Trump Blames Democrats, Demands His Ballroom, and Attacks Jimmy Kimmel Again (ft. Sen. Rand Paul)

Summary

---

Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway & Jessica Tarlov

Episode Summary: “Trump Blames Democrats, Demands His Ballroom, and Attacks Jimmy Kimmel Again”

Air Date: April 28, 2026
Guest: Senator Rand Paul

---

Main Theme / Purpose

This episode centers on the challenges and contradictions facing American moderates amid hyper-partisan politics, particularly in the Trump second term era. Hosts Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov interview Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), covering topics from the fallout of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting, controversial White House spending, freedom of speech battles, midterms, the Iran war, and what it means to be an independent voice in today’s GOP.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. White House Ballroom Proposal and Political Violence

[00:23–05:06]

• Outline of Events:
  Recent attempted assassination at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner has Republicans, including President Trump, blaming Democrats for stoking political violence.
• Ballroom Bill:
  • Trump and Republicans propose a $400M federally funded White House ballroom for improved security; controversy arises around source of funding (private vs. taxpayer).
  • Senator Paul favors allowing the project only if it is privately funded:

    “So I have a bill that would allow this to move forward... but to let the president spend the money that they've collected privately.” ([01:36] – Rand Paul)

• Corruption Concerns:
  • Jessica raises the potential for grift and backchannel deals with private funding; Paul downplays, but acknowledges legal frameworks may be lacking:

    “If there's evidence of any quid pro quo, people giving money and getting something, that would actually be illegal.” ([03:32] – Rand Paul)

• Moderates’ Frustration:
  • Jessica challenges priorities, noting the disconnect from Americans’ real economic pain (gas, food prices):

    “Are you concerned that this is the conversation that we're having when gas just hit $4 and 18 cents a gallon?... Trump and the Republicans aren't focused on what actually matters in their lives.” ([04:27] – Jessica Tarlov)

  • Paul agrees affordability is urgent and links economic woes to opposition to war spending and government debt.

---

2. Free Speech, Censorship, and the Kimmel Affair

[05:59–14:09]

• Kimmel vs. Trump:
  Jimmy Kimmel roasts Melania Trump; Trump and the FCC respond with threats against ABC’s broadcasting license.

  “It was not by any stretch of the definition a call to assassination. And they know that I've been very vocal for many years speaking out against gun violence.” ([06:22] – Jimmy Kimmel, as replayed)

• Where’s the Line?
  Paul draws a distinction between offensive speech and government censorship:

  “Whether or not you condemn what [Kimmel] said is one thing, and whether or not the government should have any role in preventing him from saying it is a completely another discussion.” ([07:13] – Rand Paul)

  • Paul opposes FCC action:

    “Without question, I'm against the FCC being involved in limitations on speech.” ([07:53] – Rand Paul)

• Defamation & Section 230:
  • Balancing the First Amendment with protection from libel:

    “I think that defamatory stuff should be either taken down by whoever's hosting it or there should be ramifications.” ([08:54] – Rand Paul)

  • Personal experience: Paul highlights how internet platforms inconsistently enforce content standards, targeting political “misinformation” but not defamation:

    “If you call someone fat and treasonous, Google will take it down cause you're bullying someone for fatness, but they won't take it down cause you've accused them of treason.” ([12:13] – Rand Paul)

  • Paul is wary of broad liability protections for platforms but does not call for total repeal of Section 230:

    “…I've become less a fan of, of virtually all liability protection because I think it's a special privilege that government is granting.” ([14:09] – Rand Paul)

---

3. Midterms, Electoral Dynamics, and the Thomas Massie Challenge

[17:39–21:20]

• Prediction:
  • Paul sees the House potentially flipping due to war fatigue, high prices, and voter dissatisfaction.

    “The closer we get to October and the war being continuing and gas prices still being high... I think it makes it more likely the House will flip.” ([20:03] – Rand Paul)

• Massie’s Primary:
  • Paul backs Rep. Thomas Massie against a Trump-backed challenger, arguing that principled independence is under attack.
  • The Epstein file controversy is emblematic: Massie championed Trump’s original stance on release and, ironically, faces attacks because Trump changed course.

    “The Epstein thing really shouldn't be portrayed as Thomas Massie against Donald Trump. It's Thomas Massie actually passing what Donald Trump originally wanted and what Donald Trump eventually did sign.” ([18:06] – Rand Paul)

---

4. The Iran War: Strategy, Costs, and Principles

[21:20–23:36]

• Paul’s Stance:
  • Strongly opposes the ongoing war in Iran, stressing economic and human costs.

    “I want our soldiers to be brought home safely. Ending the war is more difficult now... Unconditional surrender almost never happens.” ([21:37] – Rand Paul)

  • Skeptical Trump will negotiate an end “unless you just declare victory and just say it’s over.”

---

5. Moderation & Dissent Inside the GOP

[23:36–27:47]

• Being a Thorn in Trump’s Side:

  • Paul says he doesn’t seek conflict but stands up when principle compels him—citing immigration, 4th Amendment violations, and police overreach.

    “But I don’t do this because I’m opposed to the president. I do this just because I can’t see images like that... and not speak out and say, this is not, this is not what we want.” ([24:26] – Rand Paul)

  • On police accountability: Pushes for removing officers who make grave errors, not criminal prosecution unless intent is clear.

• Jessica’s Reflection:

  “I think he's more thoughtful than the average bear.” ([27:53] – Jessica Tarlov)

• Scott’s Reflection:

  “The senator has voted with the President 90%, which makes him the closest thing we have to an independent Republican senator... he’s not afraid to go up against the president.” ([28:25] – Scott Galloway)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Ballroom Funding and Transparency:

  “If there's evidence of any quid pro quo, people giving money and getting something, that would actually be illegal.” — Rand Paul ([03:32])

• On Speech & Censorship:

  “Whether or not the government should have any role in preventing him from saying it is a completely another discussion.” — Rand Paul ([07:13])

  “If you call someone fat and treasonous, Google will take it down cause you're bullying someone for fatness, but they won't take it down cause you've accused them of treason.” — Rand Paul ([12:13])

• On Moderates' Frustration:

  “Are you concerned that this is the conversation that we're having when gas just hit $4 and 18 cents a gallon?... Trump and the Republicans aren't focused on what actually matters in their lives.” — Jessica Tarlov ([04:27])

• On Political Independence:

  “It's hard because the news cycle has several items in it now where I've been on the other side on trade, on the Iran war, and on some spending and debt issues. But it doesn't mean I'm not still a supporter, frankly.” — Rand Paul ([19:28])

• On Policing & Accountability:

  “Her punishment should have been not being a police officer. It shouldn't have been going to jail, frankly, even though there was a tragic death, because it really was an accident, as far as I can tell.” — Rand Paul ([26:32])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Opening, Ballroom Proposal, Political Blame: [00:23–05:06]
• Kimmel Controversy & Censorship: [05:59–14:09]
• Midterms, Massie & GOP Dynamics: [17:39–21:20]
• Iran War – Analysis & Advice: [21:20–23:36]
• GOP Dissent & Policing: [23:36–27:47]
• Hosts Reflect: [27:53–28:58]

---

Tone & Language

The episode features frank, critical, and sometimes sardonic exchanges, with a focus on policies over personalities. Paul and the hosts maintain a tone that oscillates between frustration at the current state of politics and genuine exploration of complex issues, in keeping with the “raging moderate” motif.

---

For Listeners:

If you want both a moderate’s fire and clear explanations of pressing policy controversies—ballroom boondoggles, internet speech double standards, war fatigue, and the sharp edges inside Republican politics—this episode is a model of civil, incisive debate.

---

Transcript

[Scott Galloway]

Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Scott Galloway.

[Jessica Tarlev]

And I'm Jessica Tarlev.

[Scott Galloway]

Today we're joined by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. He served in the Senate since 2011 and currently chairs the Homeland Security Committee, where he's backed much of President Trump's agenda in the second term. He hasn't hesitated also to speak out when he disagrees. Senator, thanks so much for being here.

[Senator Rand Paul]

Glad to be with you. Thanks for having me.

[Scott Galloway]

If you aren't already, please make sure to subscribe to our YouTube page to stay up to date on all news politics. All right, let's get into it. In the wake of the attempted assassination of the White House Correspondent center, many Republicans, including the president, are blaming Democrats, accusing them of fueling political violence with inflammatory rhetoric. It's a familiar pattern, calls to cool things down, followed by a shift of blame. At the same time, congressional Republicans are pushing to fast track a proposed White House ballroom, arguing it's needed for security, that there's a split over how to pay for it. Three Republican senators introduced a bill to allocate 400 million in federal funding, saying it shouldn't rely on private donors, while others in the party disagree. Here's Trump discussing it on 60 Minutes.

[Donald Trump]

I'm building a safe ballroom, and one of the reasons I'm building it is exactly what happened last night. We're building a room right there. If you walk out and move 20 yards to the left, you'll be right

[Senator Rand Paul]

at the entrance to the ballroom.

[Donald Trump]

And that ballroom is being built on

[Senator Rand Paul]

the safest piece of property in this

[Donald Trump]

country, probably one of the safest pieces of land in the world.

[Scott Galloway]

Senator Paul, you're one of the Republicans proposing this legislation to move it forward. Why do you feel strongly this is the right move to the country? Your thoughts?

[Senator Rand Paul]

You know, I'm on a commission. There's a special commission, and there are two people, one from the House and one from the Senate, on the building commission to approve products like this. So we've studied this issue. We've voted on it. I think the vote was 8 to 1 in favor of allowing the building to go ahead. In this instance, there aren't appropriations necessary. Now some of the other people are proposing 400 million doll dollars. I propose to allow it to go forward, but to let the president spend the money that they've collected privately. In the past, presidents have been given this freedom to redesign the White House, but typically it went through the appropriations process. So there was some congressional imprimatur on this because they had to vote to spend the money. This Time is a little different in the sense that the President says he's collected the money to do this. So I have a bill that would allow this to move forward. Was precipitated somewhat by the. Both the opposition in court, by people trying to stop it, but also in response to the attempted assassination as well. I think it is difficult to protect the President. In all likelihood, there will be social events that will be able to be held there that haven't in the past, won't be as big as the Washington Hilton, but I think there will be some events that will be able to be held on the White House grounds that otherwise would have required removing the president. And so I think it's a reasonable request.

[Jessica Tarlev]

You know, I understand your point and saying he's already collected the money, which is what they told us, and now they seem to want government money for it. And Lindsey Graham is enthusiastic about that. But there are also questions, as there are with everything that's gone on in the Trump administration of, you know, who is giving him this money and what they might be getting in return. Are you concerned about a potential, you know, grifting component or back channel favors that the President is getting in return for support for something like a ballroom?

[Senator Rand Paul]

You know, I think if those concerns are valid, we'd have to have some laws in place to stop it. I don't know that we have any laws in place. You know, this, the same, this same argument occurs every few years about presidential libraries with all the money that gets involved with that. So I understand the questions, and I think they're reasonable questions. I don't know that we have any laws in place or have any laws proposed where people say, well, you can't take private money. You could also argue that private money is, you know, less tainted in a way. It's coming from people voluntarily giving their own money. So I think that if there's evidence of any quid pro quo, people giving money and getting something, that that would actually be illegal. You know, it's not. It is definitely. There are laws against actually giving money to somebody in office and then getting something in return. So if you connect the two, that would already be illegal.

[Jessica Tarlev]

Yeah, well, hopefully we can find out where this money is coming from, if they're going to use it. And then I just kind of have a general question because I know that, you know, you've pushed back on the Trump administration before. You voted against a big, beautiful bill, for instance, you know, and I understand the security concerns for the President after what happened at the White House. Correspondents dinner. But are you concerned that this is the conversation that we're having when gas just hit $4 and 18 cents a gallon? Farm bankruptcies, record high food and groceries all costing people too much? And over 70% of Americans say that Trump and the Republicans aren't focused on what actually matters in their lives.

[Senator Rand Paul]

Well, I would agree that affordability, price in the grocery store, price of the gas pump are really some of the most important things that people come up to me. I mean, people are telling me they're not filling up their entire tank, they're filling up a half a tank, a quarter of a tank, because they can't afford a whole tank. So, yeah, these are pressing concerns of the public. It's why I've opposed the war. It's one of the reasons I've opposed the war in Iran. Also because I think that the biggest national security risk we face is our debt and that the further we go into debt, the more we are at risk. I really think that our greatest challenge and our greatest threat is from within, not from without. I think defending our currency, affording our government all the costs that we have domestically, I think really argue against getting more involved in international conflict, particularly if it's a war of choice. This war is not my choice.

[Scott Galloway]

So just we'll circle back to the war. Want to switch gears for a second? Jimmy Kimmel is facing backlash from the Trump camp after a controversial joke about first lady Melania Trump aired just days before the White House correspondents to enter shooting. Now Melania is demanding action from ABC. Trump says Kimmel should be fired. FCC is now moving towards review of ABC's broadcast license. Let's watch Kimmel responding.

[Donald Trump]

Last night, five nights ago, it was a pretend roast. I said our first lady Melania is here. Look at her. So beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow, which obviously was a joke about their age difference and the look of joy we see on her face every time they're together. It was a very light roast joke about the fact that he's almost 80 and she's younger than I am. It was not by any stretch of the definition a call to assassination. And they know that I've been very vocal for many years speaking out against gun violence in particular.

[Scott Galloway]

Senator, do you think Kim will cross the line here? And if so, what would you say to the people who believe that the president crosses the line regularly with much more incendiary content about his political opponents? Thoughts?

[Senator Rand Paul]

Well, I think there are two separate questions here. Whether or not he crossed the line. And whether or not you condemn what he said is one thing, and whether or not the government should have any role in preventing him from saying it is a completely another discussion. I don't believe the First Amendment should prevent almost all speech. I think almost all speeches is protected. If you, you know, are making a joke about someone dying, I think it's in terribly bad taste. And so I would condemn it as being in bad taste, but I wouldn't involve the FCC or threaten somebody with having their job removed by anyone in government.

[Scott Galloway]

So you're against the FCC going after trying to revoke ABC's license?

[Senator Rand Paul]

Without question, I'm against the FCC being involved in limitations on speech. The only real limitations are they have to be very, very specific, because the court has really limited this as far as inciting people to actually do something. It has to be a very specific case. And this was true even when many on the left were wanting to, you know, prosecute Trump for saying, go, fight, win, you know, carry your message down to the Capitol that, you know, no court would say that that is any kind of imminent threat to violence. And so I think that the left needs to be aware that they were equally as guilty of trying to restrict speech. And I think we have to sort of look at the First Amendment without partisanship. You can dislike what Trump says, you can criticize it, but there's no argument for the government shutting down Trump's speech.

[Scott Galloway]

So given your reverence for the First Amendment, do you believe that Director Patel's case against the Atlantic is also misguided?

[Senator Rand Paul]

Yeah, I don't know a lot about it, but in all likelihood, yes. I'm not really for the government suing people to shut down speech. I think that there are some exceptions to it. One is on the imminence of violence. I also don't think you can accuse people of crimes, defame their character. So, you know, if you say someone is a pedophile, pedophile is not only really a serious crime, it would be incredibly damaging to anyone's reputation. Or if you accuse someone of being involved in sexual trafficking or thing, I think that is defamatory. And I would be. I don't know if that had anything to do with this case. But I'm just saying if you do accuse people of a crime, I think that defamatory stuff should be either taken down by whoever's hosting it or there should be ramifications for hosting defamatory material.

[Scott Galloway]

So I apologize. But I have to ask, do you think accusing someone of treason or saying they should be brought up on treason charges as Trump has accused or said about Adam Schiff. Do you think that crosses the line?

[Senator Rand Paul]

Well, these are real questions and they're important questions and you probably have to parse out the specifics. You know, I've had people posting stuff online and we finally got it taken down, but a woman saying I'm taking money from Maduro and that's a specific crime, but it also would be, I would be guilty of treason. And the punishment for treason is death. So I would think encouraging things like that and saying things that aren't true, there probably should be ramifications on that kind of speech. It is a little different whether or not you're saying in a more abstract or general, you know, it's sort of like, I hate you, you're a terrible person, you're committing treason. If it's a vague sort of term, I think it's less likely and I'm not an expert in defamation, but I think you're less likely to win a defamation case if you're calling someone something vague as opposed to something specific. In my case, I was being accused of a very specific crime. That's not true. There's no factual data for it. And I think that people should be liable. And I got the person to take it down, but actually was kind of annoyed that the Internet hosts are willing to host things because I think there is going to be a problem. This is different than Trump and different than all these other issues. But I think of a small town minister accused of some horrible sex crime for which it gets all over the Internet and it's hosted and then there's no way to recover from that. You know, I can at least fight back because I'm a public figure. And so there's a slightly different standard for a public figure. But I do worry about things being hosted, lurid things for which you could never recover your reputation and you could be basically hounded out of a church or hounded out of a town if you're a small town mayor. I think there actually probably does need to be more policing and I, I kind of wish the Internet providers would. The debate I had with Google over this I think is informative because see, Google polices speech all the time. They police my speech. When I say or said often that masks don't work, particularly cloth masks don't work or say that I'm immune once I've had Covid or say that basically the vaccine doesn't stop transmission, they were taking that down because they judged it not to be true. But then they don't bother taking down something where someone's accusing me of treason. So I think it's a big double standard that they say, oh, we are gonna adjudicate the truth sometimes, but we're not gonna do it when it comes to someone accusing you of a crime for which the death penalty and for which I actually have received death threats because of this. So I think it's a weird situation we have. If you call someone fat and treasonous, Google will take it down cause you're bullying someone for fatness, but they won't take it down cause you've accused them of treason. So I think it's a bizarre world they live in and we live in, but I think it becomes more dangerous over time as different people are accusing people of crimes and people have no idea of what's true anymore. I mean, I have people who I thought knew me better who were saying, oh, I can't believe you're taking money from Maduro. And it's like, really? I didn't know that anybody was dumb enough to actually believe these over the top statements, but they're being given by newscasters pretending to sit at a broadcast desk pretending to quote sort of authoritative figures. So I do worry about that. And then with, with AI and the ability to even, you know, used to be. Well, at least it's hearsay. No one's going to believe it. But what about the idea when they're having pictures showing you receiving money from someone that is just completely made up and a fake?

[Jessica Tarlev]

I totally agree with you. There's a rumor online that I'm having an affair with Jamie Raskin, who I have never met and we're both happily married to other people. And I've had friends text me and say, you know, I'm telling people that this isn't true. And I'm like, yeah, well, yes, please tell them that it isn't true. But there's nothing to be done about it. But you have a very important job on a comparative basis to me, and I'm wondering what kind of legislation or movement, you know, the government could take to actually regulate these kinds of things in some way. You know, I watched the social media companies when the CEOs came in and, you know, kind of got dressed down about the terrible things that go online, especially in the bullying space and the sex trafficking space. But the contrition lasted 20 minutes, right? It was just the length of the hearing. And then they went back to business as usual. So what kind of regulations might you be Open to, especially as someone who's such a, you know, First Amendment advocate.

[Senator Rand Paul]

Yeah. And I've always been on the other side of all of these issues. I've always been, for section 230, thought the Internet wouldn't have developed well. And I still think that we can't have a situation where everybody can sue everybody over name calling so that that can be part of this. I do think, though, that section 230, and I've come to believe this, stronger, that exemptions from liability are exemptions from the normal state of common law. We've developed common law for a long time for you to be responsible for things that you do and to have liability. So I've become less a fan of, of virtually all liability protection because I think it's a special privilege that government is. Is. Is granting. That said, when I look at section 230, I'm not still advocating we just sort of get rid of it. I think really things that are illegal that a newspaper doesn't host and won't, such as defamation. So you won't find your local newspaper saying, hey, the mayor, we is a pedophile and doing this, and we ought to run him out of town or her out of town. And the newspaper won't print it because they are worried about liability. And they're, you know, people say it's journalistic standards were better. Some of it was that, but some of it was the whole idea of liability. Those things weren't produced. I think that the Internet, those who host the Internet, have hid behind, oh, we're just booksellers. We're just hosting this content. We're not publishing. It, I think has some truth, but I don't think it should apply to things that are defamatory. And so I think that they go against their whole argument because during COVID they decided what was true and wasn't true, and they were pulling down things they thought wasn't true. When I mentioned the name of the whistleblower who I think did conspire with others to bring the first Trump impeachment, they pulled that down. I actually mentioned that on the Senate floor because I don't think he was a traditional whistleblower in any sense. I think he was conspiring basically with others at work to make something into an impeachable offense. That really was no different than everything Joe Biden had done. What had Joe Biden said when he was vice president, we'll cut your money off if you prosecute my son's company. And what was Trump saying? We'll cut your money off if you don't investigate the guy that should have been prosecuting Trump's son. So, I mean, both sides have, you know, use this threat of reducing money, this odive deal, quid pro quo. But the bottom line is the Internet providers are policing language. They're policing if I misname you or gender or misname you somehow, that is an offense for being taken down. But you can call someone a pedophile. You can even specifically say, we have four women that will say that they were raped by this person. And Google just leave that up. They'll say, oh, you have to prove it's not true. And it's like, oh, really? That sounds the opposite of innocent until proven guilty. Now I've got to prove that something's not true. You know, how do you end up proving something's not true? It's very difficult. So I think they tend to police language in areas they like, politically correct sort of areas of people. They don't want to be bullied or criticized online. And then something I think is way more important, accusing people of a crime for which it's death or accusing people of a crime for which they would be ostracized from their community forever is not policed at all. And yet they will police, you know, two kids calling each other fat or ugly.

[Scott Galloway]

Okay, let's take a quick break. Stay with us. Welcome back.

[Jessica Tarlev]

I want to make sure that we do talk about the midterms, which are fast approaching just a few months away. You know, what's your prediction for how it's going to go? And I, you know, I saw that you're backing Thomas Massie who is in a primary fight with a Trump backed candidate. Obviously, Massie has, you know, is on the wrong side of Trump at this particular moment because of his fight to get the Epstein files released. What's that dynamic like as well?

[Senator Rand Paul]

You know, I have been working hard to help Thomas Massie get reelected. I think he has a good chance of being reelected. The people at home know him. They know his independence. And the irony is he's actually being attacked for holding positions the president either used to hold or may even still hold. The whole idea of the Epstein. No one had heard of the Epstein files or talked about it before. Donald Trump talked about it extensively on the campaign trail. What Thomas Massie is doing is actually supporting Donald Trump in exposing the Epstein files. Now, Trump changed his mind. But the interesting thing is Thomas Massie did something extraordinary. He only had three Republicans supporting him. In the end, every Republican supported Him. This has probably never happened that I know of in Washington, where a backbench congressman, Thomas Massie, took an issue where he only had three Republicans supporting him in the end, got every Republican and even got the president to support him. So really, the Epstein thing really shouldn't be portrayed as Thomas Massie against Donald Trump. It's Thomas Massie actually passing what Donald Trump originally wanted and what Donald Trump eventually did sign. It's the same way with the most other, most important thing to Donald Trump. That's impeachment. Thomas Massie voted against both impeachments. I voted against both impeachments. I actually brought up the constitutional question in the second Trump impeachment of whether or not it's constitutional to impeach someone who's not in office, which I think it's not. And there is no precedent for impeaching someone who's not in office. I don't know how you impeach somebody. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. And so I don't know. I think of myself as still a strong Donald Trump supporter, not on everything, but on many issues I still am. And it's hard because the news cycle has several items in it now where I've been on the other side on trade, on the Iran war, and on some spending and debt issues. But it doesn't mean I'm not still a supporter, frankly.

[Jessica Tarlev]

Yeah. And what do you think about the midterms?

[Senator Rand Paul]

I think historically it's hard. Presidents very rarely the opposite party usually does well in off year midterms. And I think it's because the news cycle is dominated by the president and people who are opposed to his policies are motivated in that first two years to come out. So I think in all likelihood, very good chance the House could flip. I think the war is also a negative. I think that people are motivated, particularly people, voters in the middle who are motivated by their own economic circumstances, see paying the price of gas and wondering really, is it in our best interest to be involved in this war of choice with Iran. So I think the war hurts also. I think the closer we get to October and the war being continuing and gas prices still being high, fertilizer prices being high, the farming community is suffering right now from this and the tariffs as well. I think that it makes it more likely that the House will flip and a possibility of the Senate, I think less likely the Senate, but there's a chance the House will flip. I don't want that to happen. And I'm trying to do everything I can. I wish some Republicans weren't spending so much money trying to take a Republican out. Thomas Massie. And we're spending that money on Democrats. I think that's wasted money, particularly because I think Thomas Massie's gonna win.

[Scott Galloway]

So speaking of the war, you've called the war not good for America and expressed concerns about the ballooning cost of the conflict. How would you describe the state of play right now in Iran and what would your advice be to the administration in terms of a go forward strategy, given where we are right now?

[Senator Rand Paul]

You know, I want the war to end as soon as possible. I think the war is not good for America. I want our soldiers to be brought home safely. Ending the war is more difficult now, and you have to decide what you're willing to accept. For a while, the president was saying unconditional surrender. Very rarely does war end with unconditional surrender. Japan unconditionally surrendered, but realized we dropped two atomic weapons on them, killed hundreds of thousands of people. And at the next cabinet meeting, the Imperial Cabinet was still arguing to continue the war. The emperor, who rarely spoke, spoke up and said, no, it's over. But there were still significant numbers of members of his cabinet that wanted to continue on. Unconditional surrender almost never happens. So I think if that's the goal, we will fight a long time. Or you'd have to invade with hundreds of thousands of troops to get unconditional surrender. Now, to get surrender and get some other advantage other than that they've been militarily defeated. If you want to remove the nuclear enriched uranium, I think that'd be a great goal. But to get it, I don't think you're getting it unless one of two things happens. Either you invade and have troops on the ground or you negotiate with the Iranians, you give them something they want. Now, I think you could trade sanction, relief and resumption of trade and release of international money that's been confiscated by the banking system. But is the Trump administration going to be willing to do what they have been opposed to in the past, both of those items that happened in the previous Iranian agreement? So I think it's difficult right now and I don't see an easy way to end this where anything more positive comes unless you just declare victory and just say it's over. That could happen. But I think there are many things arguing against that. The people on the right, Lindsey Graham and others, won't want any end of the war until all the nuclear enrichment is gone, which is fine. But how does that happen short of putting land troops into Iran. I don't know how it happens, actually.

[Scott Galloway]

Final questions here, Jess, so we can let the senator get back to his good work.

[Jessica Tarlev]

Yeah, it's kind of a meta question. And I know that about 90% of the time you do side with the president or vote with the president, but you have been outspoken on so many issues that have captivated the national consciousness and affected us deeply, certainly on trade, but also really on immigration and the violations of the first and Fourth Amendments that went on. You know, the president and Kristi Noem calling, Alex Pareti and Renee Good, domestic terrorists, et cetera. What is it like to be a thorn in the side of the administration on these issues that are so dominant in our consciousness?

[Senator Rand Paul]

Well, I can tell you, first of all, it's not my goal. I don't wake up each day and want to be on the other side of the administration.

[Jessica Tarlev]

I love you for it, though. I enjoy it when it happens.

[Senator Rand Paul]

I know. But you may not be one of my Republican supporters in Kentucky.

[Jessica Tarlev]

I'm not.

[Senator Rand Paul]

What I would say is I don't wake up wanting to be on the other side of the president. I am friends with the president. I've known him for 15 years. He helped with my mission trips before he was in office in Guatemala, in Haiti. So I am friends with the president and want to continue to be. But on immigration and on this, I did not like the images in the streets of ICE agents all over the streets of the confrontation with people. People yelling at you is not enough to be sprayed in the eyes from six inches away with pepper spray. It's not enough to throw people to the ground because they're yelling at you. And in fact, when you saw leadership finally occur, Tom Homan went to Minneapolis, you saw no more ICE agents in the streets. And I didn't see. I haven't seen one video episode since then. So it took leadership and some changes in policy. I think that if they were to announce we made mistakes, we've changed policy, which has actually already occurred, and then add some of that into the appropriations process, I think you could actually have a compromise. I think it would be better for Republicans in the polls. You know, Minnesota is actually, it's a more Democrat state, but the state legislature is always up for grabs. You know, between Republicans and Democrats, if we want a chance to actually break even or try to win at something in Minnesota, we should announce that we're going to do a better job. I see no problem in announcing that we made mistakes or that the government made Mistakes and is going to try to do a better job. But I don't do this because I'm opposed to the president. I do this just because I can't see images like that where Alexander Putty is shot and not speak out and say, this is not, this is not what we want. This is not good law enforcement. And frankly, the people involved in those shootings really shouldn't be doing that job. Now, I'm not for prosecuting them. I think it's a difficult job and I think it's, these are accidental shootings by people in the heat of battle. But they made the wrong decision. Shooting Alexander Preddy after the gun had been removed was a mistake. They mistakenly must have thought he still had the gun when they heard gun, gun. And, and that's an error, but it's an error in judgment. So tragic that you really shouldn't be involved in law enforcement if you make those errors. And we have this all the time in law enforcement. We sometimes make the mistake, oh, we're going to prosecute every policeman, but we can't be prosecuting every policeman. It's a really, really tough job. What we need to be doing to the policemen who make terrible mistakes, you know, like the woman who drew her gun instead of her Taser and immediately knew she had done the wrong thing. Her punishment should have been not being a police officer. It shouldn't have been going to jail, frankly, even though there was a tragic death, because it really was an accident, as far as I can tell.

[Jessica Tarlev]

I don't. I think that we do need thorough investigations of the officers involved in those deaths. When, you know, when you watch the video of Officer Ross with Renee Good, and you see that her car was turned to move away and then he still shot her at point blank range, you got to think that there's more to this story and that the American people are owed that. But we're so appreciative of your time. Senator Paul, thank you for coming.

[Senator Rand Paul]

Thank you.

[Scott Galloway]

And thank you, Senator. And just real quick, I taught macro and microeconomics in graduate school. And when we would talk about debt and the deficit, we used to play videos of your father. So the Paul family has been teaching or. Your father first got me sort of interested in the deficit way back when.

[Senator Rand Paul]

I appreciate that. Thanks for having me.

[Scott Galloway]

Thank you.

[Jessica Tarlev]

See you soon.

[Scott Galloway]

Jess, what'd you think?

[Jessica Tarlev]

I enjoyed it. I mean, it felt like we covered a lot of territory. And he's obviously very defensive of his positive relationship with Trump and wants to emphasize that, you know, and maybe I'M just used to being proverbially breadcrumbed by anyone that speaks out against the administration. But I am thankful that he has taken stands on things like trade and immigration and on the big beautiful bill. And I think he's more thoughtful than the average bear. So what'd you think?

[Scott Galloway]

Yeah. The senator has voted with the President 90%, which makes him the closest thing we have to an independent Republican senator. That's how difficult it is to find somebody who breaks from the president. And he's broken on some really key issues, the war ice. So I think you gotta hand it to Senator Paul that he's, you may not agree with his principles, but he's principled. He doesn't, you know, he's not afraid to go up against the president, which is, I think, more than you could say, 97% of the Republican Party right now.

[Jessica Tarlev]

So certainly the ones trying to get reelected, I mean, some of them find their voice when they're on the way out the door. Yeah, but you know, he's sticking it out and I like him backing Thomas Massie this hard against Trump. I think that's good.

[Scott Galloway]

Agreed.

[Jessica Tarlev]

Before we go, a reminder that Raging Moderates is on. Substack subscribers get ad free episodes, which everybody loves, a place to connect with all of us, and access to the Raging Moderates newsletter, which we're super proud of and hope you guys are enjoying. Plus, we're going to be doing some more live streams that'll only be viewable to our Substack subscribers. So join us, Raging Moderates, Prophet Media.com that's all for this episode. Thank you so much for joining us today.

[Donald Trump]

Sa.