Tariffs & Taxes & Growth—Oh My

Summary

The Commentary Magazine Podcast: "Tariffs & Taxes & Growth—Oh My" Release Date: July 30, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of The Commentary Magazine Podcast, editor John Podhoretz engages with executive editor Abe Greenwald, senior editor Seth Mandel, Washington Commentary columnist Matthew Continetti, and guest David Bonson, chairman of the Bonson Group and a contributor to National Review. The discussion centers on the recent economic data, the impact of tariffs and taxes on growth, internal dynamics within the Republican Party, and the portrayal of the Israel-Gaza conflict in the media.

---

Economic Overview: Q2 GDP and Tariff Implications

[02:20] John Podhoretz: The conversation kicks off with the revelation of the second quarter GDP growth at 3%. While not exceptionally high, it surpasses more dire projections and raises questions about the actual impact of the Trump administration's tariff policies.

[04:06] David Bonson: Bonson provides a nuanced analysis, emphasizing the complexity behind the GDP figures. He points out that the annualized 3% growth masks previous contractions and that avoiding a recession is not solely attributable to tariffs. Instead, it's a combination of factors, including avoided tariff-induced fiscal burdens and other pro-growth measures in the "big beautiful bill."

"On an annualized basis, we are tracking in 2025 for 1.25% real GDP growth. That's atrocious." —David Bonson [04:06]

---

Tariffs as Taxes: Revenue Generation and Fiscal Policy

The discussion delves into how tariffs effectively act as corporate taxes, impacting American consumers who purchase tariffed goods rather than the foreign manufacturers.

[10:36] David Bonson: He breaks down the evolution of tariff arguments, noting a shift from traditional justifications like closing the trade deficit and reindustrialization to emphasizing revenue generation.

"The revenues that are coming into the treasury, as you would expect from any increase in the corporate tax rate, which is essentially what these tariffs are." —David Bonson [10:36]

[14:58] John Podhoretz: Raises the concern about tariffs leading to increased corporate taxes and the long-term implications on economic growth and consumer costs.

[16:17] John Podhoretz: Highlights the shift in conservative rhetoric, noting that revenue generation from tariffs introduces a new vocabulary that contrasts with traditional conservative values focused on economic growth without increasing taxes.

---

Internal GOP Dynamics: Populists vs. Supply-Siders

The episode explores the growing rift within the Republican Party between the MAGA populist wing and the traditional supply-side conservatives.

[27:05] Seth Mandel: Discusses President Trump's economic policies, praising his deregulation and pro-growth measures while criticizing his contradictory stance on trade deficits.

"President Trump is far more schizophrenic economically. He is incredibly pro-growth... He intuitively gets it." —Seth Mandel [27:05]

[31:29] David Bonson: Emphasizes the lack of consensus within the GOP, pointing out ongoing debates over antitrust policies and corporate mergers, signaling an unsettled future for Republican economic strategies.

---

Media Portrayal of the Israel-Gaza Conflict

A significant portion of the episode critiques how mainstream media outlets, particularly The New York Times, depict the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

[35:22] John Podhoretz: Argues that media narratives are skewed, presenting images of malnourished children without adequate context about preexisting health conditions.

"What would the New York Times, NPR, all these outlets want more than anything in the world? A single undisputable piece of evidence showing a starving Gazan, and there has not been one." —John Podhoretz [35:22]

[40:16] Ryan Reynolds: Clarifies that while Hamas controls aid distribution in Gaza, attributing malnutrition solely to Israeli actions disregards the complexities of the region's political and military dynamics.

[47:06] John Podhoretz: Highlights The New York Times' attempt to correct misleading representations, demonstrating the media's challenges in accurately portraying conflict zones.

---

Future Outlook and Concluding Remarks

As the podcast nears its conclusion, the hosts reflect on the interplay between economic policies and geopolitical narratives. They stress the importance of objective analysis over politically motivated interpretations, both in understanding economic indicators like GDP and in assessing media portrayals of international conflicts.

[59:01] John Podhoretz: Concludes by emphasizing the value of informed discourse to navigate the complexities of current economic and political landscapes.

"Look at this in a broader and greater way and, or the doom and gloom of the last GDP number. It cuts both ways." —John Podhoretz [52:56]

---

Key Takeaways

• GDP Growth: The steady 3% GDP growth suggests resilience but masks underlying fiscal challenges exacerbated by tariff policies.
• Tariffs as Corporate Taxes: Tariffs function similarly to corporate taxes, with the burden likely falling on American consumers.
• GOP Internal Struggles: Tensions between populist and traditional conservative factions within the GOP complicate unified economic policy-making.
• Media Accountability: Mainstream media's portrayal of the Israel-Gaza conflict may lack comprehensive context, leading to misleading narratives.
• Future Policies: Economic growth strategies must balance tax policies, deregulation, and international trade relations to foster sustainable development.

---

By dissecting these multifaceted issues, The Commentary Magazine Podcast provides listeners with a critical lens to evaluate current economic policies and their broader implications on society and international relations.

Transcript

[Ryan Reynolds]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. With the price of just about everything going up, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a thing Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium wireless. Better get 30, 30 better get 30, better get 20, 20, 20 better get 20, 20. Everybody get 15, 15, 15, 15. Just 15 bucks a month.

[John Podhoretz]

Sold.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment.

[Abe Greenwald]

Of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of network's busy. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile do.

[John Podhoretz]

Hope for the best Expect the worst.

[Seth Mandel]

Some preacher pain Some die of thirst.

[John Podhoretz]

No way of knowing which way it's going Hope for the best Expect the worst Hope for the best. Welcome to the Commentary magazine daily podcast brought to you today by my late sister's alma mater, St. John's College. What kind of education does a free society require? At St. John's College, students study the great books of Western civilization where they learn to think independently, hear others perspectives and understand the foundations of democratic society. It's an education for citizens, thought leaders and those who will carry forward the best of the American tradition. RBA is equivalent. Their BA I should say, is equivalent to a double major in philosophy in the history of math and science and a double major in literature and classical studies. It's demanding. It's not for everyone. It might be just right for your child. Learn more at sjc.edu. that's SJC.edu. i'm John Pot Horse, the editor of Commentary, and with me as always, executive editor Abe Greenwald. Hi Abe.

[Matthew Continetti]

Hi John.

[John Podhoretz]

Senior editor Seth Mandel. Hi, Seth.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Hi John.

[John Podhoretz]

Washington Commentary columnist Matthew Continetti. Hi Matt.

[David Bonson]

Hi John.

[John Podhoretz]

And joining us today, Commentary contributor, author of several books, contributor at National Review, and the chairman of the Bonson Group, David Bonson. Welcome back, David.

[Unknown Speaker]

Well, thank you, John. Always a pleasure.

[John Podhoretz]

So we have second quarter GDP numbers just out pretty good 3%. I mean it's not 10%, it's not 20%, it's not 4%, but it is 3%. And this actually I think brings us to one of the reasons we wanted to talk to you today. David. Obviously there has been a lot of talk in the last three or four days about the Trump deal with the European Union for a tariff and the tariff regime generally that has been moving forward. And I think a lot of people were assuming that there would be economic chaos and collapse and nightmarish immediate consequences from Trump's pursuit of the tariffs. But the data suggests that is not happening. And I would like, as I think, all of us having been educated in the history of tariffs and the nature of tariffs and the fact that tariffs function effectively as a tax not on people in Europe who are manufacturing goods, but on the Americans here who are purchasing goods that are subject to the tariffs. What do you make of the fact that the consequences are not yet being felt? Or that MAGA people and others will say, see, it turns out all these things you've been told about tariffs are wrong and they're just fantastic and everything is going to be great and our manufacturing sector will be reborn and everybody in the world will benefit.

[Unknown Speaker]

Well, there are two things I'm certain of in this environment in which we find ourselves. One is that the left would use any negative data disingenuously, and number two is that MAGA will use any positive data disingenuously. So I remain friendless in this 10 year and counting period where I am desperately clinging to objectivity and honesty. I think it's not so much John explaining why things are good in the aftermath of the tariff element, but rather resetting the actual premises. 3%. Any time you get a quarterly GDP number, people need to remember that that number has been annualized for you. So they are not giving you a quarterly number that you then get to multiply by four. It has already been multiplied by four. And so on an annualized basis, the number came in at 3% for this quarter. It was negative 0.5% last quarter. So so far on an annualized basis, we are tracking in 2025 for 1.25% real GDP growth. That's atrocious. However, it will go higher. We will avoid a recession not because the tariffs are proven to be good, but because the tariffs as threatened on April 2, 2025, which would have represented 400 billion best case and 600 billion worst case in the fiscal year of 2025 did not happen. So those that are now saying see all the experts were wrong are playing a game of switcheroo. People making predictions about if something happened, something doesn't happen, then saying see you were wrong is rather elementary dishonesty. Now here's the thing on the other side of it though, for a tariff skeptic and critic like me, I think that both sides have said things for which they will be held to account and not in one quarter, and not even necessarily in one year. I think about a year or longer. Those who said all of these American Manufacturing jobs are coming back. Well, I guess we're going to get a chance to see and if anyone's interested in taking the other side of that bet with me, I'll put up real money upfront and give you really good odds. If anyone actually wants to back up the political hyperbole with an economic bet that these manufacturing jobs are coming back, those that have said we are cutting out trade, that we will no longer be buying from foreign countries, I would be, I'd be very happy to objectively analyze that forecast. But on the anti tariff side, I think you're going to get, John, in about a year a chance to very objectively say, here's where things went better than expected, here's where things went worse. If total trade declines and capital flows into the US Decline accordingly, then there is no scenario algebraically by which it doesn't contract from gdp. We people can say, well, what's going to happen is the trade deficit isn't going to be down much. And people say, well, Trump never really meant that it was hyperbole and the fiscal deficit is obviously not going to be down. And people say he never really meant that it was hyperbole. So I can't argue against stuff that people get to take back whenever they want. But I do believe that there is a question as to the way in which this has gone since April 3rd. In the, in the aftermath of April 2nd, Liberation Day, we're susceptible to a lot of unknowns. A 25% universal tariff on European imports would have been much different than what they ended up doing where now you get a 15% tariff baseline with a ton of 0%. So where that nets out in the end, we don't have a deal with India yet, we don't have a deal with Brazil yet, but we're getting to a deal with South Korea and Taiwan. We have a deal with Vietnam and UK and, and Japan and then parts of a deal are understood with China. The biggest difference, John, is that all the threats of China didn't happen. And in fact the rhetoric substantially changed the. And I say that gratefully. I'm not, I'm not, you know what talking the administration here, Secretary Besson has done a wonderful job. Instead of saying what we need to do is get to a point of total decoupling from our largest trading partner, we want different terms and different markets opened up. I'm skeptical about Japan buying Ford F150s and I'm skeptical of how much China really can buy from us other than soybeans and liquefied natural gas. But to the extent that we succeed in opening up any markets, that will be a victory for the administration. That I'll be the first to say. Because of this, we got more markets opened. But again, that leads to more trade. More markets open means more trade. And we were told time and time again the issue was less trade for protectionist purposes. So any part of tariff policy that drives more trade is I'm for and is bullish. And any part of tariff policy that is protectionist leads to less trade, and therefore I'd be bearish. But ultimately, we have a fiscal deficit that is partially funded by foreigners. The current account deficit, United States is the inverse of the international current account. And to the degree that those things move in the wrong direction, then it puts pressure on. We have the foreign ownership of US Stock has doubled in the last eight years. Foreign ownership of treasury bonds is significant, of private credit, significant. So to the extent there's less capital flows, which has never been a problem for the United States, we have open capital, unlike China, unlike other adversary countries. And of course, we are a desirable place to put capital. Any marginal decline of capital flows is where I would expect you'd see negative impact. And that would take about a year to play out.

[David Bonson]

I think David raises an interesting point about the evolution of the arguments for Trump's tariffs. I would just break it down this way. Before Trump took office, throughout the campaign last year, he said basically three reasons for his trade war. Tariffs would close the trade gap. The trade deficit. That's number one. Number two would be that tariffs would lead to reindustrialization or onshoring of manufacturing jobs. And the third reason was tariffs would raise revenue. So what are the arguments that we're hearing now that he's been in office.

[Unknown Speaker]

For six months, I would add the fourth worth of national security.

[David Bonson]

Yeah. The decoupling or de risking of China. Now we hear that tariffs have. Are opening up markets. We hear that tariff, that's one, tariffs are leading to more foreign direct investment. That's number two. And then we hear number three, tariffs are raising revenues. So what's the common denominator is tariffs are raising revenues. And it's. They're pretty remarkable. The revenues that are coming into the treasury, as you would expect from any increase in the corporate tax rate, which is essentially what these tariffs are. There are taxes put on businesses that some of the costs will be passed through to the consumers. Just like the arguments for lowering the corporate tax were always that the corporate tax is actually passed on through consumers. But I think because These arguments are changing. And the bottom line is that the approach has changed as well. And this revenue piece is important, reinforce the idea that the Trump economic policy can never be viewed in isolation. And so we've spoken, we've spoken about trade, and that's because Trump's obsessed with trade quite a bit. But why does David say that growth may go up at the end of the year and into next year? Well, it's not just the trade or the effects of this tariff wall we're creating of the 10% universal and slightly higher in some cases and then other sectoral tariffs. It's also because we prevented the tax increase and we had some pro growth measures as part of the one big beautiful bill. Not as many as I would like, but they're in there. It's also because the deregulatory agenda. Yesterday, Lee Zeldin, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, announced possibly the largest deregulatory policy ever because the EPA is revoking its finding from 2009 at the dawn of Obama's new foundation, that what you and I exhale is a pollutant, that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, that they're, they're taking that back. That has potential massive effects for economic growth and for freeing up businesses. And it's just one, just one of the deregulation efforts. And then there's energy too. So, John, you're muted, so I can't, I can't hear you.

[John Podhoretz]

Sorry. So, Matt, I just wanted to say that you point out that tariffs function as an increase in the, in the corporate tax tax or in other words, eventually they function as a tax increase on Americans since the corporations will presumably pass through the tax increases to their, the consumers or whoever is buying their products. So that's the long term question, I guess that David is raising what will be the negative consequences of that tax increase had there not been the tax cut continuation in the one big beautiful bill, what you could have had or was the tax hike of the tariffs that was not balanced out against by the continuation of the, of the 2017 tax cuts and whatever else is in the bill that also has a growth element to the economy. Do I have that right, John?

[Unknown Speaker]

I think, I think you have to take out from this discussion this idea about the extension of the individual tax cuts from 2017, because on a year over year basis, which is what we're doing, we're trying to get year over year impact, there is no change. You don't get a growth kick from something that didn't happen.

[John Podhoretz]

No, I Understand isolating this to the.

[Unknown Speaker]

Pro growth parts of the big beautiful bill which is 100% business expensing R and D expensing, change in the formula for interest expense. These things are significant and they're totally offset now by the additional corporate tax burden of the tariffs depending on exactly where those things land. But what's fascinating about Matt's list, which is a perfect summation of the four things that they'd kind of sold us on and then what the rationale is now you could really put at the top of list number one, Pete Navarro and you could put at the top of list number two, Scott Bessant. Yeah, that's because open markets and FDI is a besant rationale and the trade deficit and protectionism is, is a Navarro rationale. And to the extent that revenue is now being argued as a benefit, it.

[John Podhoretz]

Is from the tariffs to be.

[Unknown Speaker]

Yeah, it is. This is a brand new vocabulary in conservatism. It is the polar opposite of Jack Kemp vernacular that I was brought up to talk about. It is a cost to the economy.

[David Bonson]

Yeah.

[Unknown Speaker]

And on a balance sheet we have never looked at what American businesses are paying as revenue just because the tax man is receiving it. And so I think that's an important distinction.

[David Bonson]

Yeah, no, I think that's a great point David. And I would just respond by this is that in the. Given the fiscal conditions which you described at the top of the show, the administration is using the revenue case to say well this is how we can potentially pay for it. And then also maybe with the higher growth, if we get the higher growth down the road, that would be a way to lower the annual deficit.

[Unknown Speaker]

But that's the part, the second part is the big issue. And primarily I guess my point that it isn't going to be evidenced in the middle of all these negotiations. It's by definition a forward looking thing that will be objectively I think. But, but can I just point out on this real GDP growth issue now all you did is really harm the numbers in Q1 with 500 basis points. So 5%, 4.96% of contraction from GDP annualized from people front running imports in Q1. And all you did is get all that back in Q2. That's all that the GDP number is is an offset of inventories and net exports. Exports minus imports. Those two things offset each other. Consumption, which is the primary ingredient in the formula of GDP and real business investment, which is what supply side people like myself care about. Non residential fixed investment, both were very muted in Q1 and Q2, so we're playing a little game right now, a front running on imports and it's lumpy in the data. And so in Q1, the left could say, look, Trump starting a recession, and that was disingenuous. And in Q2, people could say, oh, look, all these damn experts are wrong again, that's completely disingenuous. But in a year, does the real growth that we're talking about materialize or not? Well, I'm with Matt. If it does, guess what materializes it? Deregulation, energy policy. The same darn things all of us have been talking about for 50 years.

[David Bonson]

I just want one thing on the revenue piece though, because I, as usual agree with David about the change in conservatism. But there's another change in conservatism that's, that's looming on the horizon in the Senate that I wanted to mention, which is, I think it's one thing when you say, okay, we've put these tariffs on, they're raising much more revenue than we expected. And as part of the policy mix, the Trump policy mix, maybe they can contribute to lowering the deficit in 26. However, you have Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri proposed just the other day to rebate the tariff. So $600 tax rebates to Americans that he says would be drawn from the tariff revenues that I think is pure redistribution, pure Harry Hopkins tax, tax, spend, spend, elect politics that is even further estranged from conservatism than the idea of talking up revenues to the government. You can argue, okay, fine, we're making these, we're getting this money from the corporations. That's one thing. Let's use it to pay down the deficit, which we need to do in order to ensure long term growth. And here comes Holly saying, hey, bread and circuses.

[John Podhoretz]

Hey, it's John here.

[Unknown Speaker]

I want to talk to you about Brooklyn Betting. This is an advertiser I feel pretty strongly about because when they first decided they wanted to try Commentary as a vehicle for their beds and bedding, they offered to send us a free mattress to try at our home. And I got one for my son. And it was so spectacularly good that on our own, my wife and I purchased two more mattresses for our two daughters. So this is a product and a company that I'm walking the walk with, not just talking the talk with Brooklyn Bedding Handcrafts every mattress in their Arizona factory. No middlemen, no gimmicks, just top tier quality, honest pricing and real American craftsmanship for a better night.

[John Podhoretz]

Sleep.

[Unknown Speaker]

You sleep hot Brooklyn Bedding uses Glaciotex covers and Copper Flex foam to keep you cool and comfortable all night long. And it's one of the few mattress brands endorsed by the American Chiropractic association for spinal alignment and back health. Plus they're 100% fiberglass free. For peace of mind, Brooklyn Bedding also offers a 120 night comfort trial.

[John Podhoretz]

Love it.

[Unknown Speaker]

Where they'll help you return or swap it hassle free. If you're not sure, you can take my word for it. Brooklyn Bedding has been awarded the best mattress by CNET and and best hybrid mattress by Wirecutter. So you know it's the real deal. Go to BrooklynBedding.com and use my promo code commentary at checkout to get 30% off sitewide. This offer is not available anywhere else. That's BrooklynMbedding.com and promo code COMMENTARY for 30% off sitewide. Make sure you enter our show name.

[John Podhoretz]

After checkout so they know we sent.

[Unknown Speaker]

You brooklynbetting.com promo code commentary.

Pro Savings days are back at Lowe's right now. Get a four piece GE kitchen suite for under $2,000 plus get a free DeWalt 20 volt max XR8amp hour battery when you buy a select DeWalt tool. Save big with deals that work as hard as you do. Shop Pro Savings days in store or online. Today Lowe's we help you Save valid through 8. One selection varies by location while supplies last discount taken at time of purchase. See Sales Associate for details.

[John Podhoretz]

This is a very important point because if people remember the first real government rebate where everybody got a check from the government happened I believe either in 2002 and 2003 as a response to the economic shock of 9, 11. And all that rebate was was an advance on your tax refund, right? That was you. You were getting your money back from the government, but early rather than after you filed your tax report, you know, and everything, then you get your refund back. It was a very clever kind of bit of sleight of hand just to just to prime the pump of the economy so that there would be money for consumers to spend with while everybody was still didn't know what the hell was going to be happening with the economy after after it also failed, John.

[Unknown Speaker]

It got no multiplier effect at all. But you're exactly right that it was a advance on their own money and we were at 50% debt to GDP, right?

[John Podhoretz]

So now we're at 100 and what are we at? 110.

[Unknown Speaker]

We're at 100% of public debt to GDP. We're at 123% of total debt to GDP. But, but the thing is, is that the Hawley thing is not serious. First of all, we know that because it came from Hawley. But also it speaks to a philosophical issue that's very important. They scored, CBO scored in the bill that there would be this trade, excuse me, tariff revenue. So to the extent that any refunds were to be given, it would have to be above and beyond the tariff revenue they already scored in the big beautiful bill. They're not even going to achieve that amount, let alone exceed it and give refunds.

[John Podhoretz]

But it's important. But Matt, I'm glad that Matt brought it up because it is important as a sign of this question of where the populist wing of the Republican Party wants to plant its flag. And it is not in growth, which is a very important point because what they're doing essentially. And that's why Matt, making a, making the reference of the day, the now completely obscure, except to certain people reference of the day to Harry Hopkins, who was FDR's sort of amanuensis and alter ego, that, that, that to have a nominally or theoretically conservative Republican propose a completely redistributionist check to everybody, you know, here's $600, you know, go to the track as opposed to we need to grow our way out of the, you know, grow our way, grow our way away from the fiscal cliff and grow, grow so that our deficit can shrink because of increased tax revenue. And that will create conditions under which American households will get more than $600 per household, as happened, say in the late 20, late 2018, 2019, when there was a positive effect to the Trump tax cut and you know, sort of the incredible employment numbers shrinking to, you know, the six 50 year lows and the first real increase in American wages in 20 years. So that's what you have to hope for is that not a rising tide will lift all boats, but then economic growth will have all of these different consequences. And here comes Josh Hawley with the ban and wing saying, you know, we don't want to get outflanked on the. We're helping the poor. So let's put a stake in the heart of the Republican conservative argument that the way to save ourselves from or to build a future over the next generation is to grow. Which is why the Lee Zeldin, which is why the EPA's decision is so unbelievably important. And maybe we can spend a couple minutes talking about what it is I.

[Unknown Speaker]

Think all these topics that you guys are alluding to all at once capture the challenge of a supply side Reaganite assessing Donald Trump. It's very easy for me assess Hawley and Bannon and the populist wing because I really have no philosophical common ground. President Trump is far more schizophrenic economically. He is incredibly pro growth. He would agree with everything you just said. And the tax impulse he has is not as rooted to a Kemp argumentation. He's fond of laugh or more Kudlow, but I don't think he studied in it. But he intuitively gets it. Deregulation, the Zelda NPA issues you're bringing up, this is under President Trump. He deserves that credit. His energy policy, these things to me are all pro growth and they come from the same mouth that then turns around and utters things like a trade deficit is killing us, which is a horrifically anti growth thing to say. The inability to recognize the advantage of letting poor countries make things that you buy and you putting your capital resources and capital investment into higher margin things. That's the pro growth argument. So much of the trade deficit rhetoric is where I think President Trump undermines his own growth instincts. And this is why I divide it. And I'm being a little unfair to Navarro and a little overly fair to Besson, but, but really you're just sort of talking about to an angel and a devil on each of Trump's shoulders and they're. And they're at odds with one another, but thank God that supply side part of Trump is very prevalent.

[John Podhoretz]

I think the other thing to say is you're talking about growth argument and the tariff argument and all of this. And the sad part about this, to me, at least on the right, is that I thought that this was sort of beyond argument. That is to say that we have had 80, 90 years. I mean, it's 90 years since the New Deal and that we have this massive amount of macroeconomic data to suggest what happens when trade goes in a certain direction, what happens when regulation is imposed. Even regulators acknowledge that regulation has costs on the economy. They just think that those costs are more important. That, you know, the benefit that comes from paying those costs are more important to the future of humanity than paying those costs. And maybe there'll be some ancillary benefit to creating new industries like wind and solar or whatever you want to talk about energy, that there's a way to offset the cost of regulation through innovative approaches. But that's not why you regulate. You regulate because you think something has to be done to save the environment or to save people from injury or to save children from whatever. And, and so I again, on the right, I thought we had kind of this is why nothing ever ends. You know, it's like I thought that we had this had largely been resolved, that it wasn't even a matter for argument that international trade benefits our economy. We buy things more cheaply that we wouldn't manufacture and we are able to sell our services and become the reserve currency of the world and have all the benefits of that. And that these things are all very interlocked. And now we have to have this argument all over again. And there are elements within the administration, not just Navarro, but I would say probably, you know, the vice president's office is running a kind of op inside the Trump administration to continue pushing forward a lot of these ideas simply because they're branded as populist and because the idea is you can make an argument that you're helping the new Republican coalition of working class people who don't graduate from college and are, you know, more Latino and more black and all of that. And that you can, you can appeal to them with kind of goodies. With that. Matt, would you.

[David Bonson]

Well, I don't know. I don't think the administration has taken a stand on Hawley's proposal. And I know that most of the Republican senators kind of just batted it down yesterday. I do think we're seeing a.

[Unknown Speaker]

But, Matt, isn't it true, though, that they flirted with it previously with the Doge dividend?

[David Bonson]

Yes, there was a Doge dividend that they were think. But then that which was equally redistribution thing, it's like, no, the whole point of this should be to reduce the deficit, to reduce spending. And so I think they're like, I think people like Russ Vogt, the head of omb, kind of plays to Trump's, you know, instincts to, to cut, to cut waste, cut, to cut spending. Where I'm seeing some of the economic discussion play out is recently on antitrust. And so part of this kind of populist re imagination of conservative or Republican economic policy, yes, it involved trade, but it also has involved approaches to economic concentration and to mergers. And there's a fight going on inside the Justice Department right now over Trump's antitrust policy, over how open we're going to be to corporate mergers. And Gail Slater, who was the head of that division, the attorney, she had been more inclined toward the J.D. vance position. J.D. vance, very critical of corporate power as part of this new Republicanism. But it Seems that she is now often at odds or occasionally even overruled by, by her superiors like Attorney General Pam Bondi, who represent the kind of more traditional Republican view of things. And this is leading to great furor over in some populist corners. So I think the takeaway is none of this is settled. It's not worked out, and it probably won't ever be because the Republican Party is this kind of large and unwieldy coalition that doesn't have the consensus that, that you were talking about John, any longer.

[Unknown Speaker]

I think that indications of this administration and what I know of Kevin Hassett at NEC and what we can logically induce from Secretary Bessant and the way in which financial markets are discounting this M and A and expectations for a more lax approach to antitrust, allowing more corporate activity and mergers, is that it is not really philosophical about antitrust for President Trump, that he's generally laissez faire and pro market.

[David Bonson]

Unless you upset him, you get annoyed, he gets annoyed.

[Unknown Speaker]

And so his first term, seemingly antitrust instinct was really more about big tech and them not being nice to him. And the CBS issue with Ellison, the Paramount purchase, was, you know, more are they going to make right on this other issue. And then they added in this DI stuff and everything, which I'm uncomfortable with. But I don't think President Trump is advanced on M and A. And I think financial markets are expecting a robust amount of activity in corporate, active in corporate activity, both large cap and downstream private equity in the space second half of the year.

[David Bonson]

So this, on this and all the other issues we talk about on the podcast, there's Trump and then there's the MAGA populists. They're on different sides even though they continue to say that they are the true maga. Even on, even when on questions like Israel or Iran or mergers and acquisitions or the place of trade policy in an overall growth mix, they, they are isolated. They don't represent his views well.

[Unknown Speaker]

Similar story in the first term and that more often than not in the first term, the Kudlow Laffer Cone Manoogian wing won out. And not that they were a perfect monolith, but that there was the Venn diagram, a lot more overlap of that versus the Bannon Navarro side and the MAGA populist. I think that a lot of us, I suspect many of you were with this, started to fear that the, that the window had shifted a bit in the second administration, that the MAGO wing had more voice, more presence on one shoulder versus the other as opposed to. I'm with you, Matt, that my read on it, at least economically. And I think you guys do the best at pointing out where this is true in foreign policy as well. The marginalization of Tucker and Tulsi and and frankly Vice President Vance in foreign policy has been a sight to behold. But I think on the economic side, I don't think that we're at 100 0. I don't think Reagan incarnate is back in the Oval, but I think that the supply sider in Trump is winning over the MAGA in Trump. And I get it at about 6040.

[John Podhoretz]

This, this gives us an interesting transition because of, as Matt alluded to, the MAGA response to other issues, including Israel. And we are hearing that people like Steve Bannon and Matt Gates, who is now on, I don't know, one of those weird non Fox right wing networks whose name I can't even remember, are saying, well, you know what, it's all over for Israel because young Republicans and MAGA ites like Israel anymore and they're not buying into this. And Marjorie Taylor Greene called Israel's actions a genocide this week in an attack on Randy Fine, the freshman from Florida. And then there's a terrible Gallup poll out that says that young people in America are turning against Israel. However, I do want to point out, and so there is this fight and what I think is interesting about the fight is that young MAGA Republicans are falling for leftist anti American argumentation on TikTok and the same media that young people are consuming all over the place, that is distorted, that is deliberately distorted and is, you know, has been systematically being pumped to them through the algorithms to push them toward this idea that Israel's behavior is, you know, uniquely awful and monstrous as it attempts to defend itself against this seven front war that Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah have have been conducting against it since October 7th. Two good points about this to be made are that despite all of this talk, according to Gallup, 71% of Republicans support Israel. So that's not 90%, but it is seven out of 10, maybe all, maybe the 29% that don't support are this ban and wing or maybe it's just the, you know, you're never going to get much higher support for any individual issue in any party except maybe nominal support for Trump than 70%. So I think that's reassuring to those of us who are supporters of Israel. But it is important to note that at some point, and this is where we have to get to what the New York Times has done over the last couple of days, they're being patsies. MAGA is becoming a patsy of the New York Times and a patsy of Chinese owned TikTok and a patsy of gutter by buying into these arguments. And Seth, maybe you can give us a hand here on what the New York Times has been up to. We talked, we talked about it on Monday. This incredible story that's that said two Israeli officials who were unnamed claim that Hamas is not stealing aid. And so for the last four days, people have just been running, you know, images of Hamas stealing, jumping on trucks and stealing aid from, you know, the minute aid started flowing across the, flowing across the Kerem Shalom crossing and all of that. But what's going on?

[Ryan Reynolds]

Yeah, well, first of all, just to refer back to something you said earlier, I want to be very clear with the left on something. The Marjorie Taylor Greene for Richie Torres trade. No backsies. Enjoy, she's yours. And I hope you guys are very happy together. Yeah, I mean, look, the New York Times has a very particular way, not just the New York Times, but of course, the New York Times itself has been at the center of this. The New York Times is a very particular way of wording things. And you have to understand how to read the news, right? And the NGOs and the so called humanitarian organizations, they use this terminology too. And so the New York Times or the UN or one of the agencies at the UN will say, we have no proof that Hamas is stealing the majority of the aid. And that's what they'll say. Here's what's happening. We know Hamas is stealing some of the aid outright, right? As you said, John, we watch videos of them doing it. We also. But the larger point is that Hamas has hundreds of tons of flour and the people in Gaza don't. So that how you classify how that food got from the truck to the Hamas warehouse or whatever is far less important than the point, which is this. Hamas has set up a system in which the food comes through them. So they guide the trucks and they are paid by the UN to be the security for the trucks and they are given a certain cut of the humanitarian aid that comes in. Second, they are, they are asked to guard warehouses and stockhouses of food for the un. So they control the food that way. So you could say, well, they didn't steal the food. The UN is giving Hamas the food instead of giving it to the Palestinian starving civilians. You see, it's fine. So that's essentially, you have to understand, that's essentially what the New York Times and these other, these UN agencies are saying they're, they're saying they're playing word games. Now what the New York Times did.

[David Bonson]

Can I add another word game? Seth, I think you pointed this out too, which is you mentioned in a good, great post yesterday about the armed gangs. So whenever you see the trucks go over and then they're being swarmed and the media said, well, the armed gangs stole the food. But.

[John Podhoretz]

Right.

[David Bonson]

Couldn't those armed gangs be Hamas? Right. I mean, isn't that just. Who's to say.

[John Podhoretz]

Distinction without a difference.

[David Bonson]

It's a total distinction without a difference. Hamas is a pretty big armed gang.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Yeah, and not just that, but Hamas. Look, after October 7, every single terrorist group and offshoot in Gaza pledged allegiance to Hamas and pledged allegiance to the war publicly. PFLP and all these other ones, they're operating as one thing under the direction of Hamas. That's really all you have to know about anybody with a gun. Pretty much anybody with a gun. Now what the New York Times has done is interesting because the Times was only one of a great many news agencies, let's say that ran a photo of a malnourished looking child and being held by, in his mother's arms in Gaza. And the photo was deemed so powerful that it was, you know, last week's. Wow, what a photo. You know, on Twitter this is like 7,000 people that you know in your timeline go, wow, what a photo. And it turned out that the boy.

[John Podhoretz]

By the way, not that, not that anybody sees the live paper anymore except Matt Continetti who still reads physical media, but it was the front page of the page. No, it wasn't just huge.

[David Bonson]

Yeah, yeah, it took.

[Ryan Reynolds]

And as six and as readers of the print media, Matt, as Matt could tell you, the, I believe the tagline on the print on the front page said straight out, the boy's mother said he was born healthy. Right. That was in the print. So you can't even take print back. But anyway, the, the, the point is that the boy has, that the boy has congenital diseases, he has muscular diseases, he has all sorts of, it's a, it's a terrible situation. He has all sorts of health, pre existing health problems that contribute to the way that he looks and processes food and is able to move his muscles and is able to develop, you know, his musculature and all the other stuff. He has a, in the main picture that you saw, what's cropped out is his healthy, I think three year old brother who's standing right there and is Obviously well fed. So this is, this is one of the, this is one of the important parts of the photo, right? Because people say, you can't compare. Why haven't I seen starving adults? And then people say, well, you know, adults process malnutrition differently than young children, especially babies, because they, they have to thrive. They're on different kinds of charts. They process the blah, blah, blah, blah, okay, but the 18 month old and the 3 year old, all else being equal, process the food the same way and grow the same way and are on the same growth.

[J]

At blinds.com, it's not just about window treatments. It's about you, your style, your space, your way. Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right. From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows. [e-mail], the only thing we treat better than windows is you. Visit blinds.com now for up to 45% off site wide, plus a professional measure at no cost. Rules and restrictions apply.

[Seth Mandel]

Hi everyone, I'm Matt Ebert, CEO and founder of Crash Champions. Welcome to Pod Crash. On Pod Crash, we'll dive deep with industry leaders and game changers because we want to uncover their secrets to success. We're going to explore everything from building trust, building a rock solid team, to champion blue collar work. And we also want to talk about creating explosive growth in your business. You'll hear actionable advice, real leadership and business lessons along with what's worked for these incredible people throughout their career. We're even going to go in depth into what I call a Champions mindset. This is the very philosophy that I use to champion people and take Crash Champions from a single shop to over 650 locations today. And now I want to share that information with you. Watch or listen to pod crash on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

[John Podhoretz]

So that, so that's something that should have been obvious to people. But that's not the most important aspect of this as we speak today. What's important is that the New York Times was compelled to acknowledge that it had run a photo in error or that the photo gave an erroneous impression.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah.

[John Podhoretz]

Of the specific scene that it was depicting. And two interesting things about that, because we should read aloud their description. But it is important to note New York Times has various. They did this, put this out on, on X or Twitter. It has various feeds. There are various feeds, NY Times feeds. One of those feeds has 50 news million followers and another one which has some other name has 80,000 followers. And when they put out what Seth is about to read, they put it out on the feed that has 80,000 followers and not on the feed that has 50 million followers. So having disseminated this photo, that I think more than any other individual image flipped the script on how Israel is now just blatantly. And by the way, starving children probably.

[David Bonson]

Got Trump to say his comments in Scotland on Monday.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah. When he said, you can see their star.

[David Bonson]

Because clearly Trump saw the foot. Trump also reads print media, so he clearly saw it and was like, oh, this is not good, we need to change this.

[John Podhoretz]

Right.

[David Bonson]

So mission accomplished, New York Times.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, so here's that.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Here's the text. I'll just read the text of the. Well, first of all, the tweet. It's on New York Times pr, not the main New York Times account, as Johnson the tweet says. We have appended an editor's note to a story about Mohamed Zakaria Al Mutawak, a child in Gaza who was diagnosed with severe malnutrition. After publication, the Times learned that he also had preexisting health problems. Read more below. And so here's the statement from a spokesperson from the New York Times. Children in Gaza are malnourished and starving, as New York Times reporters and others have documented. We recently ran a story about Gaza's most vulnerable civilians, including Mohammad Zakaria Amutawak, who is about 18 months old and suffers from severe malnutrition. We have since learned new information, including from the hospital that treated him and his medical records, and have updated our story to add context about his pre existing health problems. This additional detail gives readers a greater understanding of his situation. Our reporters and photographers continue to report from Gaza bravely, sensitively and at personal risk so that readers can see firsthand the consequences of the war.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay. Before okay, that's what they wrote. That's what they put out seven hours earlier. Amit Segal, our friend who is a commentator and Israel has this great newsletter called It's Noon in Israel. A M I T S E G A L. People keep asking me how to spell his name and find it. It's called It's Noon in Israel. Type his name into Google and you can subscribe to his newsletter. Wrote a piece that said about how the New York Times was trying to prop up hamas. And at 10am yesterday, New York Times PR put the following out in response they appended it to an Amit Seagal post and put this out. The Times reporting is based on interviews with Israeli military officials, among others, and a review of records and sources involved with Gaza aid distribution. As our piece makes clear, the Israeli military has not disputed our findings. Times journalists have done deep reporting on Benjamin Netanyahu's actions and tactics during the war. And we will continue to publish the truth, regardless of attacks and distractions. And then seven hours later, they apologized for running the photo without an apology. So in the morning they're getting all huffy and self righteous about the horrible injustice Amit Seagal was expressing by saying that the Times was trying to prop up Hamas. And then hours later, they actually said the opposite. They said, yes, we actually ran this photo that, that showed something that we did not claim that we. That has been proven to be untrue. And let me just add to this as our friend Ira stole reminds us. He, he put out a piece on June 9, 2025, about a Saturday, May 31 edition of the New York Times with another haunting front page photograph. Guess of what? A skeletal child with the cut line. Hunger tightens its grip on Gaza. Sound familiar? This is May, not July. This is two months ago. And the further text aid began to trickle into the territory last week, but there is never enough. Above a girl, six in Gaza City in the strips north. Skeletal and terrible. Okay, this girl, her name is Najwa Hussein Hajjaj. The needs specially prepared meals because of an esophagus condition. And Israel together with Jordan had her removed from Gaza to Italy where she is now in a hospital getting treatment. So the fact, this is the second time in two months that they have run a false photo of a starving child who is someone with congenital health issues.

[Matthew Continetti]

John, can I say things here?

[John Podhoretz]

Excuse me?

[Matthew Continetti]

I just want to say a few things here.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, please. I'm sorry.

[Matthew Continetti]

First of all, in the New York Times correction or whatever the, the, whatever.

[David Bonson]

They, the, the, the announcement.

[Matthew Continetti]

The announcement, yeah. They don't give a diagnosis. Right. They say the child has pre existing conditions. What is this poor kid suffering from? I have a feeling they don't give a diagnosis because it would tell the entire story. Okay, pre existing conditions can mean. Well, yeah, well that could be anything.

[John Podhoretz]

Can be exacerbated, covered by insurance. That's. I mean that's. When you use the term pre existing condition in America, it's like, oh no, now I'm gonna have to fight with my health insurance company to get covered.

[Matthew Continetti]

The other thing I wanna say is that you can go back much farther than two months. You can go back a year and see this stuff. And from what I can tell, there is not one legitimate photo of documenting starvation in Gaza. And here's the thing about that. What would the New York Times, npr, all these outlets want more than anything in the world? A single undisputable piece of evidence showing a starving Gazan, and there has not been one.

[John Podhoretz]

Bernard.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Bernard, the photographer is there in Gaza and he's asking the families, yeah, show me a starving child.

[John Podhoretz]

We're here.

[Ryan Reynolds]

And the only picture he came away with was a child who is not in that condition.

[David Bonson]

Right.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Because of malnutrition.

[David Bonson]

It gets back to this deficit, this asymmetry. The only sources we have for what's happening in Gaza are the. The Gaza Health Ministry, Hamas, the journalists who operate under Hamas's supervision, and, you know, next to the men with the armed gangs with the machine guns, and the United nations, and it's the United nations that just yesterday came out with the latest thing proclaiming a famine and saying that people are dying of hunger. But these are just assertions. There's. There's no. Meanwhile, the food is going in Israel's. Israel's letting the food back in.

[Matthew Continetti]

Also, by the way, when we point out, you know, on social media or in writing or elsewhere that this photo is. Is actually of a child with a genetic condition, this photo is a child with a muscular condition, the response is, oh, that's so much better. Israel. Israel is just depriving treatment to sick kids instead of. Instead of starving them. No, no, no. First of all, no one's. No one is alleged. Depriving treatment.

[David Bonson]

They.

[Matthew Continetti]

They're telling a story that's not true. They're making an allegation about starvation.

[John Podhoretz]

So we're in Tawana Brawley territory. Tawana Brawley territory. Right. Tawana Brawley claimed that she was raped in the streets of Poughkeepsie, New York, and in 1988 or something like that, it turned out that she was in a fight with her stepfather who had beaten her up or something like that. And, you know, a year of coverage of this and the horrible cops raping her, the mistreatment of young black teenage, you know, black teenage girls in evil, racist precincts. And then when it came out that it was a hoax, the initial response to it was, well, it's fake, but accurate. You know, that what was being revealed here was a truth. Maybe this one story was wrong, but surely there are cops all over Dutchess county who are raping black teenage girls. You know that once you get caught, you say, well, but what we were showing there was a representation of a deeper truth. And I just wanted to point out that Bernard Henri Levy took a trip to Sudan, came back, and here is what he tweeted. Just returned from Sudan, 150,000 dead, 12 million displaced. A famine confirmed by all NGOs and no one to care, no one to mobilize, almost no one to speak of the horror. So right now, 1200 miles south of Gaza, there is an actual deliberately engineered man made famine caused by the, caused by a war that is going on. Nobody cares. There are no reporters there. No one, no, you know, no one, no one cares because there are no Jews involved. No Jews involved. There's no blood, there's no blood libel to be propounded. And that's where we are right now.

[David Bonson]

I know we have to go, but we should just mention one other piece of news, which was that yesterday the Arab League for the first time called on Hamas to disarm and to leave Gaza. And the aforementioned Amit Seagal suggests that this may be a kind of a trial balloon signaling things happening beneath the surface. And we also have the news this morning that Steve Witkoff, you know, President Trump's diplomat numero uno is, is on his way to Israel. So there could be some change in strategy, could be some major moves coming up soon.

[Unknown Speaker]

Right?

[John Podhoretz]

David Bonson, thank you so much for joining us. Your insights are always original and welcome and for a complete economic illiterate like me, very helpful because. And now once we get off here, I will completely forget everything that you said because I just can't, I won't forget everything you said, but once you start saying basis points, my, I just, I don't know where to go with that. But that's me, that's my weakness. That's my, that's my problem. You're incredibly insightful and incredibly helpful and I think everybody who listened today got a real understanding of the news today, which is very helpful so that you don't fall for the gdp, the, you know, the sort of, the, the high, the, the, the sugar high of the GDP number. But look at this in a broader and greater way and, or the doom.

[Unknown Speaker]

And gloom of the last GDP number. It cuts both ways. And I appreciate your kind words. I always love being on with you and I just want to say that if you ever want me to not say basis points and actually say 1/100th of a percent percent for every time.

[John Podhoretz]

The math, I will admit that that would be worse. So 10 basis points because then you. Then you start getting into fractions and then I'm. I'm like, I'm in seventh grade again, and it's really bad.

[Unknown Speaker]

So, you know, we don't even really say basis points in my world. We say bips. That's how dedicated we are to abbreviation and something.

[David Bonson]

This is news.

[John Podhoretz]

This is better. Okay. I'm going with Smith. Yeah. Okay. So thanks again. And for Matt, Seth and Abe, I'm John Pothor. It's keep the candle burning.

[Abe Greenwald]

At Energy Trust of Oregon, we understand that energy isn't just what happens when you flip a switch. It's what happens afterwards. It's a home that can provide both shelter and peace of mind. It's a business that can run more efficiently and keep their dream alive. And it's communities that can thrive today and flourish tomorrow. That's energy. And that's why we partner with local utility companies to help you save energy and lower costs. For cash incentives and resources that can help power your life, visit energytrust.org.