ICE Raids, LA Riots, Strong Economic Data, Politicized Fed, Iran War with Tucker Carlson

Summary

Podcast Summary: All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg Episode: ICE Raids, LA Riots, Strong Economic Data, Politicized Fed, Iran War with Tucker Carlson
Release Date: June 13, 2025
Duration: Approximately 1 hour and 42 minutes

---

1. Introduction

The episode features prominent guests Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks, and special guest Tucker Carlson. The discussion spans several pressing issues, including recent immigration enforcement actions, economic indicators, Federal Reserve policies, and escalating tensions with Iran.

---

2. Immigration Protests, ICE Raids, and Federal Response

Overview: The conversation kicks off with a detailed account of recent immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles. Following an ICE raid on a Home Depot fashion wholesaler, widespread protests erupted, resulting in significant arrests and violent confrontations.

Key Points:

• Scale of Raids and Protests: ICE conducted raids leading to 44 arrests, while protests escalated, with over 400 individuals arrested. Businesses, including Waymo, suffered vandalism and looting.
• Violence and Law Enforcement Response: Protesters employed Molotov cocktails, bricks, and fireworks against law enforcement, resulting in two charges for attempted Molotov attacks. In response, former President Trump deployed the National Guard and a battalion of Marines to assist overwhelmed local police forces.
• Official Reactions: California Governor Newsom and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass condemned the raids, attributing the escalation to Trump's policies. Conversely, Trump criticized California's leadership for permitting sanctuary policies that he claims undermine federal law enforcement efforts.

Notable Quote:

Tucker Carlson [06:07]: "The federal government has, as a core duty, the right and responsibility to enforce immigration law and police the borders... there’s a bigger threat than ever to the union.”

---

3. Immigration Policy: Debates on Deportation and Paths to Citizenship

Overview: The panel delves into the complexities of immigration policy, debating the merits of strict deportation versus establishing pathways to citizenship for long-term residents.

Key Points:

• Strict Enforcement vs. Compassionate Pathways: There is consensus on the necessity to close borders and deport violent criminals. However, opinions diverge on handling the remaining 19-20 million undocumented immigrants.
• Economic and Social Implications: Jason Calacanis emphasizes the importance of rewarding those who entered legally and contributing to society, while recognizing the economic role of immigrants in filling essential jobs.
• Proposed Middle Ground: Suggestions include providing stipends for undocumented immigrants to regularize their status within a set timeframe, balancing enforcement with humanitarian considerations.

Notable Quote:

Jason Calacanis [09:23]: "We have to prioritize the people that started by saying we're going to wait in line properly. And then there's people in the middle."

---

4. Economic Overview: Strong Data and Deficit Concerns

Overview: David Sacks presents optimistic economic forecasts, highlighting robust GDP growth and declining inflation, while Chamath Palihapitiya raises concerns about the persistent federal deficit.

Key Points:

• Positive Economic Indicators: Tariff revenues saw a spike of $23 billion in May, and CPI inflation decreased to 2.4%. The Atlanta Fed forecasts a potential Q2 GDP growth of up to 3.8%.
• Deficit Challenges: Despite economic growth, the federal deficit remains a pressing issue, with May's deficit at $316 billion and interest payments nearing $100 billion monthly.
• Future Projections: The panel discusses potential strategies to manage and reduce the deficit, including leveraging increased tariff revenues and possible interest rate adjustments by the Federal Reserve.

Notable Quote:

David Sacks [48:08]: "Growth is back, inflation is low... we're in the next 60 days going to have to reforecast the American balance sheet."

---

5. Federal Reserve Policies and Political Influence

Overview: The discussion shifts to the Federal Reserve's role in managing the economy, scrutinizing Chairman Jerome Powell's decisions amidst political pressures.

Key Points:

• Rate Hikes and Deficit Management: Jason Calacanis critiques Powell for politicizing interest rate decisions, suggesting that rate cuts could further alleviate the deficit.
• Historical Context: David Sacks references past Fed actions, comparing Powell's tenure to previous chairs like Paul Volcker, emphasizing the delicate balance between controlling inflation and fostering economic growth.
• Poll Predictions: Current polls indicate uncertainty over future rate adjustments, with a near-even chance of Powell implementing rate cuts in September.

Notable Quote:

Tucker Carlson [65:37]: "I don't know a single person who's got any kind of plan to fix it. I think we're just going to ride it into whatever the point of oblivion is."

---

6. The Big Beautiful Bill (BBB): Passage and Implications

Overview: The panel examines the heavily debated Big Beautiful Bill (BBB), analyzing its passage through Congress and its potential impact on the national deficit and policy landscape.

Key Points:

• Legislative Challenges: The BBB passed the House by a narrow margin and awaits Senate approval. With Republican senators divided, the bill's future hangs in the balance, especially concerning Medicaid cuts and fiscal policies.
• Public Support vs. Political Opposition: Despite internal GOP divisions, national polls show significant public support for components of the BBB, such as border security funding and tax cut extensions.
• Deficit Concerns: Critics like David Sacks argue that the BBB exacerbates the national deficit, advocating for delayed debates on budgetary reforms to address long-term fiscal health.

Notable Quote:

Tucker Carlson [75:06]: "This is not how to legislate. You shouldn't have a bill this big. It's impossible to get your mind around it. ... It'll be a decade before anyone understands what it means."

---

7. Foreign Policy Tensions: Potential Escalation with Iran

Overview: The episode concludes with a discussion on escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran, considering the potential for military conflict and its broader implications.

Key Points:

• Current Developments: Reports indicate partial evacuations of the U.S. Embassy in Iraq amid Iran-Israel tensions, causing oil prices to surge by 4%.
• Military and Strategic Concerns: Tucker Carlson warns against rushed military actions, highlighting Iran's alliances with China and Russia, and the risks of prolonged conflict affecting global oil markets and U.S. economic stability.
• Diplomatic vs. Military Solutions: Panelists advocate for diplomatic efforts over military intervention, emphasizing the dire consequences of escalation and the need for measured, strategic responses.

Notable Quote:

Tucker Carlson [90:20]: "If we go to war, Tucker's right. This totally screws everything up. ... I don't care, obviously, but it's a sort of measure of how little they have to say in response."

---

8. Conclusion

The episode wraps up with a light-hearted exchange and promotional discussions, maintaining the engaging and dynamic atmosphere typical of the All-In podcast. The panel emphasizes the importance of balanced policy approaches, economic resilience, and cautious foreign engagements to navigate the United States through its current challenges.

---

End of Summary

Transcript

[Jason Calacanis]

Can I ask a question about the nicotine pouches?

[Tucker Carlson]

Yes.

[Jason Calacanis]

Does it melt in your mouth or do you have to spit it out later?

[Tucker Carlson]

You can spit it out, you can swallow it, or you just savor it. I mean, you throw it in like you would a dip of tobacco.

[Jason Calacanis]

Okay.

[Tucker Carlson]

But you just let it sit there. And then it suffuses your nervous system with life giving nicotine. And it really does feel like the hand of God is massaging you.

[Jason Calacanis]

But does it feel like the high of smoking a cigarette?

[Tucker Carlson]

It's simultaneously, if you can imagine the Zen paradox, higher alertness accompanied by deep relaxation. So you really are. No, no, it's a Zen experience. You're like cat, like in your readiness, but you're fully.

[Jason Calacanis]

And how long does it last?

[Tucker Carlson]

I always have one going sometimes if things are, you know, if I need it, I'll put another one in. So I've got 18 milligrams of nicotine, but that gives me an unfair advantage.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

You're. You're banging 18 milligrams. That's impressive.

[Tucker Carlson]

I don't like to because it. Everybody else kind of recedes into the background and I become this kind of colossus when I do that, and I feel guilty about it. Hubris is inevitable at that point. So I usually keep it to one.

[David Sacks]

I mean, I could use a new addiction.

[Tucker Carlson]

Oh yes.

[David Sacks]

What's the gateway drug level? What would you prescribe?

[Tucker Carlson]

It sits between caffeine, micellar, three milligram. But you know, there's a transition like all, all great addictions. Like it's not instantaneous. You do vomit at first, but then, but then your body acclimates.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

It's kind of like heroin in that way, you know, like what you get or sempic, you just. You gotta power through ayahuasca.

[Tucker Carlson]

You heat twice and then you're addicted and then enlightenment.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Love, Tucker. Let your winners ride Rain Man David Savage.

[David Sacks]

And instead we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Love you, Queen of All. Right, everybody, welcome back to the number one podcast in the world after Tucker Carlson's amazing podcast. That's right, Tucker is back here on the all in podcast with Chamath Palia Hagpitiya, your chairman, dictator and the czar. David Sachs. Not from the White House, he's from the suite, but he's here, back on the program. Looking great. Look at the collar. Brioni. I ordered three or four Brionis after last week's show, guys. I did. I'm getting in the broni. Well, I have the all in expense accounts now.

[David Sacks]

What'd you call it? Broni Brioni.

[Jason Calacanis]

He'll be paying for it over 72.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Months, two monthly payments.

[Tucker Carlson]

The layaway.

[David Sacks]

You as a firm or klarna pay for that.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Hey, Tucker. Last time you were here, you famously, famously. Gosh, it's been a year of feedback on your last performance. Thank you for coming back. We got a lot of crazy feedback from the private equity housewives, but I got more feedback.

[Tucker Carlson]

I bet you did. They love me.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

But you know what? You're in. You're in deep. You're in deep because I am here in la and the Los Angeles studio wives group is really, really pissed off at you because they feel that they're the problem. They feel they're a much bigger problem than private equity housewives. So Hollywood studio heads, wives versus private equity wives.

[Tucker Carlson]

I know some of them and they're absolutely a bigger problem, but they're fewer of them.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Got it.

[Tucker Carlson]

Kind of hard to get critical mass. Yeah, exactly. They're a smaller threat. They're kind of an elite unit. You know what I mean? They're like Delta Force.

[David Sacks]

They have less money, too. They don't get as much in the divorce as these private equity wives.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Got it. So they're coming in like a SWAT team. If you want to send them in to deal with a very specific issue, great. But they're not going to cause as much bedlam globally as the private economy.

[Tucker Carlson]

They cause a lot of misery, though.

[David Sacks]

As one MacKenzie Bezos.

[Tucker Carlson]

Exactly.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Oh, my God. All right, listen, let's get a plug in here. All in Summit, fourth year. Tucker's coming this year, I hope. September 7th to 9th in Los Angeles. The goal, have the world's most important conversations. Yada yada yada, blah blah, blah. Apply for a tick. All in dot com, yada YADA YADA or allin.comsummit to apply for a ticket. Freeberg is out this week, so Tucker is here and my Lord, a lot going on in the news. Let's start with the immigration protests. Slash riots, slash ICE actions in Los Angeles. I'm actually here. Last Friday, protests broke out after ICE raided Home Depot, a fashion wholesaler. In total, 44 people were arrested by ICE, 10 times as many. 400 and counting from the protests. They even ran into ICE, that is ran into a strawberry field in Oxnard to just randomly pick people up. It seems at least a half dozen waymos were vandalized to burn, 20 plus businesses looted. And Waymo narrowed their area and it's spiked to 30 minute wait times. So that's a first world problem. Riders throwing bricks, Molotov cocktails, shooting fireworks at law enforcement. Completely unacceptable. Two men were charged with throwing Molotov cocktails at officers. Trump deployed the National Guard 2000 first, then 4000, apparently. And apparently there's a battalion of Marines here, 700 of them. Karen Bass, instituted a curfew downtown LA, 8:00pm to 6:00am and prosecutors, federal prosecutors, that is, are trying to identify hundreds of people. Newsom Bass denounced the raids, obviously, and they're blaming Trump for escalating the situation. Trump and members of the White House responded by calling out California's weak leadership. And now we have protests popping up everywhere else. New York, Chicago, Austin, D.C. tucker, you grew up in Southern California, I think I did, yeah.

[Tucker Carlson]

Louisiana and La Jolla.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I mean, are these riots more or less than a Lakers championship? How concerning are they to you? Who's to blame?

[Tucker Carlson]

Well, as measured by violence, they're less profound than what happened in 2020 after George Floyd died. They're way less dangerous than, say, the Watts riot or the Rodney King riots in la, but they're much more profound. I mean, it really does. There's certainly a bigger deal than anything can happen in Fort Sumter, for sure, which kicked off the bloodiest war in American history. The federal government has, as a core duty, the right and responsibility to enforce immigration law and police the borders. That's what the government is. That's what the federal government is, really. And so if you can test that, it is like a threat to disunion, fundamentally. I mean, I think there's a lot at stake. And we reached this point because a series of paradoxically weak federal governments allowed sanctuary cities to continue literally for decades, each one its own form of insurrection against the central government. And maybe, maybe you don't believe that the federal government has a right to pass laws restricting immigration. It's not in charge of the integrity of the borders. That's a kind of philosophical or constitutional case, I guess you could make. But most people accept that those are federal duties. And once you accept that, you can't allow states or municipalities to flout the law any more than you could allow Central High School in Little Rock to keep black students out or whatever. I mean, certainly federal troops have been called in for much less. And I think the longer this continues, the greater the threat of disunion, the greater the threat of reaching a point where you, I don't know, you can't drive from New York to la. We take a lot for granted in the country, and the main thing we take for granted, I think, is freedom of movement between states. But you could easily imagine that ending, like soon in the same way that you can't drive from. Cause I've tried from Sao Paulo to Rio in Brazil, pretty first world country. It's too dangerous to do that. You could easily see that happening here. So I think once the Trump administration commits to putting down the riots, to enforcing federal law by force, it kind of can't back away from that. Like, you know, and that raises the question, who's funding these? Et cetera, et cetera. And I think it's a really interesting question. We should find out. I don't think the only arrest should be on the scene. I do think the drug cartels are involved, flexing their authority in California. They have a lot of control in California, as I'm sure you know, et cetera, et cetera. But the bottom line question is, does the federal government have a right to enforce federal immigration law? Yes. And if states are out of compliance with that, it doesn't have any option but to force the issue.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Chamath, when you see this amount of paramilitary, literal military coming in, the dragging of handymen from Home Depot, as opposed to the strategic way this started, which was, hey, we're going to go after the felons, we're going after the gang members, the really bad folks. And then this time now it seems like, hey, we're just going to roll up to a farm, we're going to roll up to a Home Depot, just grab everybody. We'll figure it out later if their, you know, papers check out or not. Are you in favor of the, hey, all 20 million got to go. I'll call that the Steve Bannon position. Or are you into. In the 5% of illegal aliens who are criminals, they need to go, but maybe a path to citizenship for the other 19 million.

[Jason Calacanis]

I think the President was asked a version of that question today, Jason, and I think what he said is there are people that have worked, for example, on Farms for 20 to 25 years or they work in the leisure industry. And he said we have to take a common sense approach to those people, because if you do take those people, then it's creating a vacuum where these jobs could get filled by folks that are essentially criminals or other things. So I believe that that's a reasonable starting point. What I would say is, where do we go? There are seven and a half legal, not illegal, legal immigrants in the United States waiting for their adjustment of status. Those are doctors, those are lawyers, those are Scientists. Those are family members of existing American citizens. There's an entire body of people that I think we have to recognize that have been waiting in line and their first act in America was a legal action to come in and contribute. And every time we start this conversation, we go to the plight of people whose fundamental first action was an illegal action without understanding that there has to be actually a more balanced approach. So, yes, I think the President is right. Common sense for the folks that have now been here for a very long time. But we have to prioritize the people that started by saying we're going to wait in line properly. And then there's people in the middle. But I think that there needs to be a way to give those folks a chance to get their affairs in order to. But they should be playing by the rules.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Got it.

[Jason Calacanis]

And I think it's unfair to reward not playing by the rules.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Okay, so some middle ground between the extreme. All 20 million gotta go. And the.

[Jason Calacanis]

One example that I saw online, Jason, was give folks a stipend and a year.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yes, the stipend's been out there for a while. Right.

[Jason Calacanis]

To get their affairs in order. And then to.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Kaizen said that. Right, Kaizen.

[Jason Calacanis]

Kaizen said that. Exactly. And I think Kaizen's clip is actually the most. The most rational for the middle chunk. But I would really focus on these legal folks and say, what are we doing about those folks whose first action was to raise their hand, stand in line and say, I want to contribute by the rules that America sets up.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

So reward them and then punish the illegal folks coming in.

[Jason Calacanis]

Adjudicate everybody else or adjudicate everybody else.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Love it. Okay, Sachs, I'm going to play two clips right here to level this up. And we can kind of look at this in a multi decade way. Here's Reagan on immigration and then followed by Clinton. It is bold men and women yearning for freedom and opportunity who leave their homelands and come to a new country to start their lives over. They believe in the American dream. And over and over, they make it come true for themselves, for their children and for others. But their greatest contribution is more than economic because they understand in a special way how glorious it is to be an American. They renew our pride and gratitude in the United States of America, the greatest, freest nation in the world. The last, best hope of man on earth. All Americans, not only in the States.

[Tucker Carlson]

Most heavily affected, but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

The large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards.

[Tucker Carlson]

By deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws.

[Tucker Carlson]

It is wrong and ultimately self defeating.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

For a nation of immigrants to permit.

[Tucker Carlson]

The kind of abuse of our immigration.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Laws we have seen in recent years. And we must do more to stop it. Okay, Sachs, my question for you is on a party basis, this seems to have flipped. We talked about this before on the program. Republicans wanted immigration, NAFTA legal, even maybe an open border where workers could go freely back and forth from Mexico, kind of like the eu. And Clinton wanted to deport folks so that Americans could have more jobs and that wages would go up. Now it seems to have flipped. Obviously, you're inside the administration. Disclaimer. Disclaimer. However, you want to disclaim this. What's in the best interest of all Americans going forward. Because we have an interesting wrinkle here, which I'm sure you've been thinking about as the AI czar, which is jobs are going away in a lot of key areas where robotics and AI are coming in. So you have to contend with what the American people want and AI and job destruction or displacement that can be caused by it. So what are your thoughts generally? And obviously you work in the administration, so I want to give you that chance to explain personal versus administration position.

[David Sacks]

Well, my reaction is that you're doing everything possible to avoid the fact that LA is on fire right now and law enforcement is being assaulted by rioters who look like an invading army. They're rioting under a foreign flag. Yeah, you're showing clips of Reagan and Clinton. What the hell does this have to do with the fact that there are riots in LA right now?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Oh, I was trying to.

[David Sacks]

This is the issue at hand.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Oh, I was trying to level up the conversation to talk about the big picture of immigration. But if we want to get that.

[David Sacks]

Changing the conversation, I think that I'm.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Trying to expand the issue. Hold on, hold on, hold on. If you're going to accuse me personally of, like, having a scale here, I'm happy to discuss law enforcement. January 6th or this one. I believe you should not beat up cops. I come from a family of cops. You know that. We've been friends for over 20 years. My family is cop. My family is firefighter. We don't approve of throwing moral tough cocktails at cops, period. Full stop. I am insulted if you even insinuate.

[David Sacks]

That I didn't insinuate that.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

But you said I.

[David Sacks]

We have not discussed the issue at hand, which is you can feel free to go. Micro is burning right now, by the way. If you don't want to get deported, try not riding under a foreign flag. I mean, it's just a stupid way to advocate for your position if that's what it is. But that's the topic of the week right now. I don't know why you're trying to uplevel this and talk about what Reagan thought 40 years ago. It's just not relevant to what's happening in the news today. Now, you asked what is the quote, unquote, American position? If there is one, I can give you some polling on that. So first of all, voters approve of the ICE raids in Los Angeles by 55 to 37. That's plus 18. Voters support the administration's effort to deport illegal immigrants by 58. 37, that's plus 21. They approve of Trump deploying the National Guard by 20 points. 59, 39. Only 36% say the administration's gone too far, while 55% say it's about right or too little. So plus 19. And even the liberal Quinnipiac poll found that Democrats approval numbers are at a new all time low of minus 49, whereas Trump is now up to plus 6 in Morning Consult and plus 8 in Rasmussen. So I think the American people approve of what the administration is doing here. And just to fact check, one thing, you said in the introduction, you mentioned this fashion wholesaler that along with Home Depot, you made it sound like these raids were just happening willy nilly, like there was some big roundup where they were just busting into places and seeing who's illegal, checking people's papers. That's not what happened. This fashion wholesaler is a money laundering operation for the Mexican cartels. This is according to Tom Homan and many employees there are involved in very serious crimes, drugging and violence, murder, child rape. And there were warrants for their arrest. So the way that this whole thing started is ICE was serving criminal warrants that state and local authorities have no right to resist. That's how this started. It wasn't random roundups.

[Tucker Carlson]

Okay, okay.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I was just. There's reporting that Stephen Miller specifically said just he was disappointed with the number of people being round up and deported. And he said just go to a farm, just go to Home Depot. So I mean, that's the reporting.

[David Sacks]

Okay, well, I have not been able to confirm that reporting. I personally don't believe it. I think that what Tom Homan said is that they were serving criminal warrants. That's how this started. Okay? Now, I think that part of the reason why the Democrats are so unpopular here is they're basically perceived as excusing the lawlessness by saying that it's only happening because the Trump administration's daring to enforce the law. And so, once again, they're siding with looters, arsonists, and violent criminals, just like in 2020. And who's siding with this is Democrats.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Okay? Because the Democrats, they said no violence. So that was many times. Gavin Newsom said no violence. Karen Bass said no violence. They've been tweeting.

[David Sacks]

They also. Okay, great. They also are saying that this is all Trump's fault, that Trump started this. Bassett Newsom said that the National Guard wasn't needed because LAPD had everything under control. But LAPD was at first told to stay out of the protests. And when the violence erupted and that forced them to step in, they were, according to their own chief of police, Jim McDonnell, quickly overwhelmed. So this is McDonnell. He said, quote, we are overwhelmed tonight. We had individuals out there shooting commercial grade fireworks at our officers that can kill you. They'll take backpacks filled with cinder blocks and hammers, break the blocks, and pass the piece around to throw at officers in cars and even at other people. So according to their own chief of police, they needed the help from the National Guard. So that's the real issue here, is that Bass and Newsom had this policy of doing nothing and then engaging in denialism, pretending like there wasn't a problem. And then when the problem got too big to ignore, they pretend like it's Trump's fault for causing it.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Tucker, what's your thoughts on should the Trump administration have had such a show of force if the reports are true that they're randomly going to a Home Depot? If that is true, is that the right approach right now, or is it a little too provocative and they should do this more strategically, in your personal opinion?

[Tucker Carlson]

Well, considering that we have American troops in over 100 bases around the world in countries most Americans can't identify, it's a little weird to be shocked when on that rare occasion they're used to keep the second biggest city in the country from burning down, it seems like the point of having a military is to keep foreigners from burning your cities. And these are foreigners, as David said, they're foreign nationals committing crimes beneath a foreign flag. So that if there was ever a time to use the US Military, it's then. And as noted earlier, you can't allow the states to be flagrantly out of compliance with federal immigration law. And I have to say the core question for me as an American is, is really a fairness question. So the idea that people are breaking the law, but it's cool because they're doing essential services, like, well, I pay a lot in taxes. Maybe I pay 80%. And that feels like enough to me. And hey, man, do you really have a right to collect the last 20%? I mean, isn't 80% enough? Like, back off. I don't have the right to say that as an American citizen to an IRS agent. I wind up in jail if I do that or if I break any law, by the way.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

So rule of law critically important?

[Tucker Carlson]

Well, no, but not only that, it's a double standard. And I live in a place where a lot of the population subsists on food banks and where there are very few jobs. And it really is one of those places that NAFTA destroyed, whose economy NAFTA destroyed. And to see in the place where I live, immigrants get preference on housing, on jobs, which is actually true. And I know that liberals watch it will be like, that's not really true. It is true, actually. And I wonder. Cause the real number is not 20 million. It's closer to 50 million. I think that's true. Illegals in the United States, clearly they can't all be deported by ice. But I also think if you have a system that hands out meaningful grants, in effect, cell phones, travel vouchers, housing vouchers, free education, food stamps to people who are here legally or who are here legally as refugees, you are going to draw the world's poor. And I think it's fair to ask, do we want that? How do we benefit from that? And are we giving more to foreigners than we're giving to our own citizens? And the answer is yes. And like, how dare you, At a certain point, like, you get a revolution if you keep doing that. That's too much. It's too offensive.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Got it. So I think we all agree, no violence on cops, shut the southern border. And giving a crazy amount of. Hold on, let me just finish.

[David Sacks]

Do you think the National Guard should have been brought in? You like me, ask questions, don't you? Do you think the National Guard should be brought in? Yes or no?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

If the local police can't handle what's going on, of course they should be brought in. Sure. I believe that during.

[David Sacks]

I believe that during questioning that decision.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

You asked me the question. I believe they should have been brought in for January 6th for BLM or for the LA riots, if the local police can't contain them 100%, I believe the National Guard should have been brought in for January 6th when they were beating cops. I believe they should be brought in now if cops are being beaten. And I believe they should have been brought in during BLM when cops were being beaten. I am pro cop. I come from a family of cops.

[David Sacks]

So you can ask me the question seven different ways. So Newsom and Bass were out of line when they say that National Guard should not have been brought in.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I think. Well, number one, I think they should call the National Guard if they can't control it. I'm not.

[David Sacks]

But that's their criticism of Trump is that he called in the National Guard. You agree that that was necessary? It's obviously necessary. Just look at the tv. The city's still on fire. The cops are completely overwhelmed. By the way, I find it comical that.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Well, you're not letting me finish the sentence.

[David Sacks]

Well, let's finish this one point, then you can speak.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yeah.

[David Sacks]

I find it comical that the Massachusetts governor called up the National Guard when Desantis sent. Remember when he sent the 50 migrants over to Martha's Vineyard?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yes.

[David Sacks]

And they all freaked out and they literally called the national garden because 50 migrants all of a sudden had been flown into Martha's Vineyard.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

They did. Yeah.

[Tucker Carlson]

Okay.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

But was that too.

[David Sacks]

You can have thousands of them or.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Because there was riots.

[David Sacks]

Well, that was when Desantis was making a point about.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

But that was to process them. They weren't rioting on Martha's Vineyard. These were just.

[David Sacks]

Nonetheless, the National Guard was brought in. And, you know, you can have thousands of people, though, rioting in la, but somehow the National Guard shouldn't be brought in.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

We're in agreement. So you can try to force me to disagree with you, but I'm in agreement. Anytime the cops are overwhelmed, I think the National Guard should be brought in, period, full stop. So we're in agreement on that. What I'm trying to get to is, Tucker, if you believe there's 50 million people, let's say the number's 30 million. We split the difference between the two, 35 million, whatever it is. My question for you, how many should be deported by ICE at $20,000 a person, which is the estimate that, you know, both sides seem to agree is what it's going to cost. Should we deport a million? Should we deport 10 million? And then how, Tucker Carlson, would you deport them?

[Tucker Carlson]

Well, I think the goal has to be full Compliance with the law for everybody within our border. Citizen or foreign born, illegal, refugee, green card holder. If you're in the United States, you obey our laws, and if you don't, we make a good faith effort to enforce them despite how powerful the political blocs.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

So you're 50 million.

[Tucker Carlson]

So. Well, by definition, or else why wouldn't I apply that same standard to my taxes? Right, but how do you do it?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Half citizenship. Yeah, let's get into that.

[Tucker Carlson]

Right. So. Well, that's a hostage situation. It's like we've got 50 million here already. We've lied about the number for 30 years now. Wow, it's 50 million or 35 million. We need them. Everyone gets a path to citizenship. You know, that's a kind of crime, actually. But the first step, and the phrase has been devalued, but self deportation. If you have a system where people come to the United States to make their own way and take advantage of the freedoms offered and the economy, they're allowed to participate in the economy. Then I think you could have a system where people really admire immigrants in the way that they did when I was growing up. And that I still do in some ways. I mean, some of my favorite people are immigrants and they all tell the same story. Came here with nothing, built this great life. But you make everybody cynical and you sort of destroy the idea of the virtue of immigration when you hand people stuff and give them preference when they arrive. And we don't talk enough about what that actually looks like. We spend a lot, 20 grand a person right now in subsidies to people who aren't even allowed to be here.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Pay into Social Security too. Right? To the tune of 100 million years. Okay, no, that's just what was reported by our government. If we wanna get Conspiracy corner, that's not fake.

[Tucker Carlson]

I think those are fake numbers. Look, does anybody really believe that 50 million illegals is a net benefit to the US economy? Are you serious? Have you been to our cities? No, of course not. It's not.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I actually mean probably a large number of them are a net benefit because they're working in jobs that Americans don't wanna take. And we're at 4% unemployment, so who's gonna take all those jobs if they get deported? Tucker.

[Tucker Carlson]

But weren't you just saying that we're on the cusp of. Of a labor revolution where some 20% of American jobs are going away in two years?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Well, that could be. Yeah. So that's the nuance in this discussion is 5 years ago we might yelling at the Nuance.

[Tucker Carlson]

It's like a brick wall we're about to hit at high speed. And I don't understand, having accustomed an entire generation of tens of millions of immigrants to government handouts, what the social fabric is gonna look like when that stops.

[Jason Calacanis]

Yeah. Can I say something? Because I need in here. Jamba Tucker's saying something really important, which I agree with. What should immigration be in a highly developed nation like the United States? My perspective is you have to come and say, well, what is the goal? I think the goal should be to maintain supremacy. The United States is the most vibrant economy in the world. It's the most important military power in the world. It's the most technically advanced entity in the world. If we do not focus on maintaining our supremacy, I don't think any American wants to go through the process of going from first to not first. And if you look back in history at all of the other countries that have had to go through that transition, that is where revolutions and chaos happen. So we should avoid that. So where does immigration play a role? It needs to play a role first and foremost in technical, military, and economic supremacy. The problem, as Tucker says, is when you have five or six times the number of illegal immigrants as legal immigrants, all of a sudden, the idea of using immigration as a cream skimming technique to reinforce the most capable people in the world to come here goes away. Because you can't have that conversation. We have people languishing for 10, 15, 20 years on visas. Okay. Their kids age out. They all go back to India and other places. Why? Because we can't focus on that conversation, Jason, because we're focused on how do we give amnesty to folks whose initial action was breaking the law.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Absolutely correct.

[Jason Calacanis]

And this is where the whole immigration conversation devolves. We are missing the bigger picture. And you need to deal. One second, you need to deal with. With the illegal immigration thing in an extremely foundational way where you can defend the decision you started illegally and you have to now go and conform to.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

The law, which is where I'm trying to steer this discussion. Number one, we all agree on closing the border. It seems like there's a breaking consensus here. Tucker wants to eventually deport everybody. You want to do something in the middle like Trump Sachs. I'm not sure what your personal position is or if you want to give it. Do you feel we should try to have a path to deport as many of these 20, 30 million as possible, or do you believe we should have a path towards citizenship for them? What's your personal belief or do you want to not give?

[David Sacks]

Well, I remember when you asked that question to now Vice President J.D. vance at all in Summit, and he said that you basically address that problem the same way that you eat a sandwich, which is one bite at a time. So that makes sense to me. If there's 20 million illegals, you start with the top million who are violent criminals and gang members, and you deport those. And that is what ICE was doing. They were serving criminal warrants. And then after you successfully do that, then you see where you're at and you can address the next bite of the sandwich. That makes sense to me. Now, look, I think that we're not really addressing a really core part of the issue here, which is for a couple of decades now, conservatives were demonized, and Tucker in particular, I think you were demonized for warning about the policies that have created the mess that everyone can see on TV right now. And that mess is we have a large unassimilated population of military age males who are basically rioting right now under a foreign flag as if they were foreign invaders. We basically have allowed a separatist movement in the United States. That's what it looks like to me. And I remember when Tucker was warning about the policies that might create this on his show for years, virtually alone, probably alone on Fox News, you were called a racist. This was great replacement theory, blah, blah, blah. How can everyone not look at what's happening on TV right now and say, Tucker was right, that was really dumb. And look, I say this as someone from a family. I'm one of the people that Ronald Reagan was talking about. My family and I came over here. We're immigrants, but we came over here to assimilate. You know, we believe in the melting pot. That's our.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

You might get canceled for bringing up the melting pot.

[David Sacks]

No, the melting pot's good. I mean, I think that was the classic American model.

[Jason Calacanis]

Melting pot is totally good.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

You speak. I'm just saying you could get canceled for even.

[Jason Calacanis]

That's what you're supposed to do. Like, why, why would anybody. I came here because I wanted to be American and everything that American meant. If I was bigger, I would have played football. You know, like, there's all these things that I would have done to assimilate more and more. I believe in the culture of the United States. That's why people should come.

[David Sacks]

Right? So we came here, we assimilated high skill immigrants, didn't have a lot, but had good education and willing to assimilate. That's very different than what you're seeing on TV right now. And again, if the people on TV just wanted to protest immigration policy in the way that you're talking about, I mean, you're describing it in this very nice, genteel way, they would be peacefully protesting under an American flag, saying, we want to be here. We're willing to contribute.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I think the issue was that's not what's happening.

[David Sacks]

You can see that, right? I mean, they look like foreign invaders.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I would say, by the way, this.

[David Sacks]

Is like the dumbest PR that you know. If this debate is really about immigration, this is like the dumbest way for them to present their side of the argument.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yeah.

[David Sacks]

Because who wants to keep in this country a large unassimilated population that is proud to march? Not just march, but actually protest and riot and burn. An assault under the flag of another nation.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I would say dollars to donors.

[David Sacks]

That's an intolerable situation.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

The majority of the people who are doing the looting and rioting are not actually immigrants because they have the ability to be deported. The people who are doing that are the bad actors that we saw during blm, the bad actors that we saw, you know, in LA when the Lakers win. I've lived here for a decade, and I am here right now. I can tell you it's contained. And 80, 90% of those people are not the immigrants. Immigrants are hiding right now for fear of being deported. But let's sort of talk about the path. Well, where do you guys want to go with it here? I mean, I can give you my opinion if you want.

[David Sacks]

Well, Tucker, I mean, like, I don't know. I mean, I want to speak, but I mean, I do think that, like, Tucker should feel vindicated on this issue for speaking about so many years.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

You feel vindicated?

[Tucker Carlson]

I mean, I never doubted it. I grew up. I was born in California in 1969, and my family got there in 1850. I have some sense of what the state was like, certainly through my childhood, and it was idyllic. And it's not. The rich areas are great. Bel Air is great. La Jolla is still great, I think. I mean, there are Mount Shasta is great, Lots of great places in California. But fundamentally, the state is Islam. It's a Latin American country, and immigration did that. And I say that as someone who is pretty pro immigrant. Actually, my best friend's an immigrant. I mean, I've always admired, liked immigrants. I'm hardly anti immigrant or anti immigration, but the way we did it destroyed the state. Immigration is what made California into a slum and there's kind of no way around that. And so that's not an argument against all immigration. I'm not making that argument. I don't feel that way. But it's an argument against what we did in California. And rather than learn from that, we're doing it in every other state. And I don't know why. And I think, you know, if the other side had a reasonable argument, they would proffer it. But instead they call you names and try to turn you into some kind of thought criminal or whatever. I don't care, obviously, but it's a, it's a sort of measure of how little they have to say in response. They're not actually trying to make the country better. That's kind of the main thing. I have always thought immigrants are great because they did it. Make the country better.

[David Sacks]

Right.

[Tucker Carlson]

I mean, I think that's demonstrable. But the people pushing our current policies don't have that as a goal. This is a kind of punishment for something. And a lot of it's ethnic actually. It's a kind of attack on the people who were born here. I don't know where that hostility comes from. You can feel it though, and I think it's foolish to deny it. That is a motive. They're trying to hurt the people who live here. And again, I live in a place currently where I see that happening and it drives me totally bonkers. And the last thing I'll say is if you think the way we once did immigration was good and a lot of immigrants are awesome people. And I do think that this is discrediting all immigration 100% and it's turning people into pretty radical immigration restrictionists or like, look, I don't want any more immigrants. Yeah, you know, that's inevitable, but it's sad to see it.

[Jason Calacanis]

By the way, what you're saying is the most true for immigrants, legal immigrants look at illegal immigration even more negatively than native born Americans, which makes sense, right?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I mean, they waited in line and other people didn't. You would be really upset if somebody cut the line.

[Jason Calacanis]

Jason, what do you think?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Obviously there's a lot of emotion around this issue. I think numbers help and I always look to see what is the consensus amongst the group here and amongst, you know, Americans. Everybody wants the border closed. Trump won on that. So, okay, we all agree the border should be closed. I think 80, 90% consensus in that. 80, 90% of Americans think we should deport violent criminals. Okay, we got consensus there. So then what's left is what do we do with high skilled recruiting? I like to use the word recruiting. And we had that discussion with President Trump here. He promised to put a green card on every degree. I agree with him on that. I think we should be recruiting at least a million or 2 million amazing people per year. 1 to 2 million amazing people. We should match that to what the needs of the country are. If we need energy, if we need doctors, we should match that. Where we probably disagree is I think the Democrats and the Republicans share equally in this issue that was created that Tucker pointed out. Yes, there are 40, 30, 50. Who knows what the exact number is? That's part of the problem. Here's a chart we made. This just shows you under each of the last almost 50 years of presidents, how many people net immigrated to the country. And as you can see, it's been pretty consistent, around 3 million per. And Clinton and Bush had a ton of immigration. Both Bushes were paid for. A lot of their donations came from corporates who wanted free migration. America creates this. Hold on, let me finish my thought.

[Jason Calacanis]

There's an outlier here, Jason, though.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Well, yeah, Biden is the huge outlier. We all agree on that. Biden let it go. Yolo. And I understand people have a lot of resentment for that, and rightfully so. And if you bring in 10 million people, you're gonna get a lot of bad guys. But you put this all together. My belief is that this is a country of immigrants and that this country does great when hardworking immigrants assimilate. I think we should take this raw firepower of these incredible immigrants who have been here for decades. If you've been here for 10 or 20 decades, pay a fine, pay some extra taxes, and we give these people a path to citizenship and we recruit the top one.

[Jason Calacanis]

Do you do that?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Two million people. That's my belief.

[Jason Calacanis]

You do that before or after the people that have been waiting in line get a fair shake?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I think I would start before or after. I think you have to do it before because we created this. And I know that that's not something that people want to take ownership of. But America created the situation. Bush created it, Reagan created it. Clinton, America, Yes. The country that we live in. Our government allowed millions of people here and the Republicans did this specifically in order to get cheap labor.

[Jason Calacanis]

Okay, let me ask you, let me.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Be responsible for what we did with these people.

[Jason Calacanis]

Let's just say that you're an international. Let's just say you're an international Mathematics Olympiad winner. You get recruited to come to the United States on A student visa, you crush it. Let's say you go to MIT and then you go and do a PhD at Caltech and then you get recruited on an opt visa by Google and you're just crushing awesome. And you're saying that that person.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Oh, no, sorry, that's a more subtle question. That person. We should recruit, as I said, very clearly recruit the top 1 to 2 million.

[Jason Calacanis]

They are currently waiting in line. Jason.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yes, so let's just say. So I'm saying, yes, let them in. And yes, a path to who do you prioritize?

[Jason Calacanis]

You have one, you can do both.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

At the same time. No, no, you can't.

[Jason Calacanis]

No, you can't.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Of course you can. We could have one group recruiting a million to 2 million highly skilled labor, highly skilled individuals of the type you're describing while having another group. We can do two things at the same time. Chamath. Absolutely you can. You're giving a false question here. Then we take the person who's been here for 20 years as a dishwasher, as a nanny, who has been an amazing citizen, who has been paying into Social Security. Give them a path, a compassionate path. And we as America and Americans should take ownership of the fact that we allowed this. And the people who allowed it were Republicans and Democrats. We allowed these people to come in to work in our restaurants and fields, which is what Trump said today. Trump is in agreement with me.

[Jason Calacanis]

That's not what he said. He said something different.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

He said he wants to not have those people leave.

[David Sacks]

It's just amazing to me that on this podcast during the Biden years, you were echoing this party line that the videos of mass migration, caravans streaming across the border going through the holes in the wall, you said those were videos cherry picked by Fox News. You echoed the party line that there was no problem. Now all of a sudden, now all of a sudden you're saying it was a bipartisan problem.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

No, no. Fact check. I said we don't know because we don't have the metrics and we don't have a good system, which we all agree on. There's no good system.

[David Sacks]

Anybody who went down to the border was saying that it was wide open, right?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And as data, I said this data on the ground shows we should shut the border. That's always been my case.

[David Sacks]

He suddenly became very empirical about the issue.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I've always been empirical about it and I've also been compassionate about it.

[David Sacks]

This whole both sides are to blame thing kind of ignores the fact that you had the Trump revolution in 2016. There is some truth to the idea that both parties neglected the problem. If you go back far enough like Tucker will remember this. When Bob Bartley was the editor of the Wall Street Journal op ed page, they actually supported a constitutional amendment in favor of open borders. I mean, they really believed in this whole idea of free trade, open borders, free flow of capital and labor. Okay, but that was a long time ago. And with the rise of Trump in 2015, 2016, it became a different party. Trump got elected on building a wall. And what happened? The Democrats fought him tooth and nail. They tied him up in litigation. He was able to build hundreds of miles of wall, but there were uncompleted parts of it. And when Biden came into office, there were large pieces of the wall that were still on the ground just waiting to be erected. And Biden sold them off as scrap metal for 2 cents on the dollar. Do you remember this? And then Biden and the Democrats proceeded in favor. Hold on a second.

[Tucker Carlson]

They.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Immigration and closing borders. Please don't frame it as I'm against that.

[David Sacks]

Okay? Just forget about you. I'm just. You said Democrats and Republicans are at blame for this.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Not in the last 40 years.

[David Sacks]

Not in the last eight years. No.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Oh, yeah. No, no. Biden, Trump's the outlier.

[David Sacks]

Trump won on a wall.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yeah. Biden. Yeah.

[David Sacks]

Opened up the border and Democrats supported him in that. And they thwarted every Republican attempt to close the border. And they lost three years. Hold on a second. For three years, they gaslit and pretended it wasn't a problem. Then when it became undeniable, they claimed that Biden didn't have the executive authority so they would need a new act of Congress. That was also total nonsense. As Trump said in the State of the Union, you didn't need a new law, you just need a new president. Look, if you want to go back 20 or 30 years, you can blame both parties. If you want to talk about the last eight years, there's only one party to blame. One party. The Democrats. And that is why you look at the polling right now, Democrats, their party, all time low. It is. Let's get the exact number. Negative. 49. 21% approve of Democrats. 70% disapprove. Because they know that Democrats caused this problem and Democrats are the ones denying. They're the ones basically making excuses for the disorder and the chaos right now. The only Democrat who's actually talking sense right now is the one with a head injury. Ironically, Fetterman, he's a lone voice here. I wanna pull up this quick.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Don't make such a head injury.

[David Sacks]

It's kinda funny.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Dude, that's not.

[David Sacks]

No, I mean, it's amazing. No, I mean, it's kind of sad. But look, I'm agreeing with Fetterman. Fetterman says, but the caveat that he hit his head. I don't know what it is about Democrats.

[Jason Calacanis]

With your.

[David Sacks]

I don't know what it is about Democrats. It takes a head. It takes a head injury for them to talk sense. Okay? It's like a Bulworth thing. Anyway, Fetterman said, my party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yes, he's talking about January 6th.

[David Sacks]

I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations of immigration, but this is not that. This is anarchy and true chaos. So kudos to Fetterman, but he's the only Democrat out there. He's a low voice condemning the violence.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And Tucker's our guest. I'm gonna give Tucker the last word on this topic before we go on to the next one. And you are 100% correct. Biden, 10 million net immigrants, and Trump, 3 million, which sounds like a lot, but is actually the lowest in, like, 10 administrations, the lowest since Reagan. Tucker, you're our guest. Wrap us up here. What should we think?

[Tucker Carlson]

I think that we should measure the health of a country, at least in part, by the condition of its cities, including the cleanliness of its cities. And by that measure, our country is collapsing. Our cities are a disaster. And the richest part of the richest cities are fine, and the rest of them are just absolutely awful. And so I think that has got to be just job one. If you want to renew the United States, you have to make sure its population centers are clean, safe, orderly, but especially clean. There's something really important, and I know that the left just instinctively discounts that. But cleanliness is next to godliness. And your city is a reflection of your self respect, how you feel about your nation, your patriotism. And if you allow it to become like Paris or New York, covered in graffiti and filth and random people from other countries selling fruit on the street and begging and having sex in ATM vestibules. And just like the whole midtown Manhattan central Paris experience, like, that's a sign your civilization is going under, I think it's really, really important. And I do think you know that decay is not entirely caused by mass immigration, but mass immigration has made it much worse. And I just know that from walking around, because I like to walk around cities. I think it's A national emergency. And the riots are just the most florid expression of that. You know, a burning car is something you can't ignore. But we do ignore the condition of 6th Avenue at 49th Street. Like, how can a self. Or the condition of Penn Station or, you know, of our airports, like, how can we allow that? So if I were in charge, I mean, I would make you go to Dubai or Doha or Moscow or some place has a sense of itself.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

When we got soba in Tokyo, remember, two years ago, and we were talking about this exact issue, it just. Well, but it looks.

[Tucker Carlson]

I mean, Tokyo is the most radicalizing experience for an American. Everyone who goes there is like, I can't even deal with this. I'm so angry that we've put up with what we're putting up with.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I had to talk.

[Tucker Carlson]

I don't know. You did. And let's not overthink it, I guess, is what I'm saying. It's not even about the Constitution. It's about litter. Yeah.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Okay. Tucker gets the last word on that. And now David Sacks gets to take his incredible victory lap. Economic data has been objectively pretty great the last two weeks. Tariff revenue spiked 23 billion in May 2x from February. So there we go. We see the impact of a little bit of extra income. Inflation continues to come down. And what are we at? 2.4% across the board. There's some pluses and minuses in there. We'll get into it later. Gdp. Okay. This is the leading GDP prediction model from the Atlanta Fed. Could be as high as 3.8%. Again, this is a prediction for Q2. Q2 is obviously not over, but this would be a pretty big jump over Q1. Despite all this positive data, the deficit remains the sticky issue. Some of our friends might have some issue with this and been vocal about it. In May, the US had 371 billion in revenue with 687 billion in spend. Not good. Big, high burn rate, $316 billion deficit. We paid $90 billion in May in interest on the debt. Almost up to 100 billion a month. And there's a nice Sankey chart, which we all like. We could double click on that. If anybody finds something interesting in here, here's your deficit tracker. What I'll highlight here for you is those first two lines, 2020 and 2021. You got to kind of give a mulligan there for the COVID years. And Purple 2025. We are a bit ahead of the last couple of years. Are spending now. And obviously the Debt service is a big part of this. 13% above 2024, 20% above 2023 and 65% above 2022. The balance sheet of the United States is really bad right now. Sachs, I'm going to start with you. This obviously has been an emotional issue and oh, apology chamath. I just noticed forgot to hit publish on last week's episode but let's let that go. I won't happen again. Sachs, what are your thoughts here?

[David Sacks]

Well, I mean you'll recall that back in early April, Jim Cramer predicted we'd see a Black Monday in response to Trump's tariffs. And that's all the proof that we should have known that we were about to get a bunch of good economic news. And it wasn't just Jim Cramer, Kramer. I mean Larry Summers was on our pod with that big debate that we did and he was predicting doom. And what we're seeing now is good economic news is breaking out all over. So Q2 GDP on track for 3.8% according to the Atlanta Fed. The May jobs report was above expected plus 139,000 CPI inflation down to 2.4%. So growth is back, inflation is low. And what you saw over the last few months was the elites in both parties, I'll give you that they were scaremongering on tariffs and predicting doom and they've been proven to be out of touch with popular sentiment and reality. I mean you don't want to spike the football too soon, but things look really good right now.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yeah, and I mean in fairness, when the Trump shock and awe with the tariffs, he came out pretty strongly, Zach, she will admit. And the market did tank massively for about 30 days. Tucker, what's your take on the economy today? This debt, does it concern you? And I'm wondering what because there seems to be a little bit of a rift inside of the Republican Party on the bbb not build back better but the big beautiful bill. What's Tucker Carlson's take, I'm curious, on out of control spending, the deficit and this bill in relation to that?

[Tucker Carlson]

Well, I mean I have the world's most predictable views. I believe in physics. So, you know, an unpayable debt tanks your country at a certain point. That was preexisting. It's accelerated as you noted. I don't know a single person who's got any kind of plan to fix it. I think we're just going to ride it into whatever the point of oblivion is. But I would just say on tariffs you've got the reverse Kramer, David was saying that's his measure of economic forecasting. For me, it's the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Whatever they're for is poison, generally speaking. And anything that drives them insane is a virtue. And I just can't imagine a policy more perfectly designed to just make them, like, explode than Trump's tariff announcement. And I have to say, I mean, I've been kind of pretty conventional Republican my entire life. I remember when I decided the Iraq war was a bad idea. That felt like an outlaw idea.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

When did you come back to that point? What led you to breaking?

[Tucker Carlson]

Well, I went to Iraq in December of 2003 to see where a friend of mine had been killed. And so I was there right after the invasion. And I just immediately recognized this is not. We're not a good colonial power because we won't admit that we are. We won't admit that we have an empire, therefore we can't administer it in a rational way. Just the obvious stuff. But anyway, the point is, the last remaining kind of unexamined orthodoxy in my head was free trade. And I happened to be, just by chance, at the White House the day of that announcement. And I remember thinking, man, if this works, what a caper, you know, I don't know if it's gonna work or not.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Scenario in your mind of, you know, this tariff negotiation, obviously there have been multiple rounds of it. I'm not gonna use the term taco, but it does seem like we've shifted from shock and awe to maybe like kind of bore. It's kind of boring. And that does seem to be Trump's approach. Right. In negotiations, big bang, and then fall back to a reasonable position. So I think we're in the reasonable position phase.

[Tucker Carlson]

Yeah.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

What does success.

[Tucker Carlson]

I hope, I pray that's what we're seeing on Iran right now. But you're absolutely right. I mean, that's sort of the nature of negotiations, of course. And there is nothing in writing what China, so far as I know. And it'll be reassuring, I think, when there is. But in general, we haven't seen what Jim Cramer and Larry Summers predicted. And that itself is amazing. It's amazing and it causes you. Someone like me is sort of on the sidelines of the economic debate. But watching carefully, it does make you sort of wonder, like, what other absurd mid century orthodoxies about economics have I internalized that just aren't true?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Right.

[Tucker Carlson]

Because that was the biggest of all. Tariffs are, you know, they caused the Great Depression. We know that. And so what if, like, you can have A kind of mixed approach with some trade barriers that are tailored to your benefit. And that sort of works in a longitudinal way. If that's true, holy smokes. And it looks like it might be true.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Well, it's been true for the other side, right? They have been doing well.

[Tucker Carlson]

Exactly.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

So if it's true for China and South Korea and Australia, why wouldn't it be true for us? It seems like we're the sucker at the poker table.

[Tucker Carlson]

Well, I think you're right. I guess what I'm. All I'm saying, I'm making a pretty pedestrian point, but I can't get past it, which is this is so far from what the Republican party stood for 10 years ago, which was neoconservative foreign policy, free trade, open borders, as you noted, maybe a little more than 10 years ago, but 15 years ago. Sure. This is the mirror image of it, and it just blows my mind. And it's such a better version. It's such a more reality based, flexible, thoughtful version than we had before. And I'm just really. And most Republicans in the Senate are not even aware this is happening. They are the most recalcitrant people in the world. Also the dumbest. So most of them don't accept any of this. But just as an observer, I'm thrilled to see it.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

All right.

[David Sacks]

Chamath, can I. Oh, yeah, sure. No, no, no.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I mean, I know you like to go right after Tucker. It's very engaging.

[David Sacks]

Well, no, you got me thinking.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

This is his dream. When you're on, he cannot in the group chat, he's so excited. Tucker, when you're coming on, it's 48 hours of sax being like, when does.

[Tucker Carlson]

When is the pod coming?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Is Tucker really coming?

[Tucker Carlson]

That's how I feel about David Sacks. Trust me, if you do. If you had a camera at my dinner table, you would hear something similar.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Oh, boy, here we go. Go ahead, Sachs.

[David Sacks]

It's. It's great to have someone to the right of me on the podcast for once.

[Tucker Carlson]

You know, it's not an easy task.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

We invited Alex Jones and Steve Batman to have him respond.

[David Sacks]

Tucker got me thinking about these unexamined orthodoxies. And that is a good way of putting it because I studied economics in college and I learned that the Smoot Hawley Tariff caused the Great Depression. And it's like, in hindsight, you're like, how can that even be true? A tariff is basically a tax rate on foreign goods. And you're saying that increasing taxes on foreign goods all of a sudden caused a Great Depression. It doesn't make any sense when you actually just think about it now. What caused Great Depression? Well, I would say when thousands of banks went under and there's no FDIC and everyone just got wiped out by that. And it's a systemic risk. So like one bank failure leads to the next one. That's so obviously what caused the Great Depression is nobody had any money left. They all got wiped out when all the banks went under at the same time. Right.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Well, how do we take something that happened in the 20s and 30s and apply it to a much more dynamic world today? It doesn't make much sense.

[David Sacks]

Well, I think what happened is we had all these post war, meaning post World War II understandings that kind of got hardwired into the consciousness of our intellectuals. And if you think about the era right after World War II, the US was like the last great power standing, it was us in the Soviet Union. But they kind of had a different system. They were not part of the, let's say the free world. They're part of this communist bloc. So in terms of the quote unquote free world, we were the only country that was relatively undamaged and we had this giant manufacturing base. And so, yeah, obviously that the fewer trade barriers existed across the world, the better it was for the United States because it was our goods and our factories that basically were able to sell all over the world. And so we proceeded to define a world order in which we just kicked down every single barrier to free trade because that's what benefited us. Now, I don't know that that means that that situation always benefits us in all times and all places. I mean, the big issue we have right now is that you've got a rising China and they have become the scale producer in the world for all sorts of goods. They now have this giant industrial base that we seem to have exported to them. And again, and we exported a lot of that because of this free trade ideology that got so entrenched in our thinking that we just stopped thinking about under what circumstances this might not continue to be good for us. And so we've ended up becoming dependent on them for all sorts of goods that we now realize are highly strategic. And we're trying to figure out, well, how do we onshore these things? Because it seems really dangerous now for us to be single threaded on potentially adversarial power for rare earths or rare earth magnets, chips and pharmaceuticals and all these things. But you know, our intellectual class just never seems to revisit any of its assumptions. They just kind of have these dogmas.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Chamath building on Sachs's sort of codification of truths, heuristics and not getting questioned how much of it is we just codify, hey, trade good, you know, open borders good, free trade good. And how much of it is just incentives like I mean rich people paying off politicians to have more free trade independent of party seems to be what's happened over the last 10, 20 years. It just made more sense to put workers and to send jobs to the lowest cost place to increase profits for American companies, which, let's face it, although it may have hollowed out our manufacturing and created this weakness in the four or five areas you point out every week that we need to reinforce quite eloquently. The real issue is we did that because we wanted to make money. We wanted to have the most highly profitable companies and we did succeed. But maybe we succeeded too much and our companies benefited more than the middle class. You got Josh Hawley out there saying, hey, we should go to $15 minimum wage federally from this.

[Jason Calacanis]

The wrong people won. In the early 2000s, I think that there was a war of ideas and there was a group of people that advocated for this reckless form of free trade. And this globalist view like every country is going to meld into one mega monolith country organization that'll get governed out of New York by the United nations and its slave organizations. And that worldview won. But it was the wrong worldview and it didn't acknowledge that we have competing philosophies, competing priorities, competing ideals of what the future looks like. And I think that we need to go back and reset all of those things. If you just take where we are, if you can just put the Sankey diagram back up, there's a couple things that are really worth noting that people need to fundamentally understand. I said a couple weeks ago that I thought the GDP print was going to come in hot. I think everybody now is sort of where I am. So let me give you the next.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Thing that I think I'm going to ask you though. Why is it hot? Do you have a thesis on why GDP spiked so much or potentially did? That's obviously a forecast.

[Jason Calacanis]

I don't know the puts and takes yet. And I think when we see the print, I have a way of forecasting this stuff, which is a bunch of signals that my team and also many macro teams all around the world, the bond vigilantes to the hedge fund guys, they all feed it to me. And what I was noticing was that we were going to come in, I said in the low threes. And I think if Atlanta Fed is right, I don't think they are, but I think it's going to be in the low to mid 3s. It's going to be meaningfully greater than what people are expecting. So let me just give you my next prediction. My next prediction are two really important things. What this Sankey diagram looks at, which is a snapshot of the balance sheet and the health of the United states in May. Mrs. In my opinion, two very important things that have to change. The first, and this is a positive for the Trump administration and the United States economy is we are run rating 300 to $400 billion above forecast in terms of our receipts, meaning the revenues that we will take in. And you get to that number by looking at the last three months of tariffs and forecasting forward, assuming a reasonable balance here. So back to Tucker's point, yeah, we all thought that this was like a boogeyman, that you weren't allowed to touch it and that if you touch the stove you were going to get burned. The mathematical reality is that this is actually going to work out much better for us than we anticipated and it's going to be somewhere in the range of 300 to $400 billion of extra revenue per year. That's a huge win. So why is that important? That then sets up this next cataclysmic thing that we're going to see over the next 60 days, which is what does Jerome Powell do? If Jerome Powell stays politicized, his incentive will be to keep interest rates where they are. If Jerome Powell looks at the conditions on the ground, especially when you start to see inflation stay in the low twos and approach 2.0, the real thing that he's going to be under tremendous pressure to justify is why are you not cutting? And just to give you a sense of how important that is, if we cut by 100 basis points, that's another $300 billion. Now in that case, that's not money that we get in, but it's money we don't have to spend. So if you add these two things together, we are in the next 60 days going to have to reforecast the American balance sheet where this is, or we're actually going to be able to positively forecast an extra $600 billion, $300 billion of incremental revenue and $300 billion of savings. Jason, if that happens, watch out. What does that mean, watch out? It means that every single risk dollar is going to run to America, every single one.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yum yum.

[Jason Calacanis]

Forget Japan, forget Europe. There is no place to put your money except the United States. So I think that we have to figure out how to get Jerome Powell on the side of America versus on the side of what could happen politically. Because I think that there's probably a version in his head that says, my gosh, if I do this, it helps Trump and if I don't do it, it hurts Trump. Practically. That is true, but the reality is the conditions on the ground justify cutting.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Okay, so you're predicting this 300 billion two different ways in and out, 50 billion a month. It starts cutting this deficit pretty significantly. Your claim, I just want to be clear here, is that Powell is playing politics, not working towards the dual mandate, which is very clear. Controlled unemployment at the 2.0 rate and full employment. Your belief is that he's playing politics?

[Jason Calacanis]

Yes, I believe that these decisions are political. I think that the Federal Reserve has veered away from actually controlling the money supply in the best long term interests of the United States and more, more towards what benefits the short term. And this ties back to how I started this.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

What is Powell's motivation?

[Jason Calacanis]

Somewhere in the 2000s, Jason, we transitioned away from having the strategic 20 year conversation about what's in the best interests of America, and instead we started to have these unipolar globalist conversations. And the people that got into these centers of power, the imf, the World bank, the Federal Reserve, the central banks around the world, they all worked towards an agenda that is now being undone. I'll give you an example of where this is now being undone. Just today, the World bank undid a rule around being able to fund nuclear energy. And you would have thought, well, hold on a second. The World bank steps in to backstop all these developing countries when they're in the middle of all this nonsense. And if you think about a country that's developing, what is the single biggest input to that country? Energy. And you think for the last 40 years of multi trillion dollar bailouts, we never demanded abundant clean energy in the developing world? Of course not, because it was a political decision.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Okay, Tucker, do you believe the Fed is playing politics here? It's kind of hard to believe. If Powell was placed by Trump and Biden, there was consensus there. And his mandate is to get to 2.0 and full employment. He's kind of trending towards that. He's made a couple of cuts. The markets predict he is going to make a cut. Here's Polymarket for September showing 80% chance of a Cut. Let's take a look if that's changed since the last time. So in September. No. Okay, well, this has changed. 3, 2. All right, so here's your poly market Fed decision in September. No change, 53%. 25 bips. 43. 50 bips, 3.8. So you put those two together, you're roughly at 47% chance of a cut, 53% chance of no cut. So 50, 50, coin toss. Do you think the Fed is playing politics?

[Tucker Carlson]

Do I think who lives in Chevy Chase is a political actor? Are you serious?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

What's his motivation then? What's his end game? Why does he not want to cut rates or why would he not?

[Tucker Carlson]

Well, I mean, I think Chamath put it in the.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

He want to stick it to Trump or something.

[Tucker Carlson]

Well, of course. I mean, he lives in a world in which there is no one who doesn't want to stick it to Trump. I mean, I know the zip code that he lives in very, very well. I know the club that he goes to. I know the world. No, no, I would. Of course, and I'm not mad at him. I'm just saying I know the world well. And of course no one in that world wants to be seen helping Trump. And Trump has attacked him, by the way, in public. So I don't think that helps either. I think the structure of the Fed governance is very weird. I think. I'm not exactly sure what the Fed is. I've asked this question to a lot of economists, including Larry Summers. Never really gotten a straight answer like, how is it that this is beyond political control? I mean, I don't know. If we're for democracy, shouldn't voters have some say in how this is administered? But they don't. I mean, there's no direct mechanism for voters to be heard in this, the single most important institution in the American economy. How does that. Which is a crypto government organization, it's, you know, administering US Dollars. I don't, I just don't understand it. I think it's very. The idea that you're going to depoliticize it by making its leadership immune from the control of elected officials strikes me as the kind of like mid century dumbness that got us NATO and a lot of other bad institutions.

[Jason Calacanis]

The exact opposite.

[Tucker Carlson]

Don't get it.

[Jason Calacanis]

The exact same thing happened. Thank you.

[Tucker Carlson]

Thank you. The paradox. Exactly.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Sachs, what would the motivation of the Fed be here? I've asked this two times, can't seem to get an answer. What's the motivation of the Fed? Is it to stick Into Trump.

[Jason Calacanis]

Jason. Well let me give you another data point. Okay, now let's assume, let's just scenario play.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yes, please.

[Jason Calacanis]

What happens if Powell rips in 100 basis point cut right now I'll tell you. So one part which is mathematical is the interest on the debt goes down, we save 300 billion. But there's something else that happens which is the Fed does control the front end of the curve. Meaning how do people borrow money for small amounts of time from one day to, to about two years if you make that cheaper, we know it's a test. That's true as time. What happens is people borrow more money that fuels more growth that will end up in GDP. So what actually happens if you cut rates 100 basis points is not just the 300, but you can get this reflexive positivity in the economy. What that allows you to do is even if that causes a little bit more inflation, you're actually growing yourself out of this whole thing. So then you ask yourself, well hold on a second. If the numerical justification is there to lower rates and it has all of these other positive externalities for the United States economy, why don't I do it? The only answer is political.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I wonder if his.

[David Sacks]

Let me explain.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Hold on, let me just teach, let me teach you. Okay, so we're at 2.6% on inflation. He wants to get it down to 2. Feels like we're in striking distance. Maybe you could maybe give us a theory here Sachs of what would the political motivation be. I find it hard to believe that he's trying to sink Trump for some reason as opposed to maybe just being scared of inflation popping up above that 3x handle which then triggers them to raise rates. So what's your theory here?

[David Sacks]

If you're pal, it's better to take the risk of being Paul Volcker than Arthur Burns. I mean that's basically what it comes.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Down to unpack for people who don't.

[David Sacks]

Aren'T well because what happened is Arthur Burns led inflation slip the leash in the 1970s and he's remembered as a horrible Fed chair. And then Paul Volcker came in and jacked up rates to like I think close to 20% and caused a vicious recession in 1982. But by 1983 the economy had bounced back and inflation basically was under control. And then the rate cutting cycle started and that rate cutting cycle went for like 25 years and then Reagan got reelected in 1984. So you rather be a Volcker than a Burns? If you're a Fed chair now, you Raised the question, is Powell political? Yeah, of course he is. If you go back to was it 2021? So the first summer of Biden's presidency, we got that shock 5.1% inflation print in May of 2021, if my memory is correct. What did the Biden administration do? They sent Janet Yellen out to say it was transitory. And Powell got on board with the whole transitory narrative.

[Tucker Carlson]

Exactly.

[David Sacks]

And as a result of that, he did not raise rates for six months. And worse than that, they continued QE. I think they bought like 180 billion of bonds in that time period. And that's what allowed inflation to get so out of control. Now, why is it that Powell did that? Because he wanted to get reconfirmed. And yes, he was nominated by Trump originally, but Biden renominated him, and he basically wanted the reappointment by Biden. He wanted to get confirmed. And then the month after he got confirmed, all of a sudden he shifted gears and started raising rates again once he was safely ensconced in his office. So he did the right thing in terms of raising rates in the face of inflation once he was free from those political incentives. But for six months, he was intensely political, and that cost the United States dearly, dearly, dearly. So now if you're a pal, you've got PTSD from that whole experience and you're going to err on the side of not letting inflation come back. I think what with inflation down to 2.4%, I think it is time to cut rates. But he's fearful because, again, his incentives are to be a Volcker, not a Burns.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yeah. And want to read a good book? Paul Volcker's Keeping At It. Great book about has Reagan going to him and trying to get him to cut rates. So this is a reoccurring story just.

[David Sacks]

On if he had done the right thing in the summer of 2021, we never would have had that bubble at the end of 2021.

[Tucker Carlson]

Yeah, the.

[David Sacks]

And that basically created a huge crash in 2022, and we could have avoided a good part of that if he had done the right thing. The Fed chair. It's not a hard job most of the time. I mean, these guys sit in their ivory tower, and then once a quarter they come out and do this and basically testify and say a bunch of things that no one can understand. But once in a while, you gotta get the decision right. And he totally screwed it up in that one time where he had to get it right.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yep.

[David Sacks]

And I would say this could be one of those moments too where I think he's being a little bit fearful.

[Jason Calacanis]

I think that there's a simpler explanation, quite honestly. Like if you look at Powell's history, he was nominated as a governor by Obama, then Trump picked him out of the Fed to be chair, but then he was reappointed by Biden. If you look at the vice chair of the Fed, Phil Jefferson, he was appointed by Biden. If you look at Michele Bowman, who's the vice chair for supervision, she was appointed by Trump. Michael Barr, appointed by Biden. Lisa Cook, appointed by Biden. Adriana Kluger, appointed by Biden. Chris Waller, appointed by Trump. So I think the point is that there is a balance of power here. If you look at political affiliations that tend to favor a Democratic view of the political landscape and let's be honest, what benefits the Democrats more? A thriving economy and a shrinking deficit going into the midterms or the exact opposite?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

The reason I'm bringing this up and I'm just harping on it, is he's a Republican who Democrats have opposed. So I'm just trying to reconcile this grand conspiracy that he wants to sink Trump.

[Jason Calacanis]

I don't think it's a general if he's a Republican, I think it's just a general decision. I think these guys move the DOT plots and you can see it in the movement, okay? They're going away from reading the actual data and moving in concert with the data to giving themselves a window to let the data play itself out beyond a reasonable point. And my point is the beyond the reasonable point is the key part. Because when you talk to the large sophisticated pools of money, many of them are like, what is going on here?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

All right, currently the big beautiful bill is in the Senate, passed the House by a one vote margin. Trump said he wants the Senate to pass the bill by Independence Day, July 4th. Senate math. Republicans have a 53 to 47 majority. As you know, they can afford three nos on their side since Dems are united against the bill. With 50 votes, JD Vance can break the tie, obviously. So it's easier if they can get to 51. Seven GOP senators are either no or maybe no. Three likely nos, Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Rick Scott, four maybe no's over the Medicaid cuts. Josh Hawley, Susan Collins, Murkowski, Jim Justice. None of those senators have committed either way. And Republicans are now falling into three camps on bbb. Hard yes, soft yes, no until it's fixed. Fixed, obviously. Some friends of ours were a little upset about the bbb and we had a pretty chaotic week the last week. It looks like the reconciliation is in your take on the last week and the reactions to the BBB and obviously Elon and Trump's relationship. Tucker Coffin.

[Tucker Carlson]

I hate the whole thing. This is not how to legislate. You shouldn't have a bill this big. It's impossible to get your mind around it. No one can read it, no one understands. Favors professional staff over legislators, and it totally leaves the public out. It'll be a decade before anyone understands what it means. The lobbies love it. It's Washington at its ugliest. Not this specific bill, though. It is an example of it. But just this is just not the way to do it. And it's not the way it has been done throughout American history. I mean, there's no reason to aggregate it all together like this. It becomes totally unmanageable and totally undemocratic. Well, it's insane. It's totally insane. I mean, can you tell me what's in it? No. All of us know 11 things we've read on Twitter or whatever. But the truth is, even the professional staff that wrote it couldn't, if you had dinner with them over three hours, really give you a comprehensive sense of what's in it. And remember, when it passes, and I think it likely will, it's the law.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And that's by design in order to.

[Tucker Carlson]

Of course it's by design. Of course it's by design. It's just. Well, I mean, look, it's. You know, it's just. It's just overload. You can't. I mean, every single part of this. This is the economy of the city that I've lived in my whole life. Every single part of this is there by design. It's been managed. It's been thought through. It's been written artfully. And by artfully, I mean deceptively. So you can't understand its purpose or its benefit. And literally, it is years before the ramifications become clear. And again, this is why we have committees. A committee masters a subject and then theoretically produces legislation that bears on that subject with knowledge and depth and hopefully, wisdom. The Congress is not designed to pass legislation in this way. And we've evolved to this. And I guess I would encourage the White House to try and blow that up. I think it'd be better for everybody if legislation was passed piecemeal, as it always has been. I think part of the problem is the leadership in the Congress. And nobody wants to say it is just embarrassing. It's just totally embarrassing. And I would say the conference isn't united either. I mean, this is part of the problem with Trump's agenda. It's the beauty of Trump's agenda, in my opinion. But it's, it's so different from what your average 65 year old Republican was raised believing. It's so different from what Fox News is telling you. It's the mirror image of what the Wall Street Journal editorial page is telling you, that there are just not that many members of the House or the Senate who are truly on board with Trump's message even now. And of course they kowtow to the man, but when it really comes down to it, they hate his stated agenda.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And that's why unpack. What do they hate most?

[Tucker Carlson]

What do they hate most? It's not even a close call. They hate his foreign policy views. They hate his foreign policy views because, look, out of 535 members of the House and Senate, I would say 510 have given up on improving the United States through their jobs. Like they know they can't. It's like intractable. This is their view. It's complex, it's boring, it's difficult and it's super hard to solve. And the numbers in the House and Senate make it practically impossible to move the ball on whatever issue they care about or were elected on. And so they take all of that energy and they apply it to making the rest of the world better. Fighting for democracy or you know, the grander the description, the less accountability there is. You know, if we're just like fighting for Churchill against Hitler, like it's always a win because we don't know any of the details.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

It's a simpler, yeah, it's a simpler cause for them to take on than looking at how do we. Exactly. Right. What would you like to see Trump do, Tucker? What would Tucker Carlson advise? If you, if you were in the White House, which many people have requested that you do that, if you were at the right hand of the father, what would you tell him to do?

[Tucker Carlson]

Understand the politician brain, which is reptilian by its nature. It responds only to pain, period. Only to pain. So if you want a politician to do your bidding, it's a super simple conversation. Do what I ask or I will make sure you lose your job. And by the way, Trump has the power to do that.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Which is what Elon said on Twitter. Just put it out there.

[Tucker Carlson]

No, but it's true. And I do think if there's a number of criticisms of any living person. But one I would level at Trump is he's nice. He likes to get along with people. He actually doesn't like to fight in person. That is true. He likes to get along with people. No one will believe that, but I've seen it a lot, and I think it's tough for him to say. It's easy for him to go after a reptile like Mitch McConnell. Like, at a press conference, you'll make fun of Cocaine Mitch or whatever. But to really go to McConnell and say, yeah, listen, son, you know, this is going to hurt in. In the following six ways, unless you obey, you little bitch. Which is really what he ought to be saying. No, I mean it. I absolutely mean it. And be saying that to all of these guys. Tom Cotton. Are you joking? How does Tom Cotton have a say in anything? You know? And, oh, you know, you're the chairman of the Intel Committee. I'm so impressed. Listen, Tom Cotton, you represent a state that likes me a lot more than you. So if I find you undermining me yet again, and Tom Cotton spends an awful lot of time undermining Trump, like, Tom Cotton hates Trump, actually. Of course. But if I find you doing that, I'm gonna take your sentence seat away, and that's gonna be really easy for me to do. And I really wish he would do that. It would only take one cycle to clear out, you know, to really get some discipline. Like the French in Algeria, you know, for the encouragement of the others. The first guy goes out of the helicopter, and then the second guy is super talkative. If you did that in the United States Senate, you would have a much more coherent party, I think, like, in about a cycle.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

A little more leadership, a little more stick than carrot. Who wants to go into Samantha Sacks? A lot more stick. Okay, here we go. Tucker says more stick. Sachs, what you're feeling?

[David Sacks]

Are we still talking about the big, beautiful bill? What are we talking about?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yeah, I mean. Well, I mean, we're talking about it all. Everybody wants to hear about our takes on the kerfuffle between Elon and Trump, obviously, in relation to bbb, so let's just tackle it. Or you can pass on it. Yeah, let's. We gotta put it out here. We're an hour into the episode. Let's just talk about it.

[David Sacks]

Let me speak to BBB for a second. So listen, if the question is whether I can defend a system that produces $2 trillion deficits every year, no, I can't. I can't even defend the Senate rules that require you to get 60 votes for some things and 50 votes for other things. I mean, it all just seems kind of random when you're an outsider. But those are the rules, is they've got these crazy bird rules. And once a year you get to do this reconciliation bill where it only takes 50 votes instead of 60 votes to pass something, which means you can actually get something done without the Democrats, which is a rare opportunity. And you just have to basically come up with a nexus to a budgetary issue. And so that's what the BBB has done. And as a result of that conduit, I guess you could say it's a way for the President to ratify many of his most important campaign promises from the 2024 election. And so you've got the tax cut extension in here. You've got full funding of border security for four years. You've got no tax on tips, you've got drill, baby, drill. You've got the missile defense shield. So these are campaign promises that are important to the President. It's kind of a once in a lifetime opportunity to pass these things. I think that Republicans will be committing political suicide if they don't. I mean, the polling on this. I'll give you some numbers. So first of all, the bill itself is popular, despite all the bashing of it. I think that Popular with who? Well, this is a national poll by Signal, which actually has a bias in favor of Democrats by + 2.1.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

So this with the public who haven't read it.

[David Sacks]

I know, believe it or not, what.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Does that even mean?

[David Sacks]

Is that support for a big beautiful bill, plus 6, increased funding for border security, plus 35. That'll probably be even more now that what's going on in LA. Work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP, plus 38. So despite the Democrats carping on that point, people really like the idea of work requirements and then permanently extending the 2017 tax cuts. Support plus 19. So these are very popular planks of the President's agenda. It's the only chance they're going to have to pass this. Look, I said this three weeks ago on the pod, the last few episodes, that I don't support the bill because it's perfect. I support it just pragmatically because it's better than the status quo. And my view is that we should take this now, we should get this done and then come back for more later. And there should be a big fight over the budget at some point in the future. But this is not the right time to do it. We don't have the votes, we're not organized, and it would compromise these other promises the president's made. And the time to really have that battle is at the beginning of the new fiscal year, which is October 1st. So we, at some point do need to have a big fight over the budget. There does need to be resistance to the deficit. We can't continue in this current state forever. But I don't think that's the hill to die on right now.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Chamath, your thoughts on BBB and the.

[Jason Calacanis]

Kerfuffle if you want to here's what I'll say. I was sad at the end of last week. One is my friend and the other is my president, and it seemed like a really profound friendship, and so I was bummed. Here's what I'll say this week, though, on a much more positive note. I saw Elon on Tuesday and I got to spend a couple hours with him at Tesla. He let me audit a couple of meetings with him, actually.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

It's always fun.

[Jason Calacanis]

Yeah, yeah. One was Dojo, and then right after that was the Optimus team. One thing I'll say is, I've said this before, but he attracts these incredible men and women to work for him. They are inspiring. Just sitting in a meeting and hearing it, what they're doing was amazing. And then second, to see Elon Musk in action at scale in that way is like watching a maestro paint a masterpiece. It's really impressive. And then separately, I saw President Trump doing a couple of pressers and he was in his zone of excellence. So it seems like they're going to find some common ground here. They are better together, and I'll just say, Elon, amazing. Tesla, incredible. And I would not be sleeping on this company, is what I would say. Jason, what do you think?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

So we're not the main characters in this story, obviously. And when I saw what happened last week, obviously, this is one of my best friends for many decades, and given the popularity of this podcast, my decision was I don't want to insert myself into this, have my quotes or my feelings about Trump about the bill get weaponized. And that's typically what happens when you have a friend who's the number one story in the world. Now, I'm not friends with Trump, but he is my president as well by default. What benefit does it have to me to then speak about it and then have everybody weaponize it? So I know this is hard for the audience to reconcile, but sometimes it's better for me to just step back. That's why you don't see me commenting on Tesla or SpaceX publicly all the time because people weaponize what I say against my friend and I just don't like that. And you know, it's happened in books, it's happens in news stories. So when Elon is doing something and it's this intense, I like to just step back and maybe take a beat. That was my decision. That's why I didn't want to do a pod last week. Everybody else can speak for themselves. That's where I'm at. How do I feel about it? I think Trump is making a mistake with bbb. I think he should push back on it harder. I said that in a previous episode And I think Elon's 100% correct about that. I also think if either of these parties can't control spending, there needs to be like the. What was it? The Norquist. You guys would know more about this. But Norquist pledge, Tucker, where you agree to not increase taxes. I think we need something like that where a reasonable party says we should balance the budget, we have to control the deficit. There should be some pledge like that that we force our elected officials on both sides of the aisle to take. And I'm going to start pursuing that myself personally. You can go to jointheresponsibleparty.com and I'm just going to start an email newsletter and just talk about it. I think there needs to be a pledge that these politicians take to balance the budget and cut the deficit over some reasonable amount of time. But I wish them both the best and I'm glad that the two of them have reconciled because that's good for the country. We can't have these two giants at war, the greatest innovator in our country and a president who's got, you know, an agenda which I agree with 2/3 of. I may not agree with how he's doing, immigration on the margins, but I agree with everything else. So I'm just rooting for the both of them because it's so important that for America that they get along great.

[David Sacks]

So in summary, you're not centering yourself, but you have a website www.I have.

[Jason Calacanis]

An opinion jcal.com it accepts apple Pay.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I'm not telling you to go to founder university.

[Jason Calacanis]

It's $1 a month, but if you subscribe for a year, it's $6.

[David Sacks]

You actually threw in a plug.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I have an issue. I'm throwing a plug in.

[David Sacks]

That was insane.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I don't care. Listen. Sign up join join the responsibleparty.com I'm going to start my over my own Norquist pledge but also join sacs.

[Jason Calacanis]

It's insane. You're insane.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I'd also like to plug chamat's substack. It's $1,000 a year to get his reports. And you can of course buy David Sax's tequila all in dot com.

[Jason Calacanis]

I've never chucka.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

What plugs do you have?

[Jason Calacanis]

I've never plugged any of my shit.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

No, no plugs from Tucker. Tucker, wait. What's in the merch store? Tucker, you gotta have something in the merch store.

[Tucker Carlson]

Alp. America's greatest nicotine pouch. That's all right.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Okay, here we go. Plugs Central. Fantastic. All right, breaking news here. Foreign policy looks like a major escalation with Iran could be happening. Maybe. On Wednesday, it was reported some US personnel were being evacuated out of the Middle East. Partial evacuation of the Iraqi Embassy. Okay. Oil prices moved 4% on the news. Later reported that Israel is prepared to launch an operation into Iran. US thinks Iran could retaliate on its bases in Iraq, which explains the evacuations. Trump was asked about the evacuation, said the following quote, they are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place. We'll see what happens. The classic Trump will see what happens. And then he added, they can't have a nuclear weapon. Very simple. Okay. Poly market odds are spiking on Israel. Action against Iran 50%. Oh, boy. Tucker, can the west allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Or is this more a WMD situation that we referenced at the start of the program? If Tucker Carlson was in the White House, which many of your fans wish you were, what would your advice be here?

[Tucker Carlson]

Is it up to us? Do we have the power? Nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I don't think the Iranians want a nuclear weapon right now, judging by their actions. But could we prevent it, is the question. And if so, how exactly? Given that we just lost to Russia and the Houthis, I'm skeptical, but I'm amazed by how close we are to to military action against Iran. It's no defense of Iran, of course. I'm not a Shiite, for the record, but I think it comes with perils that people are not considering or willfully ignoring. And the main one is Iran is not Iraq or it's not Libya. It's not isolated. It's a Central player in BRICS. 90% of Iran's oil exports go to China. It just signed a defense agreement with Russia in January. So it's not. You know what I mean? It has Backup. It has big allies that represent the majority of the world's population and the. The majority of the world's economy and landmass. So the potential for this to become something much, much bigger and unmanageable is real. It's there. Their conventional weapons are fearsome and could do great damage to our allies, to Israel, and to American assets in that area, and also to energy production in countries that we rely on. So I think the downsides are really kind of overwhelming. I think a protracted, meaning anything over a day or two, engagement with Iran would derail the Trump agenda and the presidency, and I think it could really sink this administration. So I pray this doesn't happen. By the way, I think the timetable is distorted. There is absolutely no reason. The President has said repeatedly we will do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I think it's a completely reasonable goal. Nobody wants that. I certainly don't want that. And the Israelis don't want it, and the Gulf states don't want it. Nobody wants that. But it doesn't mean that it has to happen on Friday, actually. And there are other forces exerting pressure on the administration to get this done quickly, even before Steve Witkoff, God bless him, meets with his counterparts in Oman in a few days from now. So it's like, why in the world would you preempt a scheduled negotiation with airstrikes, which the United States would be.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

The US Is driving the Palestinian. The Palestinians is driving this. And we're just, you know, having a com.

[Tucker Carlson]

It's a combination of both. And by the way, Israel is a country with 9 million people in it. I mean, it's the Israeli government, but there are also elements of the U.S. government. The head of CENTCOM, you know, is in favor of this. There are a number of Republican senators who are in favor of this who are lying. For example, here's one, I think, interesting point. That's a statement of fact. There's no American intelligence. This is a statement of fact that suggests Iran is in the process of assembling a nuclear weapon or within months of doing so. There's none. And yet Tom Cotton of Arkansas, the chairman of the Intel Senate Intel Committee, is out there saying, we know that they're doing this. Well, actually, you don't know that. That's not true. Whether he believes it or not, I can't say. But that's a lie. Our intel does not say that, period.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

So they're lying because. Industrial, military, industrial complex.

[Tucker Carlson]

Yeah, I mean, I think they're. They're a whole. It's not, it's not as simple as Obi wants it. I mean, I think this is a very complicated coalition of aligned interests. But whatever their motives, I don't even need to know their motives. This is not a timetable that we need to adhere to. It's a completely artificial timetable. The President has done his best to resolve this diplomatically. That's clearly his stated preference. He said it a million times and he's being bum rushed into making a very snap decision that could have bigger consequences than we're thinking through. So I'm very concerned about it.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Chamath, what's your thoughts here? Can Iran have a nuclear weapon? And should the United States participate in if they do have one imminently, which is a big debate, obviously, should we be involved in stopping them or should we be doing negotiations, soft power, et cetera?

[Jason Calacanis]

I think this is where I'm glad that it's President Trump in the seat. I think he's shown a consistent desire to off ramp all of these conflicts. And if he and Witkoff can hopefully hold the line with Bibi and everybody else, I think we're way, way, way better off. But you see this, like every time we're on the verge of victory, somebody in the military industrial complex invents some escalation of something so that we can just go to war. The answer always seems to be let's go to war or let's support a war or let's enable a war. And the bulwark to that has been the President. If we go to war. Tucker's right. This totally screws everything up. I mean, you could see oil double, double what happens to the economy of the world, of world GDP, of everything, of inflation. If you have oil at 100 bucks a barrel, 112 bucks a barrel, it's not good. So you have to wonder, why would people want this escalation? Who wants this escalation? And you see that it's deeply beneficial for America to avoid anything calamitous happening here. So I hope we find an off ramp and I hope that the President gets his way.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

One thing people should know about Iran is that there is a massive demographic switch happening here. You can see a chart.

[Jason Calacanis]

Is this from your paid newsletter site?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

This is. Yeah, this is from chemistry. $1,000 a year, $700 a month. You get to have lunch with him twice a year.

[Jason Calacanis]

Is this from chooseyourresponsibleparty.org what is it called?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

No, this is from Founder University Applications. Coming in around the world. Here we Go take your nicotine patch and come to Founder university. I ran 2020. If you look at the number of millennials, Gen Xers, this is not a boomer country. And they're going to have a revolution. When all those 30 year olds you see there, that big fat middle 30 and 40 year olds who are on VPNs right now and reading and watching what's happening in the west, you do not need to interfere with this country. You just need to let those 30 year olds become 40 and 50 year olds and take over the country. We need to negotiate heavily. The idea of going in there and creating a war with Iran is exactly probably what those older people want. Demographics are destin. And this is an amazing actual Anthony Bourdain episode from Iran, and he said it was his favorite episode. Rest in peace, Anthony Bourdain. But the demographics here are just going to drive this change.

[Jason Calacanis]

Your ability as a moderator to cover so much ground.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Thank you. Wow. Compliment. All right, this is a hard turn to make, Tucker, but this week's all in podcast is brought to you by the trump card. Everybody go get a trump card and use the promo code. Promo code JCal and I just, full disclosure, get paid $500,000 every time you buy a trump card, but the trump card website is up. Use the promo code jcal. 10% off, Tucker. 12% off. And saxypoo for 15% off.

[Jason Calacanis]

You know, 15,000. 15,000 people have signed up. That's $75 billion there. If you convert them all.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Let's go. I mean, I'm an idiot because I proposed this years ago for 500,000. And you know what the genius of Trump is?

[Jason Calacanis]

Well, you are.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

He made it gold and added a zero.

[Jason Calacanis]

You have. You have consistently proven to your friends that you mispriced by an order of magnitude. Typically 2.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Now I add a zero every time. All right, listen, thank you, Tucker, for coming on. What's the website to get our nicotine?

[Jason Calacanis]

Alps. Alps.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Alps. What?

[Tucker Carlson]

I want the website alps.comalpouch.com.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

All right, Tucker, you got to get us in on this. We need alpppouch.com all in. We need an all in branded one. Okay. With the flavor of. What's the flavor chamath we should do here? What's the flavor of? Can we do a burgundy?

[Tucker Carlson]

Money.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

That's why I'm in. But how do we get. How do we. How do we get promoing this? We need to get some. We need to get in on this.

[Jason Calacanis]

Alcohol, I would say, like, it should taste like a 2001 Massetto.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Can you do that? Can you get the T amount of masetto flavor for us?

[Jason Calacanis]

It's actually a bottle.

[Tucker Carlson]

I am sending this in right now. I'm going to start with burrata flavored and then go from there.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

If you can make a coulette steak for me, a rare coulette steak would be great as a flavor. A wagyu.

[Jason Calacanis]

A wagyu would be great.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Sachs, what do you got for a flavor here?

[David Sacks]

Just something minty.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Maybe a little minty. Okay. Minty fresh because you want to get the breath going. This is dual purpose.

[David Sacks]

Why chew gum when you can just go right to a pouch?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

There it goes. Clip that.

[Tucker Carlson]

I just texted. I texted the factory and I said we need specially branded Alp for All in.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Let's go.

[Tucker Carlson]

You think I'm kidding?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

We're in BD mode. We're in BD mode. We'Re not kidding either. We're in BD mode here at all in allin.com. come to the summit. Tucker, why don't you come to the summit in September? What are you doing? It'd be fun.

[Tucker Carlson]

As long as it's not. It's not. The end is grouse season, so I can't. I'm not allowed to leave during grouse season because I've got dogs. But is it before the end of September?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

September 8 and 7, 8, 9. I think it is.

[Tucker Carlson]

Oh, yeah.

[David Sacks]

Oh, Louisiana grouse flavored pouch.

[Tucker Carlson]

Those. That's a little game. It's a little gamey for a nicotine pouch, but I'll think about it.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yeah, take it under advice. I'm too gamey. All right, everybody. We missed you, Sultan of science. We'll break your chops, but we wish you were here. David Sacks, the czar. Miss you, buddy. See you in la, hopefully at the All In Tequila launch later this month. Chamath Palihapitiya. Great to see you. Good luck with your health. And for my guy, Tucker Carlson. Alpouch.com all in. Get your promo codes going. This is the number one podcast in the world. After the Tucker Carlson show, my last shout out.

[Jason Calacanis]

I would like to thank Robinhood for sending me their gold card.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

You finally. Yeah, Sax and I have had it for 100 days.

[Jason Calacanis]

I shat on American Express because I think they're just trash. And then they. They reached out to me and it was so ridiculous.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

For the black card.

[Jason Calacanis]

No, they didn't even offer me the black card. They said, here's a chance for you to apply for the black card. And I was like this just proves so insulting. They have no idea who anybody is.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

They're nagging you, literally. This is the number one podcast in the world, bro.

[Jason Calacanis]

I mean, I'm. If any of the four of us ran a credit card company and we decided that we were gonna have a $10,000 a year credit card for big spenders, what you would do is actually run a query to find who are the biggest spenders that you already have and upgrade them so that they're paying.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

10,000. Who wants to do the all in card with us? Email Jason. All in.com BD lines are open. We're going to monetize this brand. All right, everybody. Thanks again. Tucker, you're awesome. We appreciate you guys.

[Tucker Carlson]

The best. Thank you.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

The greatest. See you next time. Bye.

[Jason Calacanis]

Love you besties.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Love you sax.

[Jason Calacanis]

Love you sax.

[David Sacks]

I catch you. Let your winners ride Rain Man David.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Sack.

[David Sacks]

And instead we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Besties are gone. That is my dog taking it this in your driveway.

[David Sacks]

Oh man.

[Jason Calacanis]

My habit will meet me at. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy. Cuz they're all this useless. It's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

We need to get merch our. I'm going all in.