← The David Pakman Show
The David Pakman Show
10/22/25: Most corrupt Trump act revealed as social programs collapse
01:17:29
-- On the Show: -- Sabrina Singh, former Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary in the Department of Defense under President Biden, joins us to discuss the state of the DoD under Pete Hegseth, including the fallout from Signalgate and the new restrictive...
Loading summary
Transcript66 lines
- [00:00]
David Pakman
On today's show, the shutdown is backfiring as Americans are blaming Donald Trump. This was exactly what he and Republicans wanted to avoid. And it's happening as a bunch of our systems, food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all being degraded. And the concern is that some of these are going to go nonfunctional. Now, today may be a tough show for Democrats because I am going to outline what I see is the continued and really increasingly a serious problem for Democrats in trying to convince voters, hey, vote for us, it's not going well. And we'll also talk about maybe the most corrupt action Donald Trump has ever taken. He is suing the Department of Justice for $230 million. And he controls the Department of Justice, maybe, maybe the most corrupt action he's ever undertaken. And that really says a, a lot. And we will also go to the Oval Office and hear a number of the harebrained and disastrous declarations that Trump and his cronies made yesterday. We're going to speak with Sabrina Singh, which I think will be really interesting. She was deputy Pentagon press secretary in the DOD under Biden. And she is going to give us some insight into what on earth is going on with Pete Hegseth inside the Department of Defense. Caroline Levitt then expresses unbridled jealousy for her predecessor, Karine Jean Pierre, dropping a massive dump of attacks on her. And then I also want to address this movement that's convinced Trump has hours or days to live. Where is this movement coming from? What are they basing this on? And is this a productive thing to be thinking about? All of that and more, plus a great bonus show for you today, Slaughter. All right. It is finally happening. The Trump shutdown that they swore voters were going to blame on Democrats has completely backfired. We have the data. We're going to discuss the implications. And then I'll tell you what this means, unfortunately, for some of the safety net programs that I know some people in my audience depend on. So we're going to talk about all of that. We've got new polling. Reuters Ipsos poll says half of Americans now blame Republicans compared to 43% who blame Democrats for the shutdown. Now, with all of these bits of data, there's the upside and there's the downside. And they're kind of both the same. The upside is half of Americans correctly blame Republicans for the shutdown. And that is a plurality. It's, it's sort of a majority. And it's also a plurality. Right at 50%. The downside is despite Democrats controlling nothing, 43% of Americans still think Democrats are responsible for the shutdown. But we know Republicans control everything, White House, House, and Senate. And the kicker is the following. Trump's approval actually has ticked up a little bit during all of this, according to Reuters Ipsos. Now, in other polling, Trump's never been lower in approval than. That's what the overall numbers say, and we'll get to those later. But the point here is Trump as It's not good for Trump that Americans are blaming Republicans, but it is good for Trump that Americans seem to be blaming Republicans in the Senate and the House, but not really Donald Trump personally. And there are people out there convinced that Donald Trump is playing some kind of remarkable 4D chess. Even though you look around and, you know, federal workers are furloughed and airports are backed up. Economists say that the shutdown is costing $15 billion a week. Despite all of that, we have Trump sort of getting less of the blame than Republicans. Bigger picture, I don't really think that matters because politically, this is increasingly looking like a disaster. Going into it, Republicans tried to frame it all as Democrat obstruction. We need 60 votes. We don't have 60 in the Senate. So by mathematical definition, this is partially a result of Democrats. They won't. They're insisting that we need to extend health care subsidies and they're not coordinating. And all of it. Well, it turns out that 72% of Americans support the Obamacare subsidies, including even half of Republicans. So the brilliant plan from the Republican Party was we're going to shut down the government and try to take away something most Americans like and then try to blame it on Democrats. And fortunately, and it's not by a huge margin, which is sad, but fortunately, it has not worked to convince the American people. Now, Republicans realize this, which is why they're now even more desperate to blame Democrats. Senator John Thune lied, saying he negotiated with Democrats on ending the shutdown. But it turns out their Last negotiation was September 29th. It's been almost a month. And meanwhile, Democrats are fighting for health care subsidies, which a lot of these Republicans seem really not to care about preserving. Take a listen to what Senate Majority Leader John Thune said yesterday, leaving the White House.
- [05:27]
Sabrina Singh
You're not three weeks into this shutdown and the two sides don't appear to even be talking. Do you owe it to the other American people to at least be negotiated?
- [05:34]
Republican Senator or Spokesperson
Well, I think we are. We have negotiated. I don't know what there is to negotiate. This is about opening up the government. We have offered them several off ramps. Now, the Democrats want something that's totally untenable, as Senator Barrasso said. I mean, they want $1.5 trillion in new spending. They want free health care for people who are non citizens in this country. That is just a flat non starter. It doesn't pass the Senate, it won't pass the House, it won't be signed into law by the President.
- [06:01]
David Pakman
Now remember, Democrats don't want free health care for undocumented immigrants. That is not anywhere. What is true is that if you go into an emergency room, emergency rooms are not immigration checkpoints, emergency rooms don't check people's papers. Emergency rooms are legally required to stabilize and provide basic treatment and then figure out what is the ability to pay for treatment of the individual, do we transfer them, etc. But when Republicans say, oh, Democrats want to give undocumented immigrants free health care, we have a law that ers don't turn people away and nurses don't start saying, let me see your passport. But they want to just keep lying and lying and lying.
- [06:45]
Republican Senator or Spokesperson
What you do have is a bill that's passed the House sitting at the desk in the Senate that the President's prepared to sign to open up the government. So I'm not sure, people keep saying, you know, negotiate, negotiate what? I don't know what that is. Right now the government needs to open up and then we're happy to sit down and talk about any other issues that Democrats want to talk about.
- [07:04]
David Pakman
Yeah, the people who shut the government down are defiantly saying this thing needs to open up.
- [07:10]
Republican Senator or Spokesperson
Now.
- [07:10]
David Pakman
I don't think Trump is really going to evade blame for this over the long term. You know, Trump's kind of looking at the numbers and going, well, Americans are blaming Republicans, but my approval is like more or less flat. It's still very low. It's still terrible, but it's more or less flat. Think about what it actually means. What we have is a situation where governing failure doesn't move public opinion because expectations are so damn low. In other words, voters expectations are low. And hyper partisanship has people so dug in, so polarized that even a record breaking shutdown barely registers. And that kind of confirms something that Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, he could light the Capitol on fire. 40% of the country would go, I approve of the job that, that he is doing, maybe 37%. So what I think we are finding as we think this through is that Republicans don't really understand the country that they broke. They assumed that the old rules still apply. You can spin your way out of a shutdown just by blaming the other side, but we have a very fragmented informational landscape and it's so saturated with right wing propaganda that even when people see who is responsible, they often retreat into their team's narrative. Except that the propaganda bubble is now leaking because you look at the polling and there's cracks. Independents, soft Republicans, sort of like non Trump Republicans, they're saying ultimately this is a Republican shutdown. They're not buying that Democrats did this. And I think the symbolism here is significant because Trump came into office with this whole, we're going to run government like a business. Now, some of us said Trump's not so good at running businesses. In fact, Trump, if he, if he had taken his inheritance and just put it in the s and P500, he'd be wealthier than having spent decade after decade running businesses sort of okay, but really not that well and declaring bankruptcy many times. So as we look at the economic landscape now, we see layoffs increasing, we see furloughed and unpaid workers and dysfunction at the top with no ability or even apparently desire to fix this. And some of some of Trump's allies are privately starting to panic because they thought, oh, the shutdown will give us leverage, it'll give us leverage to do things that we want to do. But that narrative is collapsing. Republicans are blaming them and it's worse for your Senate and House Republicans so far than it has been for Donald Trump. So I don't know how much longer this thing is going to go. If it, if it drags on a lot longer, it could easily turn into the kind of movement that breaks through even to Donald Trump's voters. Because as, as more things happen, like what's happening to the farmers, just to others, like non farmer workers and Republicans, the loyalists are going to start to say, what the hell are we doing here? This doesn't make any sense. This isn't working. So Trump's approval is low, but holding right now. But this is the kind of slow burn political disaster that I think could very quickly accelerate. And I think that this, I believe Republicans are going to be increasingly incentivized soon to convince Trump to help them get government reopened, because the bill is going to come due for lack of a better term. And I want to look at some of the systems that are now starting to fail. Trump is shaking down his own DOJ for $230 million. We'll get to that. But he's also destroying more and more basic systems of our country. And, and there is a teeny, tiny sliver of good news in there that I'm going to get to now. What are the programs that are, that are in trouble? Snap, also known as food stamps, will not be issued for November because of the government shutdown. If the government shutdown continues, the usda, which oversees food stamps, has notified every state funding for November is not going to be issued. There are 42 million people who depend on food stamp benefits. So that's number one. Number two, Trump says unless Democrats approve funding, Social Security, Medicare, maybe even Medicaid are in danger. Here is what the fearless Orange leader had to say.
- [11:43]
Donald Trump
They just are so bad. You know, they said death. It was like, death, death. There's nothing about death. Theirs is death. Because they're going to lose Medicaid, they're going to lose Social Security, they're going to lose Medicare. All of those things are going to be gone because the whole country would be bankrupt and you're not going to have any kind of medical insurance. So with us, it's the opposite, and it's a great bill. We don't need any more. And I want to just say from the beginning, our message has been very simple. We will not be extorted on this crazy plot of theirs.
- [12:15]
David Pakman
Right? It's, it's an extortive plot to say it would be bad if 12 million suddenly can't afford health care. That it's, it's extortion. Think about how perverted your moral compass has to be for you to call it extortion, that a political party is saying, we don't think it's so good for millions and tens of millions of people to suddenly lose health care. Now, notice how with a lot of these systems, the goalposts have been moved. Because it used to be. Not under my presidency. This was Trump. Under my presidency, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, we are not going to touch it. It then became, listen, we're not going to touch underlying benefits, but we're going to reform it. There's waste, fraud and abuse. We're going to make it better. That was a lie. If you look at the one big beautiful bill, one big ugly bill, one big turd bill, whatever you want to call it, a lot of these new paperwork requirements actually will lead to kicking a lot of people off of benefits altogether. And then it became, all right, we're going to touch it, we're going to get rid of parts. But it is the fault of Democrats who control nothing and are completely out of power if anything bad happens and then you turn around and you see that Trump is suing his own Department of justice for $230 million. But there are millions of people who get a couple hundred bucks of food stamp benefits. The average food stamp benefit is a couple hundred bucks a month. They're going to have to go without it in November if the government stays closed. But Trump is suing his own DOJ for $230 million. And meanwhile, we can bail out Argentina and we can start importing Argentinian beef, which, by the way, I'm from Argentina. I love Argentinian beef. I believe there's a little bit of a hand, hand, hand, foot and mouth, hand, whatever. The thing is that cows sometimes get. Anyway, I love Argentinean beef. But suddenly, because Trump likes the current president of Argentina, excuse me, current president of Argentina, we're going to screw American. American farmers and start importing beef from Argentina. That doesn't make a lot of sense. And look at the numbers. 40 billion for Argentina, 170 billion for ICE over four years. Kristi Noem is spending nearly 200 million on new private jets. A billion to renovate Trump's Qatari jet. Three and a half trillion over 10 years. It's over 4 trillion with interest to gut Medicaid, snap Obamacare, subsidies for bigger tax cuts for the rich, and then maybe 230 million from the DOJ into Trump's own pocket, which he says he will donate to charity. But we can't afford things. We've got to cut programs. And people getting 275 bucks in food stamps are going to be the downfall of this country. Moral bankruptcy. Now, if I said at the beginning, there's a sliver of something good, if there's anything here to say that's good, it is that Americans disapprove of Trump more and more. We talked in the Reuters Ipsos poll. In the context of the shutdown, Trump's approval is steady. But if we zoom out of that and look at Trump's average approval and disapproval, people are seeing what he is doing. And I think it's good when actions have consequences, when a president does something that is bad for the American people. And more and more of the American people say, I disapprove, that's good in that it makes sense. It makes sense for actions to have consequences. And there's a new poll from American Research Group. Not a left wing pollster. In fact, it's a right leading pollster. And they say that Donald Trump has reached a record high 60% disapproval, interestingly, 63% disapprove of how Trump is handling the economy, which is supposedly Trump's strongest area. In September, it was bad enough with 58% disapproving of Trump. Now it's 60%. Now I wish Trump were doing a good job. What do I mean? David, you want Trump to succeed? Yes, I want Trump to succeed in so far as Trump succeeding is good for the American people. I don't want people to go without food stamps. I don't want people to go without health care. I don't want people to go without being able to afford the basic necessities. So to the extent that Trump's success fuels the success of others, I want Trump to do a good job. He isn't. Therefore it is good that his disapproval is skyrocketing. It should. When you do bad things, you should have low approval. Now that all being said, in the hyperpolarized country we have, there is a percentage of Republicans that are full blown cult members. There is nothing Trump could do such that they would say, I no longer support him. Now, I am not a political strategist, but it does seem that Democrats should be running nonstop commercials on how Donald Trump is bailing out Argentina and building a gold plated ballroom and potentially handing himself $230 million of taxpayer money over this stupid lawsuit against the DOJ while other people are forgoing a couple hundred bucks in food stamp benefits that they need or having to pay more for health insurance. That strategy would require competent Democratic leadership. I don't know if Democrats have competent leadership right now. I know many of you believe the answer is no. We've had a lot of Democratic leadership on the show and most of you are not impressed. Most of you are not impressed. So if you are listening to this and you voted for Trump and you get food stamps and now you're not going to get them in November, I want to hear from you. Okay? Please email me info@david pakman.com Is this okay with you? If you're a Trump voter on food stamps hearing November, food stamps won't go out because of the shutdown. Are you okay because he's, I don't know, cleaning up waste, fraud and abuse that they can never really delineate or name? Are you happy with what Trump is doing if you supported this? If you voted for him, Let me know info@david pakman.com when it was time for a new mattress, I didn't want to gamble on something generic. I had heard about Helix. I liked that they customize the mattress based on how you sleep. I'M mostly a stomach sleeper, so I took the quiz and ended up with a model that felt tailored to me. I've had it for years. What I notice is I don't wake up with back stiffness. I don't wake up with shoulder pain. I don't toss and turn looking for a comfortable position. It's just better than my old mattress. It's more supportive, but it's still comfortable. Another thing I like about Helix is that there's no one size fits all approach. It's really tailored to you in terms of firmness as well. It's made a difference for me and I'm thrilled to be partnering with them. Helix is giving my audience 25% off site wide. Go to helix sleep.com/pacman the link is in the Description Donald Trump has already packed his second term cabinet with loyalists. He's threatened deportation as political punishment. He's expanded executive authority in ways we have not seen seen in modern history. These are real changes that are happening right now. And what's even more alarming is that a lot of the media is either glossing over the worst of it or they're reframing it so it all sounds a little more palatable. And that is why I use Ground News. This is a news comparison tool. Doesn't just feed you headlines, it shows you here's how different outlets, left, right, center are covering the same story. And this is one of the few tools I know of that can really help you detect the political spin, the bias catch stories that your usual sources might downplay or not cover at all on everything from immigration policy to economic shifts. If you want to get a bigger picture, a broader picture of what's being reported, Ground News is an invaluable source to keep you informed. And Ground News is offering my audience 40% off their top tier Vantage plan. You'll only pay five bucks a month. Go to ground.news/pacman or enter the code Pacman in the app to get started. The link is in the Description the David Pakman show continues to be an audience funded program. I am humbled and flattered by the support of people in the audience. You know, when I was a wee lad in Argentina and I was three, I didn't think I would someday have a digital news show that people would like enough to support with their own dollars. I also didn't know anything about anything because I was three years old. But alas, that's the way it is and today I am glad to be able to say welcome and thank you to Kimberly Wisdom, who had the wisdom to get herself a membership. Also Janice Wabnitz and Richard Turnock, our newest members at join Pacman Dotcom also consider getting a substack premium subscription. Substack.david pakman.com We've got a subscriber only Q and A going out today where you can ask me anything you want about what's going on in the political space. That's@substack.david pakman.com all right, here we go again. I hate that I have to do this, but I have to do it. What on earth are Democrats doing? Doing 13 Senate Democrats just voted to confirm one of Donald Trump's handpicked right wing judges during a government shutdown. While Trump is using that shutdown to punish his political enemies, what on earth are they doing now? The judge's name is Hal Moody the third. Trump nominated him for a federal judgeship in Alabama. Senate voted 66 to 32 to confirm him. Moody refused to say who won the 2020 election. Moody danced around questions about the Jan6 riots. He gave weird, evasive answers about whether presidents are limited to two terms and Democrats helped install for life this guy on the federal bench. I hate to look at the list of the Democrats that helped me this happen because some of them are friends of the show. Chris Coons, Dick Durbin, John Fetterman, Maggie Hassan, Martin Heinrich, Tim Kaine, Mark Kelly, Amy Klobuchar, Jack Reed, Adam Schiff, Jeanne Shaheen, couple others. These are not like fringe third tier Democratic senators. These are some of the party leaders. Durbin is the judiciary chair. And, and they're giving Trump a win for free. Now I, you all know that I am disgusted with the degree to which Democrats in the Senate sometimes still help Trump do his business, his political business, to be clear. And when I've had some of these Democrats on Cory Booker and others, and I say why? Why give them anything? Why give Trump anything, especially when the government is shut down, but when he is working so hard to just deprive the American people of basic social welfare programs and why, why give him anything? And I have not received a satisfactory answer. Now I would understand, during a government shutdown or whatever, I would understand saying, hey, you know what, just because Trump is proposing it, if it's good for people, then I'm still going to do what's good for people. You know, if it were up to Trump, if there was a Trump initiative to raise food stamp benefits, right, one of the most stimulative social welfare programs that we have, I Wouldn't fault Democrats for going along with Trump in that way because it's objectively good for people. But this is just putting another right wing judge on the bench for life during a government shutdown, during which, by the way, MAGA Mike Johnson and Republicans insist, oh, we can't swear in at Alita Grijalva. No, no, no, no. The government is shut down right now. I mean, we shut it down, but still we can't do that. And now Democrats come in and it's the first major thing the Senate has done in three weeks. It's not reopening the government, it's not protecting workers that are going without paychecks right now, like personal friends of mine. You're not addressing the economic fallout of Trump's blanket tariffs. You confirmed another lunatic, ideologically extreme Trump judge who won't even admit Biden won the 2020 election fair and square. So I'm asking these senators and some of them I know, watch the show, what are you doing? Even if you believe the Senate should keep business going, why this business? Right? During a shutdown where Trump is holding the country hostage, Democrats said, what we're going to do is help advance an authoritarian project. 2025 style judge. Now think about the optics for a second. Trump's out there floating the idea of suspending habeas corpus, corpus, stacking courts with loyalists, musing about a third term, a fourth term, who the hell knows? And Democrats go, let's confirm his next judge. I don't believe that this is about being too progressive, purity testing. This is just self preservation. Every single one of these lifetime judicial appointments helps Trump solidify his grip on the judiciary for decades after he's gone. These judges are going to rule on reproductive rights for decades. They're going to rule on voting rights and labor rights. And I was looking on Reddit at some of the reaction to this and there were a lot of comments that were very salient. Congress has shut down, but there's still time to seat Trump loving right wing judges. That doesn't really make any sense. And the whole excuse of bipartisanship on some issues, we rise above partizanship. These are the Republicans refusing to seat Adelita Grijalva. And now we need to work with them and help them out. Give me a break. So I, I don't know if people in my audience disagree. If I'm, if I'm taking, if this is a swing and a miss, let me know. I just don't understand how when Democrats hand Trump a victory like this, they are doing Anything either helpful to the American people or helpful to their own cause. How are we, these are the people we should elect in 2026 after they're giving Trump another lifetime appointment during a shutdown. Like, what are we doing? And so the pattern is what concerns me. When Democrats cave on judges, when they normalize Trump's shutdown, when they act like it's business as usual in a country where the president is tearing down, literally tearing down parts of the White House and tearing down Democratic norms and institutions, why are we doing anything at all to get him, even the most minor win? Meanwhile, as we talked about yesterday, Caroline Levitt is asked a question by a reporter and she responds with, your mom. And Democrats are helping these people out. So I hate to admit this, I really do, because it is so important that we snatch power back from these people in 2026 and with some of the special elections in just a couple of weeks, November 2025. But what on earth are Democrats doing right now? Because. Because if the message to voters is we're going to fight Trump, fighting Trump, except when it's inconvenient, is not a winning message. So don't be surprised is all I'm saying. If people stop showing up or don't show up in November of 2026, and then don't be surprised, you know, when this Trump appointed judge issues his next ruling with a strong gavel against voting rights or against reproductive freedom or tears down institutions brick by brick with one ruling at a time, we need to remember there was a shutdown and Democrats still gave this guy a lifetime appointment. If I'm wrong, I want to hear from you, okay? Leave a comment if you disagree with what I'm saying. And if you do agree, make sure to like the video. Make sure to subscribe to the YouTube channel. I have for you today what I believe is a contender for Donald Trump's most corrupt act ever. Donald Trump is suing the DOJ for $230 million. This is Trump's DOJ. Pam Bondi is Trump's attorney general running the DOJ, and he is suing it and saying, you owe me $230 million. Now, let me explain what's going on. Trump says he was wronged when the DOJ investigated him back when Biden was president. Trump now controls the DOJ and he is suing the DOJ. And his own DOJ is going to decide, is Trump owed $230 million for how the DOJ has treated him? Here is Kaitlan Collins asking Trump about it. And Trump goes Oh, they, they could owe me a lot of money.
- [29:59]
Donald Trump
You just.
- [30:02]
Caroline Levitt
Follow on her question to you because the New York Times is reporting that your legal team is seeking $230 million from your own Justice Department now in response to the investigations into you. Is that something you want, your legal team?
- [30:14]
Donald Trump
I don't know what the numbers, I don't even talk to them about it. All I know is that they would owe me a lot of money. But I don't, I'm not looking for money. I'd give it to charity or something. I would give it to charity, any money. But look what they did. They rigged the election. And as you know, we had, in one case, 60 Minutes had to pay us a lot of money. George Sloppadopoulos had to pay us a lot of money. And they already paid, you know, they paid me a lot of money because what they did was wrong. And you know, when somebody does what's wrong now with the country, it's interesting because I'm the one that makes a decision, right? And you know, that decision would have to go across my desk. And it's awfully strange to make a decision where I'm paying myself.
- [30:54]
David Pakman
By the way, it is a little weird that you're deciding about paying yourself out of government funds, meaning out of taxpayer money. Yeah, that's true. This is a head spinning act of open corruption. And it's been mostly a sigh from corporate media, from Republicans. It's just a shrug. This is a disgustingly corrupt act. And Trump sort of admits in this next clip, actually, I believe this is. No, this is the, it's the same clip where he says, it's weird to be paying myself. I won't even play that clip. Trump admits it is a little bit weird. Now, in other countries you would try to hide this. You know how sometimes we joke, you know, the police have investigated themselves and they've cleared themselves of any wrongdoing because it looks so corrupt. There are people who would try to hide it and do this surreptitiously. Trump isn't doing that. Not because he's so transparent and so great. Trump's not doing that because he doesn't think there's going to be any consequences to doing this in the open. Why would Trump need to go out of his way to hide this, given that he thinks, maybe correctly, that he can get away with it? And it's the same sort of thing. Donald Trump is investigating whether the DOJ wronged him. And Trump might decide the DOJ did wrong him and now they owe him $230 million. So this is, this is not just a joke about Trump suing himself. This is what it looks like when a democracy's institutions become so compromised that accountability collapses into a satirical parody. He's the plaintiff and the defendant, and Republicans seem completely fine with it. The most outrageous part of it, which should anger you, is that this is your money. This is my money. It's, this is taxpayer money, which Trump is now arguing should be funneled into his own pockets. The most powerful man in the world, arguably, is saying, oh, they really did me wrong. I'm emotionally damaged by the doj, and now the DOJ should pay me money. Corporate media is treating this like a curiosity instead of what it really is. If we look historically, every corrupt empire often has a phase like this where the corrupt leaders start raiding the cupboards. And it could be the leader stops pretending that there is a line between public money and personal money and starts using taxpayer money as a personal slush fund. That's one version of how it'll sometimes go. You know, in Rome, emperors would sometimes loot the Treasury. We're in 2025America. Trump is suing himself and he might end up cutting himself a check out of taxpayer money. If presidents can get away with this, these are not like quirks of the system. This is a system that is eating itself and it is complete and total institutional rot, quite frankly. And I don't know if Trump's going to get away with it. My, I'm not big on predictions, but I think a possible outcome is after suing for 230 million, that is, there will be some decision made, oh, very independent decision, of course, where Trump is owed some smaller amount. And because it'll be a smaller number than the 230 million, a lot of people will just kind of look the other way. If I had to predict that's what I think is going to happen. Every single time that Donald Trump opens his mouth unscripted, we see what the White House is trying to hide, which is that this guy is not well. A reporter asked Donald Trump, are you considering tariffs on China? Which, by the way, is like the hundredth iteration of what the hell is going on with China. Donald Trump's answer, completely and totally incoherent. Are you considering tariffs on China?
- [35:04]
Donald Trump
Well, I mean, you read the same papers as I do, but I don't have to read the papers because I'm the one. Right now, as of November 1, China will have about a 155% tariff put on it. And I don't think it's sustainable for them. So I want to, I want to be nice to China, but China has been very rough with us over the years because we had presidents that weren't smart from a business standpoint.
- [35:31]
David Pakman
So are you going to be doing the China tariffs or not? And I apologize, not that it's my fault that this is an ongoing issue in government. I'm as exhausted by the. Are we doing the China tariffs or not? Is the stock market crashing again because Trump is saying he's doing the China tariffs? Are people's 401ks and retirement accounts collapsing again Because Donald Trump is issuing belligerent and unhinged threats? And does he even understand what it is that he is doing now in, in a real moment of sort of authoritarian terrorist, Trump was asked by a reporter, are you just kind of like, I'll send the National Guard wherever the hell I want? And Trump goes, yeah, I basically, I think so, Mr. President. Yeah.
- [36:20]
Sabrina Singh
Appeals court recently ruled that you can send the National Guard in Oregon. Do you feel unfettered to send the National Guard into whatever city you want now?
- [36:30]
Donald Trump
Well, I guess that was the decision. I can send the National Guard if I see problems. I looked at Portland over the weekend. The place is burning down, just burning down. We weren't there weren't. We didn't spend much time there because we were waiting for that decision. But the court probably that maybe that influenced the court. But you look at a place like Portland, it's just, it's ridiculous when they say that there's no problem the places. It was on fire over the weekend.
- [36:57]
David Pakman
This is not true.
- [36:59]
Donald Trump
But we did, we won the case in court of appeals. I think it was a nice 9th Circuit. So that's pretty good and very strong opinion that we have the right to use the National Guard. You would think that would be common sense. We have the right to use the National Guard to put out trouble.
- [37:16]
David Pakman
Well, of course, it's not quite so simple because you're not allowed to use federal law enforcement to do domestic, Federal, federal military, rather to do domestic law enforcement. We know about that. That's been the center of the entire legal battle. Now, just as a matter of correction, Portland was not on fire, but I guess in Trump's head, it's 2020. Every Democratic city is some kind of a war zone. And this is what happens when you live in a FOX News highlight reel that they haven't updated the B roll on for five years. Trump was asked about Ukraine and Russia. My sense is he's given up he just goes, doesn't really affect us. Well, then why was this such a high priority for years that you were going to solve right away on Ukraine?
- [38:03]
Republican Senator or Spokesperson
Do you still see a chance for a cease fire?
- [38:06]
David Pakman
And what is Putin asking?
- [38:08]
Republican Senator or Spokesperson
Do you still see a chance for a cease fire? And what is asking for?
- [38:13]
Donald Trump
I do. It's a vicious look, it's a vicious war. Does it really affect us?
- [38:19]
David Pakman
Yeah, it's completely vicious. Not really affecting my day to day. I still get driven around in a bulletproof car. So I'm not going to be very worried about it. Wasn't this, wasn't this one of the many wars Trump was solving? Now it's like, doesn't really make a difference. Trump confusedly cagey about prices, arguing that he has brought down prices, but by an amount he's not yet ready to say out loud.
- [38:45]
Donald Trump
I tell the story of my last administration. My fourth year, I was so honored because I brought drug prices down. The first time in 28 years prices were brought down by a certain amount. I'll tell you what the amount was in a second, but by a certain amount. And so at the beginning of the year to the end of the year, I actually brought them down. First time in 28 years that happened.
- [39:08]
David Pakman
Yes. Trump is going to at some point tell us what the amount is. And I'm guessing that the numbers aren't going to make any sense, and they don't. Here is Donald Trump's arithmetic. Arithmetic confusion. You might as just, he might as well just say, I brought prices down by a gazillion.
- [39:24]
Donald Trump
That's all I said. But I was proud because first time it ever happened, and now I'm bringing prices down 600%, 700%, 900%, 200%.
- [39:37]
David Pakman
I brought prices down 11 billion percent. This is why the Donald Trump press conference represents such a risk and why a lot of people around him don't like him doing it. And then maybe this is like my favorite part of the entire thing. Remember those Doge dividends where supposedly Elon Musk's doge was finding so much waste, fraud and abuse, although they've still not prosecuted a single person for all of the fraud, which is a crime, by the way. They were finding so much waste, fraud and abuse that they were going to send out Doge dividends? Well, that came and went. Didn't happen. Big surprise. Now Trump is saying we might start distributing checks with tariff money. But there's a little sick irony in.
- [40:22]
Donald Trump
This rich country again, we'll start paying off debt. We'll do A lot of things. We'll probably make a distribution out of some of the tariff money. I think we're going to make a distribution over the next fairly short period of time to the people, because we do took in so much money from the tariffs. Just European Union, $650 billion, guys.
- [40:45]
David Pakman
This is the redistribution of wealth that Republicans claim to be against. The tariffs are import taxes paid by Americans. American companies pay the import taxes, and then they raise prices to consumers. You pay the tariffs, I pay the tariffs. So what Donald Trump is saying here, which, by the way, he's not going to do if I were a betting man, I don't think he does any dividend distribution from the tariffs. Give me a break. He is collecting tariff money from Americans and then he's going to redistribute the tariff money in a way that they say is socialism and shouldn't be done. That they say is communism and shouldn't be done. This is a scam that a lot of strong men like to run. You break the economy and then you buy loyalty with the illusion of being generous. I screwed it up. The reason I'm even talking about sending people money is because these tariffs are screwing up the economy. But I am the conduit to prosperity. I am the conduit to generosity, and I will distribute a little bit of money to the peons in Russia, and it's oil checks in Venezuela. It's food boxes that sometimes have the leader's face on them. And so here it's going to be tariff redistributions. It's the same con that authoritarians love to run. Trump has run cons his whole life. Trump water and Trump steaks and whatever else. And now the con is tariffs, which I'm going to then redistribute. The real patriots are finally going to get paid. So we, you know, they talked about it with the Doge dividend. We were going to get profits from all of the savings from Doge, and that never happened. It's never happening. But people want to believe it. And Trump's running the exact same play. He is selling hope to the desperate. He screws people and then says, I'm going to bail you out. He screwed the farmers in the first term and bailed them out a smaller degree than they were screwed. He's screwing them this term, and he says he's going to bail them out. And now he says, oh, the blanket tariffs, don't worry, we're going to start sending cash out. The goal is a classic authoritarian goal. Build a population that comes to believe you are the only person who can save them. You know, I'll often talk to my friends about what do we really think is private on our computers and on our phones. And many people believe that their emails are genuinely private. And it turns out that a lot of the email services are looking at your emails and can look at your emails even after you have deleted them. Which is why I recommend our sponsor Start Mail, a trusted name in secure email for more than a decade. Start Mail is based in the Netherlands. Netherlands is known for Virginia very strong data protection laws. Your emails won't be scanned, your emails won't be tracked. Start Mail will block those invasive tracking pixels so you won't be monitored by companies and by hackers. And when you delete an email in Start Mail, it is gone for good. Your data stays private. They are all in on this with a ton of features including aliases to keep you anonymous, strong encryption with your emails and it is super easy to move to Start Mail. It's a few clicks. Migrate your emails, migrate your contacts, you really can't go wrong. Try Start Mail for yourself completely free for seven days at start mail.com/pacman, which will also give you 50% off your first year. The link is in the description. Today we're going to be speaking with Sabrina Singh, a communications expert who served as the Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary in the Department of Defense under President Biden. A department which has now been renamed, of questionable formality, the renaming. Sabrina, great to have you on today. I appreciate it.
- [44:56]
Sabrina Singh
Thanks for having me here today. Really appreciate the opportunity.
- [44:59]
David Pakman
So we've been talking about this new edict with regard to press coverage that has come down at the Department of Defense, which I think is a good sign. A number of media outlets were saying we are not going to agree to that. And we'll talk about the implications, implications of that. Can you just sort of summarize for us prior to this like during your time at the, at the Pentagon, at dod, what, what were the sort of restrictions, if any, that were placed on those that were part of the press core as it, as it were covering DoD and what is significant about what the requirements and changes are here?
- [45:37]
Sabrina Singh
Yeah, great question. So when I was at the department, the press always had to wear a badge. Press could not roam the halls of Pentagon without clearly having some type of identification that they are members of the media. And this was also the same that goes for employees like myself. I always had to show a badge, present that I had the white, you know, certifications, qualifications to be in the spaces that I need to go to. I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding that this administration has when it comes to access that the press has in the building. They can roam pretty much any floor of the Pentagon, but they can't just walk in to highly secure spaces, like what we would call skiffs that have and contain information, where people are working and analyzing this information in real time and sort of, you know, in an open space, but that's in a skiff. So they don't have access to just be able to walk into that. Like they can't just walk into the secretary's office or the chairman's office. And so when I was there at the Pentagon, you would see reporters walking the halls. You could run into them while you're trying to get food to. They're going into an office for a meeting, have a conversation or an interview. What this administration, and particularly Under Secretary Pete Hegseth, is doing is he has not only restricted their access, this was the first iteration of restricting access of where they could go in the Pentagon, but they now basically are asking the Pentagon press corps to sign a 20 something page pledge that says that they will only report on statements given to them by Department of Defense officials, which essentially is saying, we want you to be stenographers for the department and you can't use any of your other sources, whether they be in the building or around the world for your stories. And that I think fundamentally is a clampdown on freedom of the press. And so you saw a number of outlets reject this pledge to sign this pledge. And that's why you've seen, you know, outlets be escorted out of the building last week. And unfortunately, there's now a very limited press corps of people that did sign that pledge and that are operating in the building still today.
- [48:01]
David Pakman
What might be useful to hear from you so that the audience can kind of contrast the attitude towards reporters in this administration to maybe in the Biden administration. It would be. If I imagine being in your shoes and you're trying to do a job, I could understand a frustration. For example, if there were reporters that you felt were always trying to unfairly cast everything that's done in a negative light or like, it's not a question of whether they're doing anything legal, of course they're doing something legal. But I could understand being frustrated, going, man, these three people, they just really seem to have it out for me. I know that I have to be careful when I talk to them, etc. Like that. A frustration on a personal level. Seems like it would make sense just as someone trying to do your job. This is something different, it seems to me, in that it is actually trying to control the scope and types of speech that they will allow unless they are going to start cutting off access. Can you talk, I guess about the difference in degrees between what we're talking about and maybe a little bit about your time in terms of like what was the attitude behind the scene to the scenes, to the reporters you knew were adversarial and how that's different from simply starting to cut people off from access?
- [49:17]
Sabrina Singh
Yeah, I think you outlined that so well. You know, you have this dichotomy now here where it's before it was about, you know, the information and the type of stories that the press were going to report on to where we are now, which is essentially trying to choke information off from the press and only allowing them to report on pre approved department, you know, statements essentially. When I was there at the Pentagon, you know, of course there were contentious times. There were times at the podium where I was speaking that I was getting pressed by reporters for more information. And then, you know, sometimes reporters would come into my office and have information and sourcing about an operation or about, you know, something, an announcement that we were going to have. And it was really frustrating at times. And sometimes, you know, you just want to pull your hair out because sometimes you feel like a reporter is getting it wrong and that they're, you know, that if they report, report a story in a certain way, it's going to be misleading to the American public. And so there's this always this push pull between a spokesperson and a reporter. But the benefit of what I tried to do when I was there at the department, I think my colleagues as well, is we tried to work with these reporters at times. Yes, absolutely, there can be an adversarial relationship. But in no time during my entire time working at the Pentagon was I ever had any, ever thought of thinking I would just stop giving them information or revoke their badge access. I mean, even though I disagreed and sometimes, you know, in closed door conversations, you know, really, really disagreed and had very tense conversations with reporters on their reporting. The press is essential to our democracy and essential to giving the American public the facts. And if you think about what the department is doing today, essentially, you know, wanting reporters to be stenographers for the department, if we didn't have the reporters asking the questions that they did during the withdrawal of Afghanistan, during the Iraq War, Vietnam, Watergate, and it was, and they were just reporting on sort of These pre approved DoD statements, the American public would not have had the accountability and transparency that it eventually got. So that is, I think something that what this new policy is going to do is actually it's going to hurt. You know, it hurts reporters, it hurts the building. But the real people that it hurts is the American public. And it doesn't seem like this administration really cares about that.
- [52:13]
David Pakman
No, I mean, publishing just what you're given in those through those conduits is basically public relations. It's not even really reporting. At the end of the day, what, what do you make of the fact that Fox News and also Newsmax have said they are not going to sign onto the pledge? Do you think that that's more about the optics and that really they sort of are stenographers for what's going on there or do you think even, even for the way that they like to operate, it's simply too limiting and they can't do it?
- [52:41]
Sabrina Singh
Yeah, you know, I worked with some of the Fox reporters at the Pentagon and they do have very high standards. I mean, these were people that, and you know, their, their chief Pentagon correspondent, one of their producers traveled us with us on trips. I mean, yes, I sometimes took issue with the way that Fox would cover some of our announcements or, you know, some of some of our operations. But broadly speaking, I think outlets like Fox, like Newsmax, understand that this pledge is meant to stifle their reporting. And at the end of the day, if you know their Fox is still, you know, a credible outlet that people are getting their news from. They cannot just be seen as someone, as an outlet that will just take these written statements and just report on it as fact without pushing the envelope and, and asking for more information. And so I was quite heartened by the fact that you saw someone like Newsmax not sign the pledge. And even, you know, you're seeing, even now, some outlets that did sign the pledge are actually, their reporters are walking away from it, which I think is really telling because I think even some of the right wing media outlets are getting comfortable what the department is asking them to do.
- [53:59]
David Pakman
Last thing I want to sort of shift to, in the last few minutes we have in thinking back to the Biden administration, you know, now having read, I read Kamala Harris his book, I read Jake Tapper his book, I read Jonathan Allen and Amy Parnes book. And while they all sort of have different details and different characterizations as to the specifics of what happened sort of in the last couple years of the Biden Presidency, more or less. They all are approximating, you know, based on who they want to blame. They write about it a little bit differently. But the general gist of it was even within the administration, there was sometimes limited contact and information as to what was, quote, really going on in the Oval Office and with Biden sort of culminating with the June 27 debate, after which it became pretty clear that it was not going to be a viable reelection campaign. I think for some viewers, it's hard to understand how could you work in an administration in the top levels and be sort of kept outside of what is really going on? And I wonder if you could talk a little bit about kind of how these concentric circles can work and how there is a lot of jockeying and posturing for access. And sometimes it's for reasons of personal ambition that the people closest to a president might want to keep others out or explain to people who don't understand the culture of it how these things kind of develop.
- [55:28]
Sabrina Singh
I think, you know, you actually had a great analogy in there of the concentric circles. You know, when you think of the Oval Office and sort of how the president operates, you know, and I can only speak for our administration, you know, this administration, previous administration, a little different, but the access to the president was very limited. And I think, you know, it's obviously been reported on. You mentioned some of the books that have done some of the reporting, the, the people that are going in and out of his office. It was a, you know, it was a very small group and so forth. Even further removed from that. You have then the Cabinet and for the Pentagon, you know, the secretary even, he has like, a small group of people in his front office that are constantly updating him and giving him information on whatever it might be, updates from the president, updates from operations around the world, update on how our servicemen and women are doing. You have to think about it as you're not always having access to the top principal, and that's the point, because if you also had access to the top person all the time, that person probably not be able to get much done because they have to manage so much more. So you're working with his, you know, or her, you know, in her inner group. And so, you know, I can speak for myself from, from working with the secretary, Secretary Austin at dod, you know, I wasn't in every single meeting and certainly was not part of every single conversation, but I was able to have access to him when I needed, when I needed to brief, when I needed to understand, you know, where, where Is his head at. On Ukraine. You know, there was obviously a lot of reporting during my time there of, like, different types of weapon systems that we were sending. And sometimes, you know, reporters certainly had tips that we were going to send something, but the Secretary actually had not made that decision yet, and the President had actually not signed off on it. So when you're sort of dealing with the levers of power. Just going back to your original question, you know, it kind of works differently at each agency, and then each agency feeds up into. Into. Into the White House.
- [57:55]
David Pakman
So it does sound like you're saying it is believable, as has been reported, that there were Cabinet secretaries who went very long periods of time without seeing the President and that it may have been. It may have been unique or not to the situation, but that. That in and of itself is not unusual.
- [58:12]
Sabrina Singh
I don't think it's unusual that, you know, some Cabinet secretaries are not seeing the President every day. Secretary Austin and I think some other secretaries were interacting with the President I think, more regularly. And, you know, there wasn't a time where the Secretary of Defense couldn't reach the President. And so I think there were. And it's been a while since I've been there. But, you know, when. When we were conducting operations against the Houthis, when it came to, you know, NATO, defense ministerial meetings, meetings that the President was having with his counterparts, and the secretary would be there. Regular engagements. Absolutely. But I think there was, you know, pretty regular communication generally, like on a daily basis from the Department of Defense to the White House and vice versa, or the National Security Council, I should say.
- [59:05]
David Pakman
Very last thing I want to ask you about. Is it starting to get weird that pretty soon we might have a president that's like, roughly our age and that there's just some. I don't. Obviously, it's making me feel very old, but just like, more, you know, when I think about how J.D. vance is a heartbeat away from the presidency at this point.
- [59:24]
Sabrina Singh
Yeah.
- [59:25]
David Pakman
How do you think about that? Because it's starting to feel a little strange to me. I'm older than some of my doctors now, which is weird.
- [59:30]
Sabrina Singh
Weird enough I am too, that I was just about to say I feel weird going in doctor's office now and. And finding out that they're younger than me.
- [59:38]
David Pakman
Yes.
- [59:40]
Sabrina Singh
Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
- [59:42]
David Pakman
No, no. I mean, it's just like we. There's clearly we are getting to the point where this next generation, I mean, Heg Seth isn't that much older than me and it's sort of like, I don't know, it. It makes me feel like. You know how when people say, you think your parents know what they're doing, and then all of a sudden you're a parent and you don't, you know, you're like, oh, wow, we really don't know what's going on. Is there something about this whole thing where it starts making us think, man, the president and the vice presidents, maybe they really don't have it all figured out. As if we didn't already suspect that.
- [60:12]
Sabrina Singh
Yeah. I think just like, from the existential question of. Of is it strange that we could have a president that's like our age or younger? That's totally weird. Yeah.
- [60:22]
David Pakman
Yeah.
- [60:22]
Sabrina Singh
I mean, it just feels. It feels strange, right, Because I certainly. Sitting here talking with you, like, I know I don't have it all figured out, and you want someone in that position to have it kind of figured out. But that's not to say that they don't. It's just like, I don't, you know, personally, at this moment, feel like I have it all figured out. I think. I think it's twofold. I think. I think it's good to have younger leaders and sort of younger blood in the mix. I do think there is this allure of staying in office and, like, you know, getting wheeled out, these feet first, and I don't think that should be a, like, the bar. I actually think it's healthy to serve your time in Congress or, you know, an office and say, you know, I've done my job. I do think there are people that stay in those positions, though, because they love their job. And I think also, it's not like we shouldn't be critical of some people. I think there's, like, the power aspect. People like power, and people like to hold on to it. And then I also think there are people that just genuinely love their job and they love public service. And, you know, that was something that leaving government and coming out, it's hard. You're like, I just felt like I had a mission. I had. I had, you know, these core values that I was pushing towards. And then you. You leave and you kind of. Your identity gets. Gets shaken. But, you know, I think it's. I think it's a good thing to have younger folks coming up. Will it be weird to have a president that's younger than me at some point? Yeah, probably. But, you know, I. It is the reality that it is. I also think we can't discount the wisdom and the sort of like battle tested leaders that we have. And like I got to sit around the room and look at people that had three or four stars on their shoulders. And those are people that have served, you know, 20, 30 years in uniform. I mean Secretary Austin had 40 years in uniform, that type of experience and watching him talk to his counterparts about the battlefield in Ukraine, he could do that because he had the knowledge, a 40 year old. Respect, you know, all the, all the things that you bring to the table. But I think it's important to have an amalgamation of both. But yes to your question. I think it's going to be a little weird, but maybe we'll just have to work through it in therapy or something.
- [62:58]
David Pakman
It's going to be weird. I think I'll get used to it eventually. We've been speaking with Sabrina Singh, deputy Pentagon press secretary at DOD under President Biden. Really appreciate your time today.
- [63:09]
Sabrina Singh
Thank you.
- [63:11]
David Pakman
Fall is here. The nights are getting cooler. It's cozier. Hot baked goods feel like a great treat. And our sponsor Wild Grain is the first bake from frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, pastries and pastas. Everything bakes in 25 minutes or less. No prep, no cleanup. Customizable boxes, they can do gluten free, they can do plant based and right now they've got some limited time. Fall items. Apple cider donuts. I grew up with these in New England. Pumpkin cinnamon biscuits. Love them. The donuts just come out perfectly like a nice little crisp edge. Warm spiced center Biscuits are flaky and sweet. Made the whole kitchen smell like a biscuit bakery. Wild Grain uses slow fermentation, which means their breads are richer in nutrients than that which you get at the store. You can really taste the difference and the fermentation process can even be helpful for digestion. For a limited time, get $30 off your first box plus free croissants in every box when you start your subscription at wild grain.com/pacman. The link is in the description. A visibly jealous Caroline Levitt dropped a bomb on her predecessor, Karine Jean Pierre. Caroline, nobody's falling for it. And this is, it's yet another reminder that Caroline Levitt is truly a horrible person. Listen to what Levitt says about Joe Biden's press secretary, Karine Jean Pierre and think about whether it might apply to anybody else that you know.
- [64:51]
Caroline Levitt
With all due respect to my predecessor predecessor, she is one of the main culprits of the greatest cover up and scandal in American history. She took the podium every day and lied to the press about the incompetence of her boss. And on this book tour, she continues to lie. She said this past week that Joe Biden would still be up for the job if he had, God forbid, been reelected in November. She actually said this week as well on a podcast that Joe Biden Biden did more press engagements than President Trump currently does. Now, any person across the aisle can tell you that is a bald faced lie. And I will just add when you talk to the real journalists, not the ones who are actually activists, that yeah.
- [65:33]
David Pakman
You got to talk to Benny Johnson and Marjorie Taylor Greene's boyfriend was as.
- [65:38]
Caroline Levitt
Journalists, but the people who actually care about truth, and there are some of those left in the White House press corps, I work with them every day. They will tell you the Trump White House is the most accessible and transparent White House ever.
- [65:51]
David Pakman
Yeah. For example, if you ask Caroline Levitt a question, she sometimes will respond with your mom, but she will respond. These are people who really should be studied. And I mean that sincerely in the sense that Caroline Levitt believes herself to be doing all of this for God. She wears the huge cross necklace. You know, she's on her knees for Jesus and the entire thing. And she lies and lies and lies and lies. How is that a Christian value? But she has convinced herself that she is in the right. And when she was attacking Karine Jean Pierre in that clip, it sounds like she's talking about herself running cover from one of the most incompetent, delusional and dangerously authoritarian presidents certainly that I have covered. She insisted during the same conversation it's up to Democrats to reopen the government. I mean, they don't control anything. But when are Democrats going to fix this problem?
- [66:52]
Caroline Levitt
We're continuing to work very hard to try to reopen the government, Jesse, and we are now on day 21 of the government shutdown. Democrats have voted 11 straight times against the Republican led clean continuing resolution to keep the government government open. And it's quite peculiar because they voted for 13 times in the past for this exact same type of funding.
- [67:15]
David Pakman
Bill, I love that she goes, we're waiting for them to reopen the government. Well, even Marjorie Taylor Greene has posted that Republicans could get the government open anytime they want. Go. I can't believe I'm saying Marjorie Taylor Greene has the answer and the explanation, but she does. If you look on her Twitter, she has explained they could do it at any time. Let's listen to the rest of this.
- [67:41]
Caroline Levitt
As the president very clearly stated in the Oval Office today, he will gladly meet with Democrats to talk about health care or whatever other issue that they want to talk about. And by the way, it's the Democrats who created the broken health care system in this country through Obamacare that has led to rising premium and costs.
- [67:59]
David Pakman
It's now, of course, the devil is in the details. This is. It takes much longer to explain the lie than to tell it. She says Obamacare has failed and premiums keep going up. Well, the. The degree to which Obamacare can succeed depends on funding it correctly. During his first term, Trump eliminated the individual mandate. If everybody doesn't have health care, the risk pool is smaller. It's not going to work as well. They figured out a way to hamper it, to handicap it without getting rid of it altogether, because they couldn't. When she says premiums keep going up. Premiums have been going up for decades. By the way, I just got a little while ago last week I mentioned to you all that I have one of these connector plans through the healthcare.gov marketplace. I mentioned I pay 747amonth. I just got my open enrollment paperwork. If I want to stay on the same plan, my payment will be 940amonth. In 2026, if I keep the same plan, the benefits are no better. It would go from 747 to 940. Now, the thing about premiums are going up is premiums continue going up inside the Obamacare marketplaces. And outside the Obamacare marketplaces, their premiums just go up. They've been going up a little more slowly inside the Obamacare marketplaces. So the point is you have to look more closely at what they say and they can lie like that. And it takes a few minutes to figure out what the lie is. Now what One, just one other example, because I want to make a broader point about women in Trump's administration. Here is Trump saying Tulsi's doing this is from yesterday. Tulsi is going to do something about the election that was rigged or really.
- [69:56]
Donald Trump
I think it's got to be. It's got to be handled in a proper way. If it's not handled in a proper way, we don't want it to happen again. We can never let what happened in the 2020 election happen again. We just can't let that happen. And so the way we go, I know Case is working on it, everybody's working on it. But. And certainly Tulsi is working on it. We can't let that happen again to our country. Look at what's happened.
- [70:19]
David Pakman
Where you have what is Tulsi work? What is he talking about? What is Tulsi working on? Overturning the next election? Running for the PR chief of authoritarian fascism? What on earth is Trump talking about? And this gets me to the pattern I want to mention. There's a pattern with women in Trump's orbit. They are brought in to clean up Trump's messes, metaphorically, as far as I know, defend him with a smile, and then they get tossed aside as soon as they outshine him. Whatever their official title is, Director of National Intelligence, press secretary. These are women who are given fake power roles. Their real job is launder Trump's image, sell his lies to people outside of the immediate cult, and also give him a little bit of plausible deniability the second they slip up. Like when Tulsi contradicted Trump on Iranian intelligence. They are gone now. Tulsi was just sort of like, put back in the bullpen for a few weeks. She survived, but there was a period there where there was reporting that Trump was close to getting rid of Tulsi. Tulsi. Tulsi and Caroline really seem to know where their bread is buttered here. And it's, oh, Trump is so great at everything. I'm investigating the election, sure, I'm investigating the election. It's pathetic. But it does seem to actually work, unfortunately, on some of some of Donald Trump's core base. All right, there is a growing Internet movement that is convinced that Trump is about to die. And I want to talk about it because they are missing a few critical details. Let me big picture it for you first. If you look on Tik Tok, if you look on Instagram, if you look on Reddit, you see videos like, I think it might happen today, or, he only has three months left. And this is people. They don't say it, I think for, like, algorithmic reasons. If you actually talk about people dying, some of these platforms will suppress the content. But the implication is Trump has very little time left. Now, I do understand the underlying reasoning here. Trump, 79. Life expectancy at birth when Trump was born, was only 64 years old. Trump's not healthy. He's almost 80. He's obese. He doesn't exercise, his diet is filled with fast food. But there is something that people are not understanding, which is that once you make it to age 79 in 2025, if you're a wealthy person and Trump is, you are expected to live eight to nine more years. Now, you might say, david, that doesn't really make sense. When Trump was born in 1946 males in the US were expected to live 64 years. And now you're telling me Trump's 79 and likely to live to 87 or 88? Yes, exactly. And let's go through it in a few pieces. According to the Social Security Administration's actuarial tables, the life Expectancy for a 79 year old male is 8 years and change. Average remaining lifetime. That's the mean of people who are currently that age. It's not a guarantee, but the tables say Trump should live eight to nine more years. Now, it could be more, could be less, depending on genetics, lifestyle, risk factors. We'll get back to that. But the key there is once you make it to age 79, you've already survived a lot of the high risk years. You've survived not making it to one year of age. You've survived not making it to five. You've survived. You know, in Trump's case, you survived the years during which you might have to go and deploy to a war. Although Donald Trump got a letter about his ankles and didn't end up going. This is an example of how a statistic, a statistic can be accurate, but it can be misleading. And you have to make sure you're measuring the right thing. I have a really, I think, salient example of this. Imagine you put Bill Gates in a room with nine broke people. The mean net worth in that room is $10 billion per person, but there are nine people worth zero and Bill Gates worth 100 billion. In that situation, the mean is not a useful statistic. The median might be more useful and representative. So similarly, life expectancy at birth in 1946 measures the average age of death if you were born in a given year, including infant mortality, including child mortality. Once you get to life expectancy at age 25 for those born in 1946, you've removed infant mortality, you've removed the Vietnam years, all of that stuff. Once you've made it to 79, you've avoided a lot of the reasons. Sometimes people die before that. One other important concept here is that of super agers. These are people who, for genetic reasons, no matter their diet or lifestyle, they just kind of keep living relatively well until very late in age. There's a super fast decline, and then they die. The exact explanation isn't totally, well, well understood at this point, but the idea is there's a genetic basis for it. And Trump might, despite terrible lifestyle factors, live to his late 80s, more or less as he is right now, despite the cankles, despite the Obesity, despite all of it. Now, let me talk about the politics of it. There are right wingers convinced this is just about Trump. Left wingers are being so mean, you hate so much you're waiting for him to die. It's not really partizan. You know, there was a death watch corner of the Internet for Queen Elizabeth. There was one for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. There. Magazines have had one for Joe Biden for a really long time. One of the funny things about the Trump death watch is that there are people who have been saying he has only months to live for years now. And Trump keeps outliving those expectations. So, final thing I want to go back to. Wealth is a major factor when you have unlimited health care, private chefs, a team of doctors monitoring every heartbeat. Your odds of seeing 90 go way, way up. The social determinants of health are massive here. And if history has taught us anything, it's that Trump is good at outlasting people who think he's done. It happened legally. This is it. Trump's going to spend the rest of his life in prison. No, he's not. It happened politically with people saying Trump's one term is it and then he got another term and also for Trump's health. So the people that are out there convinced Trump has days to live. I don't know that the data really supports what you're saying. We've got a phenomenal bonus show for you today. The Republican Party has another Nazi text problem. We'll talk about this. Really wacky cash Patel Diwali post rife with racism and the government shutdown is now the second longest. How long will it go? All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Don't miss it.