major question. And so now are they going to reverse every time there's a new president? So I don't know how they're going to get around that one, but that would be a massive case of legal hypocrisy if they turn around and say this is not a major question because it clearly is according to their own standard. And hence has to be passed by Congress and cannot be done unilaterally by the president. Well, Vinnie from the PBD podcast is pissed. And when we come back, we're going to show you why. All right back on TYT, Jankana with you guys. Also Tara Carri-on and Thomas Hopkins, they're American heroes who hit that big, beautiful join button below the video on YouTube.

You guys can do it at t.com slash join. We appreciate it. We can't do the show without members. If you can, it makes a big difference. And you get all of our content whenever you want. All right, so we try to create win-wins all the time here. And we do that with our sponsors too. We try to find you good sponsors. We do the research and so that they can save your money and give you good services.

So in this case, chapter's a great example of it. So that you know the Medicare system is broken. Millions of seniors are on the wrong Medicare plan. And I found that out throughout my parents. Reason for most Medicare agents recommend plans based on the highest commissions rather than what's right for you. Chapter doesn't work for big insurance. They're independent and they work for you.

They're the only advisor that searches every plan nationwide. Call them today 805-201, 805-201-2275. 805-201-2275. It's fast and free. They can review your options in 20 minutes. Call the number on the screen today. I think they're gonna help you a lot and maybe save you all the way up to, Well, on average, $1,100 a year.

So that's a big deal, 805, 201, 2275. All right, Anna, what's next? Lots of fire and fury over at the PBD podcast. Not from every single member of that panel, but certainly from one. Pam Bondi, you lied to us. Exactly. You're the attorney general. You're the highest law enforcement, ma'am.

You think we're stupid? So obviously, to me, my opinion, that means the people that are involved are still hovering and circling around like vultures going, don't do that, better not do that, he's on this, we have a relationship with this. It's it, it drives me bananas. Yeah, our president, Donald Trump, is actually one of those, you know, guys basically telling members of Congress, it is a hostile act to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. So Vinny O'Shanna from the PBD podcast is not holding back, and I love to see it. He's continuing to call out the Trump administration for their obvious,

cover up of the Epstein scandal, which Donald Trump again has repeatedly dismissed and has referred to as a Democrat hoax. Now the conversation stemmed from the Epstein jail security footage, which you'll remember initially when they released it mysteriously had about three minutes missing from it. And this is when they released it back in July. Well, it turns out that the missing minute of footage at 11.59 p.m., the night Epstein died was actually not missing at all. It was released as part of the files made public by Congress this week, undercutting a claim that Pam Bondi had made. Pam Bondi made a really interesting claim. And now I'm really wondering what's her new explanation? Because she claimed that there was a

minute missing for this reason. Take a look. There was a minute that was off the counter. And what we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every year, every night. They redo that video. It was old from like 19. So every night the video is reset and every night should have the same minute missing. So we're looking for that video to release that as well showing that a minute is missing every night. And that's it on Epstein. It's amazing how effortlessly they lie to the American people.

Just make something up like she literally just made that up. Obviously she made that up because there wasn't a missing minute. They just released the full video. Why did you lie and why was that more importantly like why was that minute missing initially? And then it turns out it wasn't a minute. It was three minutes. Yeah, and then it turns out there's a guy in the video that is super curious. Yeah, and honestly, the fact that they cut that out now makes me wonder what's up with that dude?

Like who's that guy? Is there an issue with that guy? Like everything that they have done, look, there are so many Americans who didn't think that there was some conspiracy who thought anyone in. else who treated the Jeffrey Epstein story as some big conspiracy were lunatics. Those people are now convinced there's a big conspiracy for obvious reasons. You know, the only people not conversed is mainstream media, because every article still refers to it as a conspiracy theory that maybe they didn't release the right tape,

that the Epstein client list is being covered up. How is that a conspiracy theory? The women told you, yeah, there was many other men involved. and the government won't give you their names. We'll prosecute them. Yeah, I mean, you're supposed to be prosecute child rapists. The only thing that would make sense, the only thing that would make sense in regard to prosecutors refusing to prosecute the co-conspirators,

the other individuals who were literally preying on minors, is that they were Israeli and they allowed them to fly back to Israel. How's Tom Alexandrovich doing? Yeah. Anyway. So, but look, let me just real quick off that, right? So look guys, there's a lot of reasons why you should be mad about the Epstein case. You know, all those women, those girls who suffered it, and it's super obvious, right?

And then all of these distractions, I mean, that's not even the right video. The video that makes a difference is the one in the hallway. And they're like, oh, that hallway video that was in front of Epstein cell is not working. Golly gee, we do not have that video. No, it's not, come on, the conspiracies that he hung himself. and that there are no other clients, that's ludicrous. But I just want to make a really important point overall here. This isn't just about Epstein.

This is about do you trust the government or do you not? Does the government work for you or does it work for someone else? Someone else. Right, and that's why when people try to minimize this, and to Anna's point, it's weirdly, constantly people who support Israel that are trying to minimize the Epstein files. They're accidentally telling on themselves. I mean, I did a post today about Rokana, Marjorie Taylor Green, And Tom Massey, part of the story we're gonna get back to in a second.

They did press conference obviously with the Epstein survivors yesterday. And then a guy writes in, a usual one of the Israeli bots and trolls. Again, I don't know for sure, but he's the guy, he's one of the guys that's always in my mentions. I said, always defending Israel over the top. And he's like, oh, yeah, just because you want to blame Israel. I'm like, brother, I didn't say anything about Israel in the tweet. Oh, I love it so much. Okay.

I love it so much. I really do. And by the way, yeah, if there's evidence in those files indicating that a foreign government, whether it's Israel, whether it's Venezuela, whether it's Turkey, whether it's Armenia, whether it's Mexico, I don't care. Okay, I want to live in a sovereign country knowing that our politicians and powerful people in our country, including the donors to our politicians who control our politicians, aren't being blackmailed by a foreign country that has its own self-interest through

American foreign policy. Do you understand? Yeah. Do you want to live in a sovereign country or not? So that's why guys, when you see people minimizing and saying, oh, what's a big deal about this Epstein thing, right? They're trying to distract you because it's not like the the rape already would be enormous because hundreds, maybe over a thousand girls were raped, right? That's already like catastrophic and gigantic, right? But that's, the bigger issue is, are we in control of our government or aren't we? That there is no larger. issue than that. And so it's and it doesn't have to be Israel guys. We don't know. It could be the CIA, but if the CIA is doing this, we should know our own CIA doing this, we should know.

But no matter how you slice it, there's no question that there were hundreds of men involved, and none of them have been prosecuted and none of them have been named, our government is protecting the guilty. We have every right to know why, and that is not a little question. That is a central question. Do we have representative democracy or do we not? Yeah. Okay, so let's get back to the video that was just released. So not much can be garnered from that minute of footage. Although you do see what looks like a prison guard maybe walking around the area near Epstein's jail cell. And then the video released by Congress is also missing metadata, which would help confirm whether or not it's the raw report or the raw video. And here's the P.B.

crew like watching the newly released video in, you know, real time and Vinny's response to it. Look for the movement all the way in the back, top left corner. You see something moving back there? Okay. So this is the clip that they didn't release. This isn't a ghost, Pat? This isn't a ghost, right? Oh, okay. Just want to make sure it's not an apparition. Keep watching. What happens here? That's a good word, Vinnie. Thank you. Right there, who's that person? Oh, he's wearing all black. Oh, weird. Who's that? Nobody knows. Huh.

Nobody knows what happened there. You just showed a deal. So wait, that means Pam Bondi, you lied to us. Exactly. You're the attorney general. You're the highest long story, ma'am. That's what I'm. Pam Blondie.

Oh, yeah, my bet. And it's like, what are you? And Pat, I love that you said that. What? You think we're stupid? You think we're not? You think the nerds that are out there are going to take that video, put in AI, and say, you guys are freaking lying.

And he did also give props to individuals in this country who were trying to fight to get some transparency, so let's take a quick look at that. Remember, Henry Anton, the number, nobody cares about Epstein. Who cares? Who cares? No, no. I am so proud of Thomas Massey and Rokana from different sides of the aisle, not letting this die out. By the way, Thomas Massey, I hope has some security around him because he was just on Newsmax. Massey says, let me give you the name of one of the billionaires, John Paulson. He's a major donor to the Republican partner, a major donor to the Speaker of the House and a major donor to the president's campaign.

I don't know if he's starting to name names already. Wow, he said that John Paulson was on the Epstein list? I mean, he's on Newsmax and he's naming names. That is a significant development. Okay, so because now you're touching power because the donors are the actual power. The politicians are just, he's in Epstein's black book. Okay, he said it. Okay, so now, now it's going to be war.

So this is super interesting. And guys, this is what a fascinating turn of event. This is crazy. So I'm going to show you a video from yesterday's press conference real quick here. Rokana, Marjorie Taylor Green. Let's take a quick look. I actually think they're helping us come together as a country. I've never, I've never done a press conference with Marjorie.

Taylor Green before you know I've done some with us but look this is such this country is divided it exhausted it's this is one thing one thing that we can come together on now I want to introduce Marjorie Taylor Green thank you that was kind of an awesome moment I know that a lot of people will look at that and go oh boo I can't believe you guys are coming together no we should be divided and hate each other, even on issues we agree on. No, I love that. That was maybe the first true, like, visual of bipartisanship I've ever seen in my life.

There's a lot of fake bipartisanship. Totally. What corporate media calls bipartisanship, oh, corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans have agreed to another set of giant tax cuts for their own donors. Yeah, I'm not interested in that bipartisanship. That's the American people from the left and the right sending in their champions and going fight the establishment. We don't believe them.

We think they're lying to us and we want you to fight them. Now notice there's only three congressmen there. There's 535 members of Congress. Why aren't they all there supporting Epstein's victims? But they're not, there's only three who are willing to do this. And I think that number should be way larger. And so the fact that the voters are being to unite against the establishment, I mean, look, I've been waiting my whole life for that.

So it's, so there's a silver lining in this otherwise disaster story that we're all beginning to wake up together and going, I don't think the media and the politicians are being honest with us. And I love that we've got the people's champions in there. And Rokana from our side has done a brilliant job. All right, well, that does it for the first hour. When we come back, we'll talk about, you know, just no big deal. I feel like we're already at war with Venezuela, and it just has, it just has.

It's a huge story, so we're going to give you the details on that. Nobel Peace Prize. Yeah, seriously, when we come back. I don't know. I'm going to be. I'm going to be. B. B.

B. B'am. I don't know. I'm sorry. I'm going to be. I'm M. Bhop.

B. B'am. I don't know.