D (9:05)

Thanks, Ari. Thanks for having me.

B (9:08)

You've got a career that deals in the planning and the research around these type of activities before they happen, whether or not they ever happen. So I'm curious, first, your assessment of the evident war planning that's gone into this as we start week three. Any concerns you might have? I took through some of the reporting.

D (9:29)

Well, the lesson we always teach our students is operations have to be matched to strategies that there has to be some goal simply being good at operations, which the US Military is without question. That's not really an answer to the part the civilians have to, which is, why are we doing this? What's the point of these operations? If we succeed in enough of these operations, what are they supposed to build to? And how does that lead to some kind of victory that then lets you know that you're done? And I think none of that's been happening. And I think the fault really rests here with the civilians. I mean, for years I taught the planning process and the policy process. There's no process here. The Process is whatever Donald Trump happens to be thinking in any given moment. And that's not really the best way to get advice or to plot out a war. It's clear that he was told by the military the many things that could happen. But I suspect he thought, as he so often seems to, that he thought he was the smartest person in the room, that he knew that the Iranians would surrender, whatever that means, long before this became a problem. And now three weeks going into three weeks, here we are.

B (10:46)

If the US Wanted to lean on allies to deal with the strait, would it have been better to try to confer more with those allies in advance?

D (10:58)

Absolutely.

B (10:59)

Absolutely.

D (11:00)

I mean, part of what you're seeing here, I mean, there aren't a whole lot of people in Europe or anywhere else, you know, crying tears for the Iranian regime. What you're seeing are European nations who don't want to be dragged into a conflict by somebody who's as erratic and unpredictable. And I would even say, obviously, now in way over his head as the President and his team, because that's the other problem here. Normally when you're talking about getting your allies on board, you try to send trusted advisors and cabinet members. Who are you going to send to Europe to try to explain this or to try and gain allied support? Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio can't do everything. He's already the head of the National Security Council and the Secretary of State, and I don't know if he's still the archivist, but he can't do that alone. And we just didn't do any of that. And you can't simply snap your fingers. I think Donald Trump doesn't understand that other countries are not just subsidiaries of the United States or kind of subunits that he happens to own. And you can't just snap your fingers and say, okay, forget everything I said before this. Now get in here and help us.

B (12:18)

Yeah. And final question. A former Republican Energy secretary this week trying to kind of remind people that he says the Strait of Hormuz is the mother of all choke points. You can't really go on in normal economics without it. Does that mean if we continue in this, whatever these three weeks have been, if we have three more weeks like this, does that become both an economic and security problem for the United States?

D (12:44)

I'm not an economist, but I'll say it's already a security problem. This was the, you know, the worst outcome. Well, in terms of the straits, this is exactly what Trump was probably warned about. But it's even worse than that because somehow the Iranians are getting in and out of the straits. They're just choking it off for everybody else. And so, you know, three more weeks of this. I think that the economic effects are already in motion. And even if all of this stops tomorrow, the ripple effect is we're going to be feeling that for a while. But if this goes on for another two, three weeks, that's really going to be a major impact.

B (13:24)

Yeah. Tom Nichols leading us off, thank you very much. I mentioned this censorship effort. I have a special report on that here with Andrew Weissman. Next,

A (13:39)

CIDP can make your daily routine feel not so routine. The good news, with a self injection for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, you have the option to treat at home. Discover more@cidpselfinjection.com and talk to your doctor. That's cidpselfinjection.com brought to you by Argenics.

D (14:06)

Lifelock, how can I help?

C (14:07)

The IRS said I filed my return, but I haven't.

A (14:10)

One in four tax paying Americans has paid the price of identity fraud.

B (14:14)

What do I do?

D (14:14)

My refund though.

C (14:15)

I'm freaking out.

D (14:16)

Don't worry, I can fix this.

A (14:18)

LifeLock fixes identity theft, guaranteed and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.

B (14:23)

I'm so relieved.

A (14:24)

No problem.

D (14:24)

I'll be with you every step of the way.

A (14:26)

One in four was a four fraud paying American. Not anymore. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com Specialoffer terms apply.

E (14:35)

If you're a parent and want to help set up your child for success, then IXL is right for your family as an effective and affordable online learning program.

B (14:44)

IXL covers math, language arts, science and

E (14:48)

social studies using interactive practice problems for kids from Pre K to 12th grade. Listeners can get an exclusive 20% off IXL membership when they sign up today@ixl.com Visit ixl.com 20 to get the most effective learning program out there at the best price.

B (15:10)

I actually think it's pretty frivolous because our media companies who have no credibility whatsoever are putting out information that they know as false and it's very dangerous. Serious Donald Trump dialing up attacks in the First Amendment. He's floundering in the Iran war. But he is trying to now abuse power in a likely illegal way to censor coverage. He posted about, quote, treason and other clearly false, you know, scare tactics. But moments after that post, he was also threatening them on Air Force One, as you hear, and clashing with reporters when he didn't like questions for you. We're one of the worst, most bank owns, corrupt. You know what? ABC News, I think it's maybe the most corrupt news organization. The rally that everybody, including abc fake news, your network is the worst.

A (16:13)

A totally AI generated fake news story put out by news organizations in the US and elsewhere.

B (16:23)

Honestly, they really shouldn't be allowed to live. Very obnoxious president. The president lashing out. It's not just rhetoric. There is an effort, very likely unlawful, to abuse government power to censor war coverage and to retaliate or extort positive coverage out of independent media in the United States. This is happening now. This story broke over the weekend and it's a big one. The head of the FCC who has lost other plots, including going after Jimmy Kimmel, you might remember, is now saying that he will do something that is probably illegal the courts would stop if they do it, try to revoke broadcaster licenses for their First Amendment protected free speech rights. Now again, some of this failed when he tried to go after Kimmel and abc. But even the failed plots to censor and attack free speech speech can have consequences in our country. Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican saying this is not right. I'm a big supporter of the First Amendment. I do not like the heavy hand of government no matter who's wielding it. So no, I would rather the federal government stay out of the private sector as much as possible. And really the federal government's role is to protect our freedoms, protect our constitutional rights. Politically, when you've lost Ron Johnson, you know you're really out there. But this is not just a political thing. This is the First Amendment freedom to report on the war factually, no matter what it says about the current government or Trump administration and your right to discuss it. You have every much right to dissent from this war if you choose or to support this war if you choose. But both and all things are protected. And your government right now, you need to know and understand is admitting an anti First Amendment likely illegal? I say that because this new plot hasn't been ruled on yet. But likely illegal effort to silence the press and to intimidate dissent. And if you're curious and keeping track, again, not that it matters, but one of the outlets they're going after is the Rupert Murdoch owned Fox News sister outlet Wall Street Journal. For those who thought Trump would leave them alone, this is another example of where there isn't even a type of pseudo loyalty. He will go after anyone who exercises their rights if they interfere with his autocratic power grab. I'm Joined by Andrew Weissman, our legal eagle. Andrew, your thoughts on this story tonight.

C (18:57)

Well, there's so many examples of things like this, starting with the law firms where numerous executive orders were struck down as violating the First Amendment, the First Amendment right of lawyers to take on cases and to be heard in court. We saw it most recently with the effort by this administration to indict six sitting members of Congress for having the temerity to do what? To issue a video that accurately stated the law about the military members being able to refuse to follow illegal orders and they sought to indict them. So it's both a violation of the First Amendment and it has this sort of terrorizing effect to sort of get people to obey in advance. I would point out historically this is exactly what happened during World War II with the International reporters who were in Germany trying to document the, the rise of Hitler in Germany. And they were not allowed to issue any reports about what was going on in Germany unless and until they were sanitized and approved by that administration. It is, it's, I'm not trying to say it's an apples to apples comparison. The idea is, is that this is a tactic of authoritarian regimes to control the information flow.

B (20:34)

You can leave Hitler out of it too, and say that the First Amendment bars viewpoint discrimination and government powers being abused to change that which otherwise people would say in their reporting or their press. Which quite clearly seems to be what Brendan Carr admits. No.

C (20:53)

Yeah. The reason I do think Germany, though, is relevant is that there was an effort there to report on what was actually happening, the harm that was happening within Germany, about the casualties, about the errors, about the mistakes. And if you only want a rosy picture, you should not be in the United States. You should be in Hungary or in Russia, in Ukraine when it was controlled by Russia. Those are authoritarian regimes where you have state run media and you don't have access to people like you, Ari, who are not afraid to speak truth to power. But that is what's going on now.

B (21:35)

Yeah. And we hear the threats and the censorship and we are not changing a thing. But when you look at the wider context, someone listening to us right now tonight might say, well, the Wall Street Journal is fighting back the other lawsuit. They're going to keep going. Okay. Ari and Andrew are going to keep going. So maybe this doesn't move the needle. And I have to report that's not the case. Some of this has already been effective because I want to play for you during war, the Pentagon secretary, referring to how the Trump administration may be Abusing its powers to regulate the Justice Department, where you once work, regulate antitrust. They have every right to patrol monopolies. But he is saying basically admitting that they want to have their friends like the Ellisons win over control of CNN and other places and then get different coverage. Take a look. Fake news from CNN reports that the Trump administration underestimated the Iran war's impact on the Strait of Hormuz. Patently ridiculous, of course. For decades, Iran has threatened shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. This is always what they hold the strait hostage. CNN doesn't think we thought of that. It's a fundamentally unserious report. The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better. He's directly saying that Ellison, who is the current lead bidder having vanquished Netflix, should change editorial to be friendlier to Trump when they get control of cnn. And this is before the Trump administration has approved that entire process. Is that okay at the doj?

C (23:21)

All of this is to me is going to result in the same kind of lawsuits based on the First Amendment. And you know, it's what we saw, as you mentioned with Jimmy Kimmel, you can ask Stephen Colbert about the effort to have him not bring on a guest. He had to go to YouTube to bring on a guest because CBS was going to obey and advance his words about what was going on there. And so, you know, this is something that is actually happening now. And to say, yes, there are some voices where people are saying, you know what, I'm not going to be afraid to speak out, doesn't mean that there still isn't a huge effect. The law firms, which obviously I'm very familiar with, is a really good example of that, where there are, you know, scores of law firms that have either publicly or privately caved to the administration, leaving really sort of mid sized firms and small firms to do a lot of the work that previously was done by very large firms to take on what they think are and often are illegal activities by the government. That's how our process works. It's supposed to be one where you go to court, you make your arguments, but you don't try and win by changing access to the facts so that everyone only hears one side of the story.

B (24:48)

Yeah. And then Andrew, you say at times the Trump folks seem to be getting progress by dragging these things out. So even if they don't win the case against some of these individuals, you mentioned the revenge cases, it costs a lot of money. It drags out, people are on trial, et cetera, harassment. As one judge put it interestingly, late in the week that got flipped on its head, Trump lost the ability to use what they're calling the judge called harassment subpoenas. And it was shut down earlier in the case of the Fed, which also undercuts one of Trump's ploys in the midterm. So I was really curious what you thought about a judge going at that earlier. Obviously the subpoena standard is pretty low and you can brief us on that. And so I wanted you to give the breakdown of that Trump loss and whether it matters that it came faster. Let's get into that. We're gonna fit in a break. Andrew stays. We'll get into that next.

A (25:45)

CIDP can make your daily routine feel not so routine. The good news? With a self injection for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, you have the option to treat at home. Discover more@cidpselfinjection.com and talk to your doctor. That's cidpselfinjection.com brought to you by Argenics.

E (26:11)

If you're a parent and want to help set up your child for success, then IXL is right for your family as an effective and affordable online learning program. IXL covers math, language arts, science and social studies using interactive practice problems for kids from Pre K to 12th grade. Listeners can get an exclusive 20% off IXL membership when they sign up today@ixl.com 20. Visit ixl.com 20 to get the most effective learning program out there at the best price. Performance comes down to controlling what you can. For Jessica Pegula, it starts with the air around her. A blueair user for over five years, she trusts Blue Signature air purifiers engineered to perform and designed to impress. Shop blueair.com and use code signature. 30.

B (27:02)

Donald Trump facing a loss, A loss, I should say a loss in court. A judge blocking the DOJ's subpoenas as illegal harassment of the Fed chair. The judge saying this was just an illegal bid to harass and pressure Powell, not an actual legitimate probe. The Times says this is an extraordinary example of pushback by the judicial branch. It is also a loss for Jeanine Pirro, a fox host turned U.S. attorney. She says they will appeal. And it's the latest of many Trump DOJ cases that are themselves illegal enemies, probes. Everything you see in Green has already faltered. The Fed subpoenas have been quashed. You see that green in the middle on the right. And many of these other cases are at various procedural postures. As lawyers like Andrew Weissman would say, none have generated a victory yet a year in to Donald Trump's doj. I'm back with Andrew Weissman, former FBI general counsel, former prosecutor. And Andrew, as mentioned, this was an earlier rejection. I would say that outside of the current lawless era of Pam Bondi, even a reach of a subpoena, you can walk us through this, might be allowed on a low probable cause standard. And then later, if they don't find anything, the judge starts to say, well, you got to look, you didn't find anything. We're not just indicting everyone. And there are other safeguards on that. Does it matter? And do you see any change in the judiciary that some of this stuff, I use that word as that's the nicest word I can come up with, is being stopped earlier?

C (28:39)

Yeah. So we have seen courts respond to cases that have been brought where there's an indictment pending, dismissing the case. We have seen grand juries refuse to indict. But this is even earlier than that. This is just during the investigative phase. And it's the initial grand jury subpoenas that at least we know about, where the court said that he cannot find that there is a legitimate basis because it's there to harass the target. And decades ago, decades ago, the Supreme Court, in a case called R Enterprises, has said that you cannot use grand jury subpoenas to harass somebody. There has to be a legitimate investigation. It cannot be for that purpose. And here the district judge, frankly, uses Donald Trump's words over and over and over again about what he wants to see happen to Jerome Powell, that he wants him out and he denigrates him in the most childish way. And the court, I think, very aptly quotes the infamous line that Henry II of the King of England was said to have made with respect to the Archbishop Becket, saying, well, no one rid me of this troublesome priest, saying that is why this is happening. And it's such an apt quote, because it is really analogizing what's happening here to the power of a king. And that's not how we work. We have rules and we have laws, and here the judge is relying on clear Supreme Court precedent. So I think he's very well within his rights to have made this ruling. But it is quite surprising. And the reason it's surprising is for any normal Republican or Democratic administration, you never really think about that part of the law because, of course, you're doing the investigation with a legitimate purpose. In other words, you may not find anything at the end of the day, but you're Looking to see whether there was wrongdoing. You're not doing it just to harass somebody. And here there's such a clear record, as the judge found, as he said, mountains of evidence to support the finding that this was all pretextual.

B (31:02)

Yeah. And it is earlier. And we know courts work off precedent sometimes. That is a form of, of uniformity. And it's a good thing. I mean, it's the foundation of the Western legal system if I'm just giving it a quick gloss. But here we're watching some of the procedural precedents shift a little bit, as some judges say, well, wait a minute. If you let them harass people for two years and at the end, go toss it, you think you've blocked this case, but there's no regular order. And the Trump folks are all high fiving going, can you believe we got away with it for two years and we don't have time for it. But we're seeing that as well in some of the games they're playing around fake temp prosecutors who are getting DQ'd. We had two Andrew segments, maybe we needed three to get into that. But we'll have you back soon, sir. Nice to see you.

C (31:52)

Nice to see you.

B (31:53)

Appreciate it. By the end of the hour, we'll show you some of the Trump pushback on the big Oscars stage. Jimmy Kimmel and others that we know. Trump gets mad when they do this and they did it. But next we turn to the Epstein story on a different angle. New accountability at banks. Stay with us. The Epstein story continues even as the Iran war has of course drawn a lot of necessary attention. We are staying on the important parts of this, including accountability at some of these elite institutions. Bank of America settling with Epstein victims who alleged that the bank didn't do enough to address the warning signs, the anti money laundering controls and the evidence of a sex trafficking operation. We don't have detailed terms yet. There's also the deposition for Leon Black, who was scheduled to testify later this month, but that's now canceled. Another man who financially helped Epstein, Wexner, is facing more calls for accountability. These are people who donate a lot of money, some saying his name should come off Harvard buildings. I'll note that both of them have publicly denied any wrongdoing and are not accused of crimes by the Justice Department. The questions, though, have been adding up. And it's not just about all these individuals. It's also about everything we've ever been told by the government about Epstein. We prepared this new investigative timeline of his death. Congress Is obviously also looking at these questions, and they are going to get testimony from the prison guard who was on duty the night of Epstein's death. There is agreement, there is, I think, general agreement that there were huge mistakes made there at the prison by the

D (33:41)

car, by the guards.

B (33:42)

And so I think we need to get to the bottom of it. I mean, that's an honest truth. Let's get to the bottom of what exactly happened and provide more transparency for the public. We certainly have not gotten a complete story from the government, and that spans multiple administrations. In our beat report, we used our timeline and drew on the newly released Epstein files, which only recently, of course, in the last six weeks, have given insight into many things, including inconsistencies in the government statements about this. It all started with a cellmate who Epstein said tried to kill him. A brief suicide watch. You see the will preparation, the videos. And we went into these details in a special report. Staff allowed Epstein to break the rules with this call unrecorded and unmonitored before going back to his cell. If the staff followed the rules, we would have audio of Epstein's final conversation hours before he was found dead. Evidence of his state of mind, maybe more. So why would staff let this inmate indicted for grave crimes break rules? The DOJ report quotes an inmate who saw Epstein's power and money intimidating officers, that Epstein would, quote, tell them he was writing down their name for his lawyer, and they were on eggshells around him. Officers on eggshells, when they are supposed to be the ones in charge of a detainee. An inmate so disfavored under the eyes of law that he wasn't even out on bail before trial yet they were on eggshells. And there's a lot of other questions pending. I want to bring in New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg, an Ms. Now analyst. Welcome back. You look at the files that came out, and everyone has seen some of the accountability. And the initial focus, understandably, was on both Epstein, political figures and other men who may have committed crimes. And we've done many reports on that. The Congress is looking more at the subject that I showed viewers that there are still really grave questions about his death. And it matters if the government was false in how it described it or there was potentially foul play that went under, investigated. Your view of that piece?

E (36:05)

Well, I think it's just really important to get it all out in the open because, you know, up until now, I think we've described a lot of these questions about how Epstein died as conspiracy theories and I'm still not convinced that the official, you know, the official story might end up being correct, but there are so many irregularities, so many just weird things about how all of this went down. And that, in turn has fostered a lot of conspiracy theories, a lot of paranoia and distrust in the government. And so just doing all this in public seems like a, you know, a public service. And it was interesting that the, the chair of this committee said, you know, a lot of us are frankly convinced that Epstein killed himself. And so, you know, if they're not convinced, I think it's not surprising that a lot of the public isn't convinced either.

B (37:01)

Right. And to your point, the government passed this law, which includes the cause of death as a point of inquiry for file release. So the government's on record saying, we need more of this. That doesn't presuppose that it was a different explanation, but it certainly shows that interest. And, and then you have the question of what these officers were up to. And I've told viewers this, Michelle, I'm going to play some sound and get your response. If there was corruption in that jail that has been covered up all this time, but officers were getting, for example, protection payments or other things related to Epstein separate from his death, that would be another piece of corruption. We're talking about someone who clearly used money and power and potentially other tools to corrupt many systems. So the public should care if the prison was somewhat corrupted, even separate from what the foul play question here is a congressman Democrat from Virginia this weekend. Take a listen.

D (38:03)

The first question I will have for

C (38:04)

the prison guard is, did you or

D (38:07)

any other prison guards, to your knowledge,

C (38:10)

receive protection payments from Jeffrey Epstein?

D (38:13)

That's unproven, but I think that's an important line of questioning to understand what

B (38:18)

happened and what went wrong there. Michelle?

E (38:24)

Well, I mean, he's right. It's unproven. But again, I think that the public needs answers about these payments, that this particular prison guard who's going to be testifying has been they've been shown to have received a series of irregular payments, most of them, I think, before Jeffrey Epstein's arrest. So it's important to point that out. But not all of them, I mean, irregular enough that they were flagged to the FBI. So it's not as if, you know, so clearly there was something unusual going on here, and it might end up having nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein's death. But again, when you have a case like this that has so caught so much of the public's imagination and there's so many strange threads that people can pull on. It's just, I think, really important to air all of them in public.

B (39:17)

And a broader question for you. There is now more accountability than there was, but because Trump is Trump and the politics of the Republican Party that everyone's familiar with, the area with the least accountability is Donald Trump and his Cabinet. And I'm curious, what do you say to people who still rely on the New York Times or the news and look at facts and believe in fact? What do you say to people who say, well, wait a minute. Okay, yes, transparency was a step and these brave victims, along with the alliances they formed, got a change. But what about this obvious lapse that at the highest levels is the one place where there's not accountability yet?

E (40:00)

Well, I mean, I think it's the same thing I've been been saying all along. We see substantial accountability in countries that still have functioning democratic governments, you know, the UK but not just the UK and, you know, we have in the United States a government that is very much devoted to protecting the impunity of powerful men. I mean, not in in this case in particular, but not only in this case. And so, you know, and it's not just I mean, it's people in the cabinet, but it's not only people in the cab. The results, as you said of this settlement with bank of America is that Leon Black, who was going to be deposed, is now not going to be deposed. And so I think it makes it even more important that he's brought in to testify before Congress. You know, I think the through line that we see over and over and over again in this story is that it's a story of elite impunity. And that's also the through line that we see over and over again with this administration

B (41:04)

Fair. Michelle Goldberg, thank you. We're going to fit in a break. When we come back, dissent on Hollywood's biggest night, the Oscars. Next, I should warn you, tonight could get political. Okay. And if that makes you uncomfortable, there's an alternate Oscars being hosted by Kid Rock. Yeah, it's at the Dave and Buster's down the street, Conan o' Brien joking about how some conservatives in the MAGA crowd needed a safe space for cultural events like the Super Bowl. Maybe they needed that at the Oscars. But he wasn't kidding about things getting political. There were films celebrated that addressed issues in our current society. Michael B. Jordan won a historic best actor for his roles plural, playing brothers in sinners. And that film looked at the Jim Crow era in African American history, an era that, well, the Trump administration has quite clearly tried to quite literally disappear from history in the Smithsonian or take one battle after another. An unlikely Best Picture winner, which portrayed a different time period in a. Based on a book written a long time ago, of an America sliding into militarization in a kind of autocracy. Of course, it was newly relevant when you look at the militarized policing under the Trump administration and ice raids. A film about Russian resistance to Putin won best documentary, which is important as we look beyond our own country's borders and think about all of the things going on around the world. The filmmaker, though, then made a U.S. comparison. When a government murders people on the streets of our major cities, when we don't say anything, when oligarchs take over the media and control how we could produce it and consume it, We all face a moral choice. The moral choice hits home in Hollywood, where that reference to billionaires taking over media is front and center with those media mergers we've been reporting on. They affect journalism and filmmakers alike. Jimmy Kimmel famously won his censorship battle with this administration and he used his platform there. Think about the many millions of people watching in our country and around the world to do something he didn't have to do, to step up again and discuss free speech. As you know, there are some countries whose leaders don't support free speech. I'm not at liberty to say, which. Let's just leave it at North Korea and cbs, fortunately. And on it went, then you have the wider context of something that we actually discussed in the news today and have discussed on many nights here, the gap in accountability. While other countries deal with their abstinence problems and the Trump administration has to be dragged to even release the documents, let alone fire cabinet members who lied about visiting Epstein Island. Howard Lutnick is still on the job. And there was a reference to that kind of contrast as well. It's the first time since 2012, first time since 2012 that there are no British actors nominated for best actor or best actress. Yeah. British spokesperson said, yeah, well, at least we arrest our pedophiles. So we got that going for you. You could hear the roars. A lot of politics, but a lot of discussion about what matters, which is what politics can and should be about on Hollywood's biggest night. Thanks for watching the Beat with Ari Melber.

A (45:06)

Snoring, gasping during sleep, feeling fatigued. Wake up to Zepbound Tirzepatide, the first and only FDA approved prescription medicine for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea in adults with obesity. Zeb Bound is an injectable prescription medicine that may help adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea and obesity to improve their osa. Zebbound should be be used with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity. Zepbound is Approved as a 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5 or 15mg injection. Zepbound contains Tirzepatide and should not be used with other Tirzepatide containing products or any GLP1 receptor agonist medicines. It is not known if Zetbound is safe and effective for use in children. Do not share needles or pins or reuse needles. Don't take Zepbound if allergic to it or if you or someone in your family had medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. Tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, stop Zepbound and call your doctor if you have severe stomach pain or a serious allergic reaction. Severe side effects may include inflamed pancreas or gallbladder problems. Tell your doctor if you experience vision changes, depression or suicidal thoughts before scheduled procedures with anesthesia. If you're nursing pregnant, plan to be or taking birth control pills. Taking Zepbound with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. Side effects include include nausea, diarrhea and vomiting, which can cause dehydration and worsen kidney problems. Talk to your doctor, call 1-800-545-5979 or visit zepbound Lilly.com Zepbound and its delivery device, Base and Quickpin are registered trademarks owned or licensed by Eli Lilly and company. Its subsidiaries or affiliates.