10/30/25: Trump demands nuke tests as Xi dominates him, 14 Republicans turn on Trump

Summary

The David Pakman Show — Episode Summary

Episode Title: Trump demands nuke tests as Xi dominates him, 14 Republicans turn on Trump
Date: October 30, 2025
Host: David Pakman
Guest: Jonathan Karl, Chief Washington Correspondent for ABC News

---

Main Theme / Purpose

In this episode, David Pakman unpacks a turbulent stretch for the Trump administration:

• A rare public rebuke from 14 Republican lawmakers over Trump’s agricultural trade policy
• Trump’s call for immediate U.S. nuclear weapons tests, despite apparent confusion on basic nuclear policy
• Trump’s awkward summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, in which he appeared feeble and deferential
• Commentary on RFK Jr.’s lack of evidence behind Tylenol-autism claims and other current events
• An interview with ABC’s Jonathan Karl about covering Trump, the health of Trump and the media’s difficult relationship with his administration

Throughout, Pakman delivers his signature mix of sharp analysis, wit, and concern about the Trump presidency’s impact on democracy.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

---

1. 14 Republicans Publicly Rebuke Trump’s Trade Policy

(Segment starts ~00:00)

• Rebellion Unfolds: 14 Republican members of Congress sign an open letter to Trump’s Agriculture Secretary and Trade Rep, protesting expanded Argentinian beef imports.
  • Main Concerns: The imports “undermine American cattle producers, weaken our position in ongoing trade negotiations, and reintroduce avoidable animal health risks” (paraphrased).
  • Trade Imbalance Stats: “Argentina exports over $200 million in beef to the United States and only buys $2 million of stuff back.” (David Pakman, 02:31)
• Pakman’s Analysis:
  • This is a major crack in Trump’s once-disciplined GOP support on his “signature issue” of trade.
  • Signals a shift: “The calculus has now shifted to the point where they are saying, I am willing to risk the wrath of Trump because I need to speak out. Not speaking out is the greater risk.” (David Pakman, 05:34)
  • Predicts that if Trump’s retaliation is muted, more GOP dissent could emerge.

---

2. Trump’s Calls for Nuclear Weapons Testing

(Segment starts ~08:30)

• Trump’s Announcement: Trump demands the U.S. “start testing our nuclear weapons on an equal basis,” mistakenly claims the U.S. has the largest arsenal, and refers to the DoD as “the Department of War.”
  • Notable quote:
    • “I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our nuclear weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately.”
      — Donald Trump (Truth Social reading, ~11:00)
  • Misstates basic facts: actually, Russia has more nukes and the “update” he touts began under Obama.
• Pakman Rips into the ‘Nuclear Swagger’:
  • Critiques Trump’s obsession with “looking tough” like dictators: “What do strong men love? Nuclear swagger… That is straight out of the authoritarian playbook…create theater and that sort of thing.” (David Pakman, 13:15)
  • Denounces as reckless, noting that responsible nuclear states avoid testing.
  • Suggests Trump is being manipulated by Putin, echoing Russian propaganda.

---

3. Trump’s Meeting with Xi Jinping: “Dominated and Debased”

(Segment starts ~19:40)

• Meeting Recap: Trump appears deferential, “bowing” to Xi, and lavishes praise on the Chinese leader.
  • Pakman’s Take: “It just, I mean, it just reeks of weakness and subservience... Trump is impressed with authoritarians and certainly with dictators.” (David Pakman, 21:00)
  • Even Fox News tries to spin it as “America First,” but reality is otherwise.
• Soybean Agreement “Victory” Unmasked:
  • Fox touts China’s agreement to buy soybeans as a win, but Pakman exposes the math:
    • Previously: 27 million metric tons/year
      Now: 12 million (this year), then “25 million per year” (less than before)
  • Pakman’s Burn:
    • “It’s like breaking someone’s window and then saying, why is no one saying, thank you? I’m agreeing to pay for part of the repairs.” (David Pakman, 25:08)
  • Trump’s answers on tariffs and the meeting’s success are rambling and incoherent, with arbitrary, shifting numbers (“subtract fentanyl and that gives you 47”.)
    • “Every time he meets with one of these guys—Putin, Xi, even Kim Jong Un—they’ve got his head spinning. He doesn’t understand what’s going on.” (David Pakman, 29:38)
  • Trump rates the meeting “a 12 out of 10.” (Donald Trump, 32:21)

---

4. Interview with Jonathan Karl — Trump, the Media, Health, and Legal Worries

(Segment starts ~34:15)

• Reporter Access and Relationship Dynamics
  • Karl describes unpredictably direct White House phone access to Trump, even as president:
    • “It’s more likely that I would get Trump on the phone when calling him than like the deputy press secretary for the Harris campaign…” (Jonathan Karl, 38:17)
  • Public antagonism is “a lot of it is a show… sometimes he really gets angry, but usually in private, it's very, very friendly.” (Jonathan Karl, 42:17)
• Threats to Media and Legal Antagonism
  • Pakman and Karl discuss fears of weaponized DoJ against media and critics: “We've seen that even frivolous prosecutions or frivolous lawsuits can cause a lot of pain.” (Jonathan Karl, 45:11)
• Media Treatment of Trump’s Health
  • Pakman observes less corporate media coverage of Trump’s health compared to Biden’s.
  • Karl: “I’m not a doctor. I don’t think it’s my job to speculate.” Notes pervasive speculation over Trump’s health for a decade, but says the “flood the zone” nature of Trump creates too much else to cover. (Jonathan Karl, 47:53)
• 2025 Scandals & Political Impact
  • Pakman asks if recent stories (ballroom in White House, food stamps, farmers rebelling) will matter in 2026.
    • Karl: “These stories… can certainly be seized on by Democrats in the midterms… It’s fascinating to me how the destruction of the East Wing has really broken through…” (Jonathan Karl, 53:15)

---

5. Other Headlines & Analysis

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Tylenol Claim Falls Apart

(Segment starts ~54:38)

• RFK Jr. admits on tape there’s “not sufficient causative association” between Tylenol and autism, only “very suggestive” evidence from animal/correlational studies.
  • “We do not have any evidence showing a causal link that suggests an increased rate of autism as a result of the mother taking Tylenol while pregnant.” (David Pakman, 55:22)
• Pakman: This is just the already standard medical advice, nothing new.

Healthcare Premiums Fact-Checked

(~57:38)

• Dr. Oz, now Medicare/Medicaid administrator, falsely claims Kaiser retracted a study on ACA premium increases.
  • Pakman fact-checks and shares his own experience with spiraling insurance costs: “My plan is $747 a month… going to $950.” (David Pakman, 58:58)

Fed Chair Jerome Powell on Tariffs & Labor Market

(Segment starts ~61:15)

• Sounding alarm on Trump tariffs: “Higher tariffs are pushing up prices in some categories... resulting in higher overall inflation.” (Jerome Powell, 61:15)
• Powell: Weak job creation is “mostly a function of the change in supply” and tariffs are worsening the labor market.

Cash Patel’s “Frequent Flyer” Girlfriend

(Segment starts ~65:40)

• Pakman highlights flight logs showing FBI Director Cash Patel using a $60M government jet, reportedly flying his girlfriend to personal events.
  • Points to Republican hypocrisy: “You are paying for his girlfriend to be flown around… Just remember… while you sit there asking could I get one peanut?” (David Pakman, 66:44)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On GOP Rebellion:
  • “This is exactly the kind of Republican pushback that Trump hates. He hates when it comes from his own party.” (David Pakman, 04:32)
• On Trump’s Nuclear Policy:
  • “It was a Trump plan. I mean, think about it. What he’s saying is he wants to start a nuclear arms race to denuclearize.” (David Pakman, 10:21)
• On Trump’s Authoritarian Style:
  • “Trump is obsessed with looking strong like the dictators that he admires. He wants to look strong like Putin. He wants to look strong like Xi and Kim Jong Un.” (David Pakman, 13:15)
• On China Soybean ‘Deal’:
  • “Getting China to buy some, but not all, of the soybeans they used to buy is not a win. It just gets us a little bit closer to the status quo that Trump’s own policies disrupted.” (David Pakman, 25:46)
  • “He has no idea what they agreed to. Long story short, Trump's in love.” (David Pakman, 30:48)
• Trump’s Grade for the Xi Meeting:
  • “On the scale from 0 to 10, with 10 being the best. I would say the meeting was at 12.” (Donald Trump, 32:21)
• Jonathan Karl on Trump’s Public vs. Private Demeanor:
  • “A lot of it is a show. Some of it is absolutely intended. …Usually in private, it's very, very friendly.” (Jonathan Karl, 42:17)
• Pakman on Rising Healthcare Costs:
  • “My plan is $747 a month… going to $950. …This is not a subsidized Obamacare plan. …It does not cover my whole family. It does not.” (David Pakman, 58:58)
• Jerome Powell on Tariffs:
  • “Higher tariffs are pushing up prices in some categories of goods resulting in higher overall inflation.” (Jerome Powell, 61:15)
• Pakman on FBI Director Air Travel Scandal:
  • “You are paying for his girlfriend to be flown around the country on government planes... more of the draining the swamp that we were promised, isn’t it?” (David Pakman, 66:44)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Republican Pushback on Trade — 00:00–08:30
• Trump’s Nuclear Testing Gambit — 08:30–19:40
• Trump-Xi Meeting: Analysis, Fox News Spins, Soybeans — 19:40–33:00
• Jonathan Karl Interview — 34:15–53:31
• RFK Jr. Tylenol and Autism Claims — 54:38–57:38
• ACA Premiums: Dr. Oz and Fact-Check — 57:38–61:15
• Fed Chair Powell on Trump’s Economic Policy — 61:15–64:59
• Cash Patel Government Jet Scandal — 65:40–end

---

Tone and Delivery

• Pakman’s tone: Analytical, often scathing, laced with humor and exasperation.
• Jonathan Karl: Experienced, measured, describes unique access but acknowledges the performative and sometimes genuinely hostile Trump-media dynamic.

---

Conclusion

This episode of The David Pakman Show chronicles growing cracks inside the GOP over Trump’s trade policies, dissects Trump’s reckless new nuclear rhetoric and flailing economic negotiations with China, and illuminates the ongoing corrosion of democratic norms under the Trump administration. Jonathan Karl provides the journalistic insider’s perspective, confirming Trump’s unpredictability and the new perils facing independent media. All is delivered in Pakman’s signature sharply critical style — an essential listen for anyone tracking American politics in late 2025.

---

For in-depth bonus analysis and exclusive segments, Pakman encourages listeners to become members at joinpacman.com.

Transcript

[David Pakman]

Today's show is packed and not necessarily in a good way, although it is a good sign that 14 Republicans are breaking with Trump, signing an open letter saying the trade agenda is destroying American farmers. This is the kind of public rebellion Trump probably didn't imagine. Trump is also announcing that he wants nuclear weapons testing to start immediately. He doesn't know who has the largest stockpile. He thinks it's the US but it's Russia. He doesn't know what the Department of Defense is called. And he keeps talking like a guy auditioning to be dictator of a fictional country. Embarrassing and dangerous. And then we will go to Trump's meeting with Chinese President Xi. He looked weak, confused and weirdly infatuated with Xi. Even Fox News is trying to figure out how to spin it. And we'll also hear from Fed Chair Jerome Powell explaining in really plain English why this administration's tariffs and broader economic policy are really not good for the economy. And by the way, RFK Jr admits they don't really have any causal evidence between Tylenol and autism. Also, did you know that you were paying for cash, Patel's girlfriend, to fly around on government planes? Before we jump in, please leave us a five star rating for the podcast on Spotify and Apple podcasts. It takes five seconds, maybe seven. It really helps the show and it keeps us independent. What a program. Today, 14 elected Republicans have sent a blistering letter to Donald Trump's agriculture secretary and trade representative. The content is pretty obvious. It's the stuff we've been saying for a long time on the show. But to hear it from 14 elected Republicans is really the story. The letter warns that if we expand Argentinian beef imports, it's going to be bad for American cattle producers. You don't need to be a genius to figure that out. And it also argues the letter does that doing that is going to weaken American trade negotiations. Republicans really not holding back here, calling out the trade imbalance. Argentina. Argentina exports over $200 million in beef to the United States and only buys $2 million of stuff back. It has raised alarm bells about is this a broader turn on Trump from Republicans? That is forthcoming. Let's take a look at the letter dated yesterday to the Honorable Brooke Rollins, the Secretary of Agriculture. And it writes, we write to commend the Trump administration's leadership in supporting America's farmers, ranchers and agricultural producers. It sort of lays on the glaze a little bit here, but respectfully draws attention in the second paragraph to the recently announced plan to expand imports of Argentine beef. As a means of easing retail prices. And it writes that while we share the administration's goal of lowering costs for consumers, we are concerned that granting additional market access to Argentina, already one of our largest beef suppliers, will undermine American cattle producers, weaken our position in ongoing trade negotiations, and reintroduce avoidable animal health risks on the basis of a documented foot and mouth disease. The letter goes on to say, we like diversified global supply chains. That's all good, but we should do these adjustments in ways, essentially, I'm paraphrasing here, that won't be bad for American ranchers, farmers, etc. The letter is signed by 14 different Republican members of Congress, including Jason Smith, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. This is a big deal. This is the sort of story that, you know, the headlines aren't titillating. It's not the sort of thing that will get the deep attention I would argue it really deserves. But the letter makes really clear that Republicans believe Trump's trade policy is actively hurting American ranchers and cattle producers. We. Which I also don't think is news. I think it's been obvious to Republican elected officials for months that Trump's trade policy is bad for Americans. But they've sort of crossed the line to the point where now they're willing to say it, they're willing to put it in writing. This is exactly the kind of Republican pushback that Trump hates. He hates when it comes from his own party. And by the way, it's coming on supposedly a signature issue of Donald Trump trademark. If you think back all the way to before Donald Trump even won his first term. So I'm talking 2015, 2016. Trump was claiming that he was uniquely suited to deal with trade. He understood what China was doing to us. He knew the players, he knew the negotiation techniques. He was going to be the guy to fix it. It's not some obscure issue. This is the issue that for a decade, his. The entirety of Trump's political career and his political life, Trump has been saying, this is the issue I know how to deal with. And he now has 14 members of his own party saying he doesn't know how to deal with this. He's going about it all wrong. It doesn't make sense. Now, I don't think that this is only about beef. It is about beef, but beef is, in the grand scheme of things, beef is a part of trade, which is a part of the economy, which. Which is a part of the president's portfolio, which. Right. So we're talking about some concentric circles here. The fact that 14 Republicans feel confident enough, willing enough to publicly challenge Trump on trade, his signature issue, signals a bigger change, which is that the Republican Party is starting to test, is it better for us to risk the wrath of Trump to publicly defend our constituents and Americans? There was a time where you wouldn't see 14 Republicans publicly rebuke Trump in this way because they were making the calculation. I don't know that they were literally taking out, you know, a pros and cons list, but they were intuitively saying, all right, there's an issue affecting constituents not happy with the policy, but if I go public against Trump, that could be bad in its own ways. Ok, The. The calculus has now shifted to the point where they are saying, I am willing to risk the wrath of Trump because I need to speak out. Not speaking out is the greater risk. It's. I'm not saying they. They calculated it formally in the way I'm suggesting, but intuitively, they've. They've decided I got to speak up. And there are risks that if there is no major backlash from trump to these 14 Republicans, I would be very interested in seeing how many more letters like this start appearing on other issues. The fragility of Trump's coalition was always kind of there. You know, you'd have the Wall Street Republicans want cheap imports. Rural Republicans want to be protected economically. The evangelical Republicans are more concerned with, does Trump credibly denounce abortion and denounce gay marriage? Which, by the, by the way, Trump hasn't done. He never has seemed really concerned about gay marriage. But the point is, this coalition has been built out of lack of alternatives, hate for whoever the Democratic candidate is, be it Hillary Clinton in 2016, Joe Biden in 2020, Kamala Harris in 2024. It's a weak and fragile coalition, but they were sort of united in their belief that. That what would be really bad would be a Democrat. The letter now suggests that the. I guess we could call it the rural wing, or rural, as some like to say, the rural wing of the Republican Party is not feeling that they have to stay quiet anymore while Mar A Lago makes deals that are bad for them. And it's the big tent kind of ripping at the seams. If they are this openly frustrated to the point where they're willing to publicly sign a letter like this just nine months into Trump's second term, where are we going to be in a year? What is year three of this presidency going to look like in terms of the relationship between Trump and Republicans? They're speaking out. They're willing to bear the consequences. And this could become very uncomfortable for the White House. Donald Trump is now ordering nuclear weapons to be tested in a completely deranged range. Iran. He's confused about nuclear weapons. He doesn't know who has the most nuclear weapons. Now, I first saw this headline this morning, Trump wants to test nuclear weapons. And I thought to myself, oh no, it's another authoritarian delusion. But I also thought to myself, damn, this guy really doesn't want the Epstein files out there. We have audio from Air Force One of Trump talking about this just hours ago. Let's take a listen.

[Donald Trump]

Have been a very bad war to.

[David Pakman]

Sir, with the nuclear announcement. Just one more on the nuclear announcement. Do you worry that we're entering a.

[Donald Trump]

More risky environment when it comes to nuclear issues? I don't think so. I think, I think we have it pretty well locked up. But we, you know, we have more than anybody. But I see them testing, I say, well, they're going to testing as we have to test. I'd like to see a denuclearization because we have so many and Russia has some Russia second and China's third. And China will catch up within four or five years. I think de escalation would be. They would call it. Denuclearization would be a tremendous thing. And it's something we are actually talking to Russia about that. And China would be added to that if we do something. Thank you all. It was a great success.

[David Pakman]

It was a Trump's plan. I mean, think about it. What he's saying is he wants to start a nuclear arms race to denuclearize. Trump then took to Truth Social where he said, quote, the United States has more nuclear weapons than any other country. Now this is not true. Russia has more nuclear weapons than any other country if he doesn't even so, first of all, I would be shocked if Trump knew what the nuclear triad was, which of course are airplane based nuclear weapons, land based nuclear weapons and sea based nuclear weapons, like from submarines. I doubt Trump even knows what the triad is. But Trump also doesn't know who has the most nukes. If you don't understand fundamental basics about this issue, are you really well positioned to guide policy? I would say no. But Trump says the United States has more nuclear weapons than any other country. That's not true. He continues, this was accomplished, including a complete update and renovation of existing weapons during my first term in office. That's also a lie because of the tremendous destructive power. I hated to do it, but I Had no choice. Russia second. China's a distant third, but will be even within five years because of other countries testing programs. I have instructed the Department of War, it's the Department of Defense, by the way, to start testing our nuclear weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter. President Donald J. Trump, a reporter on Air Force One, then asked Trump about the post. Why did you post about nuclear testing? Why are you doing that? Here's what Trump had to say. What about resuming nuclear testing? What prompted you to do that right before the meeting?

[Donald Trump]

It had to do with others. They seem to all be nuclear testing. We have more nuclear weapons than anybody. We don't do testing. You know, we've halted it years, many years ago. But with others doing testing, I think it's appropriate that we do also.

[Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]

Any details around the testing, sir, like where, when we.

[Donald Trump]

It'll be announced. You know, we have test sites. It'll be announced.

[Jonathan Karl]

Did Israel.

[David Pakman]

So Russia. The number of false claims are staggering given that it's just one truth social post and a couple of short clips. Half of the clip is the reporter talking. Russia has a larger stockpile than the United States. Trump is taking credit for a modernization plan during his first term that was actually an Obama program. It just was completed while Trump was president. Trump didn't interfere. Taking credit for something he didn't do, something authoritarians love to do. But also the idea of what's really going on here. And you're going to see this in our coverage of Trump's meeting with President Xi. Trump is obsessed with looking strong like the dictators that he admires. He wants to look strong like Putin. He wants to look strong like Xi and Kim Jong Un. What do strong men love? Nuclear swagger. They love to sort of expose their nuclear arsenal, maybe to try to counteract the small size in other areas like Trump's hands. Of course, now experts think Trump is reacting to Russia claiming they've tested a nuclear powered cruise missile missile. But defense analysts are looking at this and saying this is just kind of dumb. You know, the Soviet era showboating with weapons, it really isn't of any strategic value. And in fact, there are foreign policy analysts who think there's more value in not displaying what you have. Trump's instinct is I have to look tougher in a very transparent and sort of childish way. And that is straight out of the authoritarian playbook, which is create theater and that sort of thing. But there's a lot to be said about actually not showing all of your cards. Now, Trump is continuing to call the Department of Defense. Defense, the Department of War. Trump is saying, I have instructed. He's not saying, we've decided. And that is another dictatorial sort of language. And third, begin immediately. Never mind that nuclear tests require massive preparation. Trump seems to think they'll just start testing nukes.

[Jonathan Karl]

Where?

[David Pakman]

I don't know. We're going to figure it out. When right away, responsible nuclear powers don't do this. Now, I'm for denuclearization, but I also can say, what is the behavior of a more responsible nuclear power. No nuclear state against other than North Korea has conducted tests recently because democracies tend to recognize nuclear restraint is the strength. It is not weakness. We don't need to detonate warheads because we have sophisticated ways of testing the components. Now, Trump likes, in addition to being enamored with strongmen, Trump also likes a lot of Cold War era stuff. And one of those things is the kinds of testing that have been terrible for Homo sapiens living on planet Earth. I think this is another Putin manipulation. At the end of the day, Trump's getting played by Putin and Xi. Simultaneously, Putin makes a propaganda announcement and Trump, who desperately wants to see be seen as being just as strong as Vladimir Putin, feels he has to respond. Another sign of weakness. You don't look strong when you respond right away and say, well, I'm going to do it too then. And it's not happening in a vacuum. Trump is regularly praising dictators. He's attacking democratic allies. He's trying to grab authoritarian powers that the Constitution and the law don't actually provide to the president. And we should all be concerned. Trump. You know, Trump talks about, oh, the N word. You don't ever want to say the N word. And I guess he means nuclear when he says that. That is exactly what he is playing with right now. By Trump's own standards. This is not something you want to be messing around with. And that is what he is doing. Now, if we step back, one of the things that this country was founded upon was let's prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of one person who acts like a king. That's exactly what Donald Trump is trying to do here. And I don't anticipate that unless someone stops him, he's going to get off that train. Many of you know that. I grew up speaking Spanish, but I took French in middle school and high school. I'm a little rusty on it. And when I was getting ready for my last trip to France, one of the things I was most worried about was am I going to be able to communicate in everyday situations. Ordering food in French, asking for directions, greeting people. I didn't want to be the person flipping through my phone trying to translate everything. And what really helped me was Babel. Instead of like vocabulary lists that go on forever in a vacuum, our sponsor Babble teaches you language through real conversations. So the French Babble taught me was super useful on the trip. And the best part is that Babble fits into quick 10 to 15 minute lessons so I could fit it into my busy schedule very easily. Thanks to the interactive dialog exercises in the Babel app and the spaced repetition that made the phrases stick, I was just more comfortable. I have to admit my girlfriend was actually impressed with my French. When we were in France. I could order at restaurants, buy train tickets, figure out is there a baby changing station in the bathroom and also just chat with locals made it way more enriching. You can get up to 55% off at babel.com/pacman. The link is in the description. The David Pakman show is an audience supported program. We do an extra show every single day called the Bonus show for our members. You can become a member by signing up@join pacman.com and I do want to welcome our newest members on the website. They are Marco to Banzelik. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. And Susie Cohen Very much appreciate both of you. You can read about all of the membership perks as well as sign up in a minute. It takes about one minute with average tech skills to sign up@join pacman.com I will also mention that if you would like a discount off of the membership, you can use the coupon code. It will end soon. All one word, all lowercase. Sort of an homage to the limited time remaining for this abortive presidency. Join Pacman.com is the website There is absolutely nuclear Cope spreading as Donald Trump completely humiliates and debases himself in his meeting with Chinese President Xi. Trump is in love with yet another dictator. Here is the big meeting where President Xi approaches Trump. Listen to the live translation or interpretation and why does it all have to be so embarrassing? So embarrassing. You even see Trump at one point kind of lower his head. It's almost like he's bowing. It's all just so weird. Mr. President, the president of the People's Republic of China. Good to meet you. Good to see you again.

[Jonathan Karl]

Good to see you again. Oh yes, me too.

[Donald Trump]

And we're going to have a Very successful meeting.

[Jonathan Karl]

I have no doubt.

[Donald Trump]

But he's a very tough negotiator. That's not good. We know each other.

[Jonathan Karl]

The will.

[David Pakman]

Mr. President, do you plan to sign a free deal today?

[Jonathan Karl]

We'll have a great understanding.

[Donald Trump]

We have a great relationship. We've always had a great relationship.

[David Pakman]

Oh, the sucking up. I just can't.

[Donald Trump]

Thank you very much.

[David Pakman]

It just, I mean, it just reeks of weakness and subservience. And, you know, you've really got to ask yourselves, why is Trump so hostile where he throws little digs at the Canadian prime minister and the French president and the British prime minister? And, you know, when it comes to, you know, Giorgia Maloney from Italy, he's talking about her looks and it's, this guy's a tough negotiator. It just reeks of weakness. And I hate to say it because these are not phrases I use beta energy. But Trump is not impressed with leaders who govern by democracy. Trump is impressed with authoritarians and certainly with dictators. Now here is Fox News trying to run cover. And they go, oh, man, you can really tell based on the handshake. Trump's in charge here. He's the guy really in charge. This is an America first agenda.

[Jonathan Karl]

This is what we voted for, strong foreign policy.

[David Pakman]

And you even see the way he's shaking his hand. President Trump has control of that room.

[Jonathan Karl]

And I have a lot of confidence in this meeting.

[David Pakman]

Yes, this Fox News person is really confident in the meeting. Well, her confidence was a bit premature. Here are Trump and Xi after their meeting. And then we're going to hear from Trump on Air Force One about how it went. All right, so there goes Trump lumbering off to his vehicle. Now, let's talk turkey about the soybean issue. This was a critical issue during these negotiations to the extent that they were negotiations. Rather than she just telling Trump how it's going to be, Trump promised us we're going to have China over a barrel instead. China's soybean purchases from the United states went to 0.0 several months ago. And moments after this meeting, Scott Bessant took to Fox News, Fox Business to give us the announcement. Thanks to Donald Trump's courageous and principled leadership. My words, not his. China is now going to start buying some soybeans again, framing it as a major victory.

[Jonathan Karl]

Maria, one of the big, big parts of this agreement, and I'm going to break the news here on your story, is the massive amount of agriculture purchases that the Chinese are going to be doing in this Agreement. So the Chinese have agreed to buy 12 million metric tons of soybeans during this season. Right now, between now and they should be January and then for the next three years, they're going to be buying a minimum, a minimum of 25 million metric tons per per annum for the next three years. What I would expect is, as President Trump did in 2020, after President Xi had agreed to the phase.

[David Pakman]

All right, so listen, I hate to break the news to you. China had been buying 27 million tons per year of soybeans. 27 per year. We are supposed to now get down on our knees and pray at the altar of Trump, because Trump has fixed the problem he created by getting China to do 12 million this year instead of 27, 25 million next year instead of 27, 25 million the year after that instead of 27, and 25 million the year after that instead Of 27. We are now being told, except as the victor, except as your savior, the guy who screwed you in the first place and now has negotiated out of terror, a partial fix. This is the classic of wanting credit. As Bernie says, you can't ask for credit for putting out a fire you created in a waste paper basket. Right? He created the problem and now he wants credit for partially fixing it. He started the trade war with regard to the farmers in 2018. Soybean exports collapsed this year. He now needs to do taxpayer bailouts of the farmers. And now he says, I fixed the problem. It's not even a return to the baseline. Getting China to buy some, but not all of the soybeans they used to buy is not a win. It just gets us a little bit closer to the status quo that Trump's own policies disrupted. Without fixing the fact that for months soybean sales to China have been zero, it will be a net loss. What Besant is confirming, in fact, is over the next four years, China is guaranteed to have a reduction in soybean purchases. They want you to think, well, it's going to go from 0 to 12 and then 25, 25, 25. What Trump has achieved is that it's going to go from 27 to 12 and then 27 to 25, and then 27 to 25 and then 27 to 25, all while costing taxpayers money because we're going to have to bail out the farmers. It's like breaking someone's window and then saying, why is no one saying, thank you? I'm agreeing to pay for part of the repairs. Part of the repairs. While framing yourself as the ultimate Protector of windows. It's pathetic. And I'm worried that a lot of Trump supporters are so desperate to hear that he's done something to help someone that they're going to fall for it. Donald Trump explained his meeting with Chinese President Xi, and it's completely nuts. I mean, just cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. Trump seemed disoriented and disheveled after the meeting. And it is clear both from the news about soybean purchases and from the demeanor of the two gentlemen before and after that she just dominated. Dominated Donald Trump. It's another Trump meeting with an authoritarian and another authoritarian who ends up dominating Trump. Trump says we've got a one year tariff deal. One year. Have we solved anything? Not really. But Trump says, I have partially fixed the problem I created.

[Donald Trump]

You have not too many major stumbling blocks. We were. We have a deal now every year. We'll renegotiate the deal, but I think the deal will go on for a long time, long beyond the year. We'll negotiate at the end of a year. But all of the rare earth has been settled, and that's for the world. I mean, you know, worldwide, this, I guess you could really say this was a worldwide situation, not just the US Situation. So we.

[David Pakman]

It's a deal that expires every year, but lasts for forever. I mean, she must just have been laughing hysterically in his limo after this meeting.

[Donald Trump]

Continue to produce the rare earth and buy the rare earths and everything else.

[David Pakman]

Anyway, enough about the rare earth. We got to move on to other elements of this. What will the rate of tariffs be on China? Trump was asked on Air Force One. Not a perfectly clear answer, as you might expect.

[Jonathan Karl]

What will your new tariff rate on China's goods be?

[Donald Trump]

Once you say other than what we. This tariffs remain exactly the same. 55%.

[David Pakman]

It's about.

[Donald Trump]

No, it's. It was 57. Now it's 47. Because we reduced. We reduced it by the fentanyl.

[David Pakman]

Yes, the tariff rate was 57. Subtract fentanyl and that gives you 47. Now, I would multiply by chipmunks and divide by cookies and. And then we will get the final tariff rate here because I believe they.

[Donald Trump]

Are really taking strong action.

[David Pakman]

We've already subtract fentanyl. It's the, it's the new measure of.

[Donald Trump]

Global trade, the action on fentanyl. And they're taking very strong action. So reduced to 10%.

[David Pakman]

November date is gone when it was.

[Donald Trump]

Going to go up again. Okay.

[Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]

That's right.

[David Pakman]

Dear God. Trump. Trump has no idea. I Mean, just no clue what is going. Every time he meets with one of these guys, Putin, sh. She, even Kim Jong Un, they've got his head spinning. He doesn't understand what's going on. Here is another one of these impenetrable word salads about tremendous amounts of soybeans.

[Donald Trump]

I thought it was an amazing meeting. He's a great leader, Leader of a very powerful, very strong country.

[David Pakman]

A great leader in China.

[Donald Trump]

And we. What can I say? We have. It was an outstanding group of decisions, I think that was made. A lot of decisions were made, too. There wasn't too, too much left out there. And we've come to conclusion on many very important points, and we'll be handing that to you in a little while. You know, we're having. Because there was a lot of. A lot of different things, many of them very important. We're. We're in agreement on so many elements.

[David Pakman]

Oh, God. He has no idea what they agreed to. He just. He has. He. Long story short, Trump's in love. I think that's the real story. It is really a match made in heaven. Trump asked, are there going to be new investments from China? You tell me what the answer is.

[Donald Trump]

You were part of it. It was. It was big. Every country, Japan, I mean, you look at South Korea, Japan, and so many other countries that we met there, they're investing tremendous amounts of money in the United States, like money that we've never seen before.

[Jonathan Karl]

Investments from China, in the U.S. additional.

[Donald Trump]

Investments, anything like, they have investments and they will invest. And China, you know, I think they feel very strongly. They congratulated me on the tremendous success that we've had.

[David Pakman]

Yeah, every leader knows. Always congratulate Trump. Tell him how great everything's going. It sets you up for him to just lay down for you, which he.

[Donald Trump]

Did, because there's never been a country that has had so much money come into it for purposes of investment, for building, for auto plans, for AI, etc. So he was very strong on congratulating me for that, but he didn't commit.

[David Pakman]

To any additional investment or outflow discussion. We didn't discuss it. So the initial answer was. It was not part of the conversation, even though Trump first gave another answer. And then finally Trump was asked or wasn't asked. Trump decided to rate the meeting from 0 to 10. Take a guess how he rated it. Okay, now take another guess. Okay. And then now go even higher than that. Take a listen.

[Donald Trump]

We're going to issue a statement on some of the details, but overall, I guess on the scale from 0 to 10, with 10 being the best. I would say the meeting was at 12. I think it was.

[David Pakman]

The meeting was a 12 out of 10, even though we didn't really get anything other than a partial fix to a problem Trump himself created. What a master negotiator. What it's we are really spoiled here in the United States, aren't we? What a. What a negotiator. Leave me a comment. Send me an email. What do you think? Info at David Pakman Dotcom A pending Supreme Court case could strip our Fourth Amendment rights and allow immigration agents to come into our homes for any reason. No probable cause needed. All while Republicans try to twist things so that you think this is all great for America. This should be the biggest story in the US Right now, but it's almost impossible to keep up with the millions of moves that Trump is making every single day. That's why Ground News exists. Ground News is an app and website that exposes the blind spots and spin before it takes control of our opinions. Ground News is the smarter, more reliable way to stay informed when MAGA is banking on us getting distracted. I'm partnering up with Ground News to give you 40% off the same vantage plan that I use, so you'll pay only five bucks a month for all of their premium features. Just go to Ground Dot News, slash Pacman or use the code Pacman in the app. When you sign up, the link is in the description or scan the QR code. It's great to have Jonathan Karl on the show today, chief Washington correspondent for ABC News, author of the book Retribution Donald Trump and the Campaign that Changed America. Really appreciate you being here, Jonathan. Thanks.

[Jonathan Karl]

Hey, great. Thanks for having me.

[David Pakman]

So I want to start with a couple of the logistics. I've seen some of the interviews that you've done about the book book and you know, I've looked at the book itself as well. There's now a lot of reporters who talk about the I texted Trump or I called Trump sort of thing. I'm trying to understand the dynamics of is it just kind of known that you call Trump and he might pick up and it's sort of like normal and accepted. Is this, has this been Trump's way of communicating with some of the reporters that he knows for. For a while? Is it surprising? Like for example, when you called Trump the morning after the election and in a sort of haggard sounding voice as you described, he picks up and he goes, yeah, Jonathan, is this just normal with Trump in covering him?

[Jonathan Karl]

It's actually a somewhat new Phenomenon. You know, Trump is. Worked the phones with reporters for a long, long time, but it hasn't been so much Trump himself picking up his cell phone and calling our reporters, dialing his cell phone number. I mean, I, I talked to Trump a lot over the years. I've known him since 1994, during the course of his political life, you know, dating back to, to call it like, you know, 2013, you know, you know, a couple years before he was running, but when he was obviously out there, you know, I mean, I, if I wanted to get Trump on the phone, I would, I would call Hope Hicks back then. Before that, if I wanted to get Trump on the phone, I would call a woman named Norma Federer, whose desk was right outside his office in Trump Tower. He was always available, always. And sometimes suddenly your phone would ring and it would be Trump. But I, at least in my experience, and this might be different for others, it never really occurred me to directly call Trump's phone. I had his number. And the first. Actually, I didn't directly make a call to him until Butler. And keep in mind, that's, that's all of the first presidency. That's all of the stuff that happened after. And what, what I, you know, what I did, you know, he got. The assassination attempt happened and I called him. It was actually, that was a Saturday night. We were on live, Live, live coverage. Called him Monday morning, the, the morning that the convention was starting, and just left a voicemail saying, you know, kind of like, glad you're okay, really sorry about what happened. That was horrific. And to my surprise, he called me back and I talked to him on the first day of his convention, two days after assassination, for almost 15 minutes. We were like, getting ready to go on live. He had chosen J.D. vance. There was all, all this stuff going on and he just kind of wanted to talk. But I, even then I, I didn't really, you know, abuse that. I didn't really. I mean, who. It's not normal at all, let's face it, to like, call a presidential nominee or a president on the. It's just not a thing that it. Actually, there's always at least one layer between. The next time we spoke over the phone was towards the end of the summer when he called me after viciously attacking me for, for this week, for, for, you know, our Sunday show on abc. I had an interview with, with Tom Cotton and Trump hated it. And he, like, suggested he was going to pull out of the ABC debate with Kamala Harris because it was so outrageous, etc.

[Donald Trump]

Etc.

[Jonathan Karl]

And I had texted him after that happened to say, hey, you know, I'm glad you watched. But, you know, did you. Did you see the interview with Bernie Sanders, which I had also had in the same show, was exactly the. I mean, I was. No, I didn't treat Cotton any different than I. I mean, and it wasn't that contentious an interview. I really don't know what got him upset. Anyway, he called me, and suddenly it was like we were old friends. So I started calling him, like, every couple of days during the campaign. I mean, there would be sometimes where a week or so would go by, but. But, you know, every few days, and he almost always picked up.

[David Pakman]

What was your sense of what he was doing when he would take these calls?

[Jonathan Karl]

So I, you know, learned kind of the rhythm of his day. And I tried to call when I knew that he wasn't obviously in the middle of events. He would take calls on the plane, at night, on his plane. So this is not Air Force One, obviously. This is the campaign. And, you know, I would often talk to him in the morning before things were starting. And so he was, you know, in the morning. I think he's watching a lot of television. There was a call I describe in the book where I call him right after going on Good Morning America. This is the Sunday before the election. It was weekend Good Morning America. And he went off on me. Just usually the calls are not contentious. Yeah, but he. Because he hated what I had to say on Good Morning America. I was saying that he wasn't focused. His own people were getting upset that, you know, they got a basic message that they want him to reinforce about, you know, comparing his record as president to Biden and Harris, and he's going off on these tangents about shooting journalists and all this, you know, and he, you know, he was very upset with what I had to say, and I said, well, look, you have the weave. You said it's the weave. You are not. He said, well, the weave got me elected president. And so anyway, it's now, since he's president, first of all, I don't. I don't call him a lot because it's like I. I still think there's something completely odd about it. But at key moments when I want to know something or I want to say something, I will call him. I called him the last time we spoke over the phone. Last time I called him, he picked up and he, like I said, even now, as president, it's a high percentage, as I've told people, it more likely that I would get Trump on the phone when calling him than like the deputy press secretary for the Harris campaign or for that matter, like one of the spokespeople for Trump. But I called him right after Charlie Kirk was shot and before we knew that Kirk had died. And he picked right up, said something interesting, by the way, I, I said, yeah, I was just calling again to say really sorry what happened. That was horrible. And it was clear by the way he was talking to me, we didn't know that Kirk had died, but Trump knew because he was talking about him to me in the past tense. And he said to me, you know, he actually liked you. I, I don't know why, but he actually liked you. So I, I don't know, but, but, you know, and I called him the morning after the Iran strikes. He picks up, it's, I called him. God, it was like he was about to do a major address. I think it was, I think it was also in the wake of Iran because I talked to him a few times around Iran when he was doing a, a prime time, you know, address. And I called him like right before and he picks up the phone. So I, you know, I, I, like I said, I don't, I don't abuse that.

[David Pakman]

But when it comes to the antagonism, Jonathan, that we see in public, like, you've been, you know, his, his ire has been turned on you a number of times. And yeah, we saw. One of the things I'm wondering is to what degree it might be an act. And the reason that I ask that, and that doesn't mean he's not sometimes genuinely upset, is even like. In her book, Kamala Harris describes how for the hundreds or thousands of times that he mispronounced her name in public in the day after the debate, they see each other and he just kind of says something like, you did great. And then after, when she, after the election, when she calls him to concede, he, he pronounces her name correctly and says it's a beautiful name, you know, according to her. And it's sort of like he knew how to pronounce her name all along. How, how much of the public antagonism of individual members of the media do you think is sort of a show?

[Jonathan Karl]

I mean, it's, it's a lot, a lot of it's a show. Some of it is absolutely intended. He's gotten genuinely, really angry at me because I have not, you know, look, I, I, I, I'm not an opinion journalist. I, you know, I, I believe that I treat you know, I've got to treat Democrats the way I treat Republicans, but I am going to. I'm going to present the facts, and the facts, you know, are often. I mean, like. I mean, I wrote the book betrayal about January 6th, and. And was very blunt about his actions to overturn a Democratic presidential election, really, to overturn American democracy and the threat that he posed. And, And. And how, you know, that the lies that were told. I mean, I don't hesitate to say that I remember one time when he got particularly genuinely angry at me was, you know, during COVID when we learned of all that he had been telling Bob Woodward with. Which was completely at odds with what he was saying publicly. And I asked him a question on national television, right there in the briefing room. Why did you lie to the American people? And why should we trust anything that you have to say now? And I quite intentionally didn't say, why did you lie about COVID I mean, I was thinking, because it had been just such a colossal collection of lies. And. And he.

[Donald Trump]

He.

[Jonathan Karl]

I mean, you could see him. You could see him seething as he started to answer and tell me what a terrible question and what a disgrace I was. And. And then he abruptly ended the press conference after, you know, after we went back and forth. So sometimes it is absolutely. And certainly when it's in private, you know, he's actually mad. But usually in private, it's very, very friendly.

[David Pakman]

Right.

[Jonathan Karl]

And I mean, I. I've had instances where he's. Well, I mean, just the other day, he told me I had hate in the heart, in my heart, and that maybe Pam Bondi would prosecute me. When I said, what's this hate speech? Do you really think that. That the Justice Department should be prosecuting hate speech? Some of your allies say hate speech is free speech. He's like, well, maybe she'll prosecute you. And then before he is done fully answering the question, he. He's doing the weave.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Jonathan Karl]

And he's telling me to take my. He hopes that I take my beautiful wife out to dinner in Washington, D.C. so, you know, how worried are you.

[David Pakman]

About the prosecution stuff? Because we're. I mean, listen, there's clearly a willingness to direct the DoJ to go after political adversaries, people in MySpace who are not part of a large media conglomerate and presumably would be funding our own legal defenses. I don't think he's necessarily coming after me personally. I hope I'm not on his radar, to be quite frank, but the people in my orbit, we all kind of assume Someone is going to get hit with shrapnel who's loosely in our space. You know, I spoke to the Midas Touch guys and Carlos Espina, Aaron Parnas, everybody who's kind of doing what I do. We've seen now that there's been an indictment of a number of people, including a congressional candidate who was at a, I believe it was a Chicago based ICE protest. There's a lot of this shit shrapnel hitting people. You, as someone at a legacy media network, do you have conversations with your colleagues about could the legal system be point, the justice system be pointed at me?

[Jonathan Karl]

I mean, I, that's obviously out there in the ether. I can't say that we're sitting around, you know, talking about it. I mean, you basically go about your job and you just know that, as always, you've got to be rock solid in what you say and what you report and make sure everything is backed up. But we've seen that even frivolous prosecutions or frivolous lawsuits can cause a lot of pain. So even, even when you've got, I mean, look, he sued the, the, the, the Pulitzer board for giving a, you know, Pulitzer to the New York Times and the Washington Post Post, and, you know, did so in a very friendly jurisdiction down in Florida, friendly to Trump. And I mean, I mean, it's a comical lawsuit, but you have to go through if you're one of the people targeted. And, and it's costly and it's time.

[David Pakman]

Consuming when it comes to the issue of Trump's health. I asked Jake Tapper about this and it's particularly relevant based on the book he wrote. But also, I'm curious, from a reporter's perspective, my impression, and I'm trying to be as objective about it as possible, is that legacy in corporate media seems a lot less interested in conversations about Trump's health than they were about Biden's. And there's a few examples of that recently. There's this video from just a couple days ago where he's lined up to meet the Japanese Prime Minister. And listen, he didn't seem demented, but he seemed like he was a little disoriented and kind of not sure where to look, where to go. He's being led around in a similar way as it was alleged Biden was being led around. And, and it was like kind of a zero story, whereas the Biden examples would get more attention. And so that's like a micro example. And then if I zoom out a little bit, the whole picture of an MRI that wasn't disclosed. Why is he so regularly taking cognitive tests? His ankles are swollen. His right hand is bruised from shaking hands, but he doesn't shake hands with his left hand, but it's still bruised. There's sort of like questions that it doesn't seem corporate media super eager to look at. Am I seeing something that's not there or is there something there?

[Jonathan Karl]

Well, I mean, first of all, a lot of this goes back. This is not a recent development with Trump question about his, the state of his health, the state of his mind. This is why he first started talking about the wonderful test, the test that he asked, you know, man, woman, person, camera, tv.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Jonathan Karl]

I mean, what was the yield? Do you remember the incident where he walked to a door to open it and it was, There was no door.

[David Pakman]

I don't remember that one, actually. That sounds interesting.

[Jonathan Karl]

Or that time where he walked down the ramp. I think it was at a military.

[David Pakman]

Event at West Point. Yeah. Where he was sort of like being gingerly helped down it, you know.

[Jonathan Karl]

Yeah, yeah. So that's years ago. Yeah, so. So I don't think so. One thing just in general for me, I'm not a doctor. I don't think it's my job to kind of speculate, you know, about the health. I didn't, you know, do a lot of stories about, you know, about Biden's health. Is that, that's absolutely true. I did do, you know, I did report, you know, the concerns that were raised about, you know, Democrats about Biden running again and the wisdom of, of, of putting a, you know, another, a candidate up there was as old as he was and appeared more than his age, but also how old he appeared. Yeah, but I, you know, I don't think it's my job to be, you know, armchair doctor, so I, I, you know, I, you know, but, you know, I think the, the other part of it is, is the, is the flood the zone approach with, with Trump. I mean, there's just so much tonnage. I mean, stories that would dominate for news cycle for a week, you know, come and go in hours. So I think that's also probably a factor in what you're seeing. But look, overall, Trump, I mean, sure, the ankles, the bruising on his hands and, and the other stuff you mentioned, he, he is a very, he is just very active. And, you know, that, that whole, he, he projects what, he projects authority. You know, it's. So, I don't know. I'm not going to speculate on his health, but I, I think there's been a lot of speculation about his health over the last 10 years, literally. And at some point the speculation will be true.

[David Pakman]

Right. You know, with everybody, in the long.

[Jonathan Karl]

Run, we're all dead.

[David Pakman]

So, you know, last sort of general area I want to ask you about, there are some stories right now that are getting attention that I'm unsure what the longer term political impact will be for Trump or the Republican Party even into the midterms. Like, for example, the demolition and ballroom construction at the White House, the 42 million people that I think unless something changes, are at risk of losing food stamp benefits on November 1st.

[Jonathan Karl]

Yeah.

[David Pakman]

The farmers and ranchers that are increasingly, you know, a group that voted very much for Trump and are increasingly furious with him. Do you think that those stories have the potential to be politically impactful as far as elections go, or are they going to be the sorts of things next November nobody will remember?

[Jonathan Karl]

I think, I think the stories you mentioned have, all of them have the potential to really break through, especially, you know, depending on where we are economically. I would add a related thing was when Scott Besson was on with my colleague Martha Raddatz, and she was asking about soybean farmers. Now, I guess the Chinese are buying a couple of, you know, buying some soybeans now. And maybe, I don't know what, you know, where this is all going to stand. But, but, you know, soybean farmers have been suffering, really suffering. And, and Besson said, you know, you may not know this, Martha, but I am a soybean farmer.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Jonathan Karl]

And so I have felt some of this pain. I mean, I know he may own soybean farms. I don't think the billionaire treasury secretary is feeling the same pain that a, you know, an actual soybean farmer is, is feeling. So these stories, you know, and you could also add the, you know, the, the bailout for Argentina and, and the deal on Argentina, Argentine beef. These are, these are things that if, you know, people are suffering and the president's building a, you know, 300 plus million dollar ballroom, whoever the hell is paying for it and also clearly really interested in it and spending so much time in choosing marble and how to do so. It's not just the destruction of the East Wing, but it's also the, you know, talking about building monuments and building, you know, so I, I think that these stories can certainly be seized on by Democrats in the midterms. And, and my sense is each one of those has broken through. It's fascinating to me how the destruction of the East Wing has really broken through. I mean, I can sense it in the reaction to the stories that are out there just anecdotally and people I speak to. You know, I'm out there on this book tour now, so I'm talking to a lot of people. People are like really were really horrified and concerned to see a part of the White House, you know, brought down.

[David Pakman]

It's going to be an interesting 12 months and five days, I guess, or something like that, that's for sure. I, I highly recommend Jonathan Karl's book Retribution Donald Trump and the Campaign that Changed America. Really appreciate your time today, David.

[Jonathan Karl]

Thank you very much. Thanks for having me on and I hope to see you in person soon.

[David Pakman]

The David Pakman show is an audience supported program and the best, most direct way to support support the show is by becoming a member@join pacman.com you'll get the daily bonus show, the daily commercial free show and plenty of other great membership perks. Get the full experience by signing up@join pacman.com well, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Sort of gave up the game when he was asked about evidence of a causal link between time Tylenol taken by pregnant women and subsequent autism in the child. And he admitted we actually don't have any evidence of causation. We have an association, but we don't really have the type of evidence that one would demand. If they really are going to start taking this seriously. Here is RFK Jr. I can't possibly say it as well as he says it, so I will let him explain it.

[Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]

The causative association with between Tylenol given.

[Donald Trump]

In pregnancy and the perinatal periods is, is not sufficient to say it definitely.

[Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]

Causes autism, but it is very suggestive.

[Donald Trump]

And it's suggestive in animal studies and.

[Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]

Cord blood studies and observational studies from nation to nation.

[Donald Trump]

And so there should be a cautious approach to it. And that's why our message to patients, to mothers, to people who are pregnant.

[David Pakman]

To the mothers of young children is consult your physician. And we have asked physicians to minimize.

[Donald Trump]

The use to when it's absolutely necessary.

[David Pakman]

So let me interpret that for you. We do not have any evidence showing a causal link that suggests an increased rate of autism as a result of the mother taking Tylenol while pregnant. Now, I think it is of utter importance to restate that the hedging language RFK uses is already the prevailing medical guidance that doctors give. He likes to throw in phrases like you really should only take Tylenol during pregnancy when absolutely necessary. That's always the way it is. As someone who's just, just out of a pregnancy. Not personally, of course, but in my household, you, you can, if you're pregnant, you really consider what would be the reason to use a skin cream, a pain reliever, any medication. You really think that through and then you say, what are the risks and why am I taking it? And you consult with a doctor and you use as little of anything as possible. You're always my approach, whether pregnant or not, and that of everyone I know is I am going to take the least of any medication I can with the goal being zero. The default should be I'm going to take zero unless there's a really good case to take to take something. This has always been the case with medications for pregnant women and with Tylenol in general. And so when you strip this all down, there's really nothing new other than they are saying we have found what we believe is a causal link but don't actually have any evidence to suggest that. Now, we talked on the bonus show yesterday how in Texas there's a lawsuit. Now Texas is suing the manufacturer of Tylenol, saying they hid the connection. We're going to hopefully get a court to weigh in on this thing. Now another moment from this little press conference when Dr. Oz spoke, who runs Medicare and Medicaid about he was asked about the lack of extension of Obamacare subsidies. And he just kind of goes, now your numbers are really made up.

[Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]

You mentioned at the top that you want medications to be affordable, effective and safe for Americans. We're speaking today on the day that window shopping began in the Affordable Care act program on those marketplaces. And that shows that unless those tax credits are extended, those subsidies, the average plan will increase for Americans by somewhere around 115%. Do you believe that Congress should extend those subsidies so that most Americans do not receive significant increases in their premiums?

[David Pakman]

Where'd you get that 115% number from Kaiser Family Foundation.

[Jonathan Karl]

They retracted that.

[David Pakman]

They did not retract it. I mean, that's. So Dr. Oz immediately goes, they retracted it. Not retracted. Kaiser Family foundation put out a statement saying we did not, we just did not retract it, that that data was run inappropriately. They changed the messaging on it. Go back and look at the website. Here's the truth. The window shopping is already revealing that the average American is going to pay about who's on the ACA. 100 and 400% of poverty level is going to pay $50 total. Next year. It's going to be $13 more than this year. So there can be a lot of hair pulling and scratching, mudslinging. But the fundamental reality for most Americans is that although it is an increase in spend, that's not the big issue.

[Donald Trump]

The big issue is the fundamental flaws within the ACA as they were created 15 years ago.

[David Pakman]

You know the real flaw with the ACA is it didn't go far enough and it's all that Obama and Democrats were able to get. That's, that's the real flaw. And even President Obama has acknowledged that. The sad part is we were only able to do the aca. I would have liked to have done way more. And the prices are going nuclear. I mean, I think I mentioned I actually have my open enrollment period like everybody else coming up. I'm going to be looking for a different plan. My plan this year as a self employed person through one of these marketplaces, my plan is $747 a month. So that's, that's what, like 8, 9, 9 thousand dollars a year? Eight thousand dollars a year and then I still have a twenty five dollar copay for my regular doctor, sixty dollar co pays for specialists, some deductible on labs, I don't remember, although some of them are mostly covered. Anyway, my $747 a month plan, I was just notified is going to $950. If I want to keep the same plan in 2026, I'm going to be shopping around. This is not, this is, this is not a subsidized Obamacare plan or whatnot. But the prices are going up. It's outrageous. When I, whenever I mention this, I get dozens of emails from people in other countries saying, David, 747amonth that I hope that covers your whole family. And the answer is it does not. It does not. Yeah. So it's a disaster. And going, oh, Kaiser retracted it. Give me a break. Kaiser retracted nothing. Fed Chair Jerome Powell just dropped a bomb on, on Trump's economy. This is what it looks like when someone knows things and is able to translate the knowledge into speech. I know that it's a sort of basic human function, but there's a lot of people in this administration who can't do it. Powell of course is not in the administration. The Fed Chair is independent and here he explains what is the effect of these tariffs.

[Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]

Higher tariffs are pushing up prices in some categories of goods resulting in higher overall inflation. Oh, a reasonable base case is that the effects on inflation will be relatively short lived, a one time shift in the price level. But it is also possible that the inflationary effects could instead be more persistent. And that is a risk to be assessed and managed.

[David Pakman]

Jerome Powell is saying things that Donald Trump is not going to like. He explained with regard to the cracks in the job market, why is the job market getting shaky? Here he is explaining what is your explanation for why the job market is weakening right now and what will this rate cut do to improve the job market?

[Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]

So the, I think the, there are two things affecting the job market and one of them is just a dramatic reduction in the supply of new workers. So, and that's two things. That's declining labor force participation, which is a cyclical thing, and then there's declining immigration, which is just a big policy change that actually began in the last administration and has been accelerated now. So a big part of the whole story is that, that supply side story, okay. In addition, labor demand has declined and, and you know, so the labor, the unemployment rate has gone down, meaning that demand for workers is going down a little more than supply. So that's, that's what's going on. And, but it is mostly a supply function. You know, it's mostly a function of the change in supply, I think, and many people think so the question then is what does, what does the, you know, our tool do which supports demand? And you know, so and I would just say when you're, when you're in a situation where job, job creation, if you adjust for likely over counting in the way that BLS does, its work, is pretty close to zero. So maximum employment doesn't, on a sustainable basis, doesn't, if it's, if you're making, creating zero jobs, if it's in equilibrium, if it's, if it's in balance. Balance, it's a pretty, as I, as I said before, a pretty curious balance. So, you know, I thought, and many of my colleagues thought, in fact, you've seen the last two meetings, that it was appropriate for us to react by supporting demand with our, with our rates. And we've done that. We've reduced so that rates are looser. I wouldn't say that they're accommodative right now, but they're meaningfully less tight than they were. And that should help, help so that at least the labor market doesn't, doesn't get worse. So it's a complicated situation and some people argue that, that this is supply and we really can't affect it much with our tools. But others argue, as I do, that, that there is an effect from demand and that we should use our tools to support the labor market. When we see this happening, what seems.

[David Pakman]

Clear and what Powell also mentioned during his remarks is you should not assume that there is another rate cut coming. Trump got a couple of rate cuts which he's been demanding. It's funny because you really only demand rate cuts if the economy is struggling. Trump claims the economy is better than ever and he's desperately demanding rate cuts. But one of the interesting things that Powell said is that in the near term he thinks there's a risk of inflation going up and employment going down. And that is not a great combination for the economy.

[Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]

In the near term, risks to inflation are tilted to the upside and risks to employment to the downside. A challenging situation. There is no risk free path for policy as we navigate this tension between our employment and inflation goals.

[David Pakman]

In the near this is a situation that could become stagflation. And if that happens, who do you think Donald Trump is going to blame and who do you think workers are going to blame? So the big picture, as is often the case with the economy, and you don't need to play politics with this stuff, some of what we are seeing has nothing to do with presidents one way or the other. There are global business cycles, there is seasonality, there are one off events like Covid, there are changes to the maturity of certain markets. There are overarching factors that can affect regions and there's not much a president can do about it. That has nothing to do with Biden, it has nothing to do with Trump. When you want to make a political assessment, you have to sort of exclude the things that have nothing to do with the president. Sort of like, oh, gas prices were up and then they're down and here's who was president. Ok, but unless we have a reason to say here is why the president's actions were relevant to pricing, it's sort of a non factor. What Trump is doing is he's lowering the supply of labor with the mass deportations and he is also lowering demand for labor with the tariffs, which as companies lose profitability, they demand less labor. This isn't good for the economy overall. Those are not settings that will lead to a growing economy. And that's where we find ourselves. And it's not pointing in a good direction. While federal workers are facing a government shutdown and 42 million Americans are about to lose food stamps, Trump's FBI director, Cash Patel, appears to be flying his girlfriend around the country on a $60 million government jet. And you are footing the bill. And I am footing the bill. Now, I know many of you will will be shocked to hear that Cash Patel was able to get a girlfriend. And that is shocking. That's true. But that is not the scam that I am here to talk about today. You are paying for his girlfriend to be flown around on government planes. Last weekend, Patel showed up at a wrestling event at Penn State to support his girlfriend, 26 year old country music singer Alexis Wilkins. Very cute, right? Here's a picture from the happy couple's Instagram account. It's all great except we have the flight logs of the plane that one of the planes that Cash Patel has access to showing that the plane in question flew from Manassas Regional Airport to State College regional on Saturday evening at 5pm Then flew from State College to Nashville later that night, the hometown of his girlfriend. And then the next morning from Nashville to San Angelo regional. Now here is where it gets rich. Back in 2023, Patel attacked former FBI director Chris Wray. You know where this is going on Truth Social saying he is a government gangster for jetting off on taxpayer dollars while dodging accountability. I want to remind you that at one point during the Biden administration, Pete Boot Edge Edge, the Secretary of Transportation under Biden was attacked by Republicans for flying commercial airlines. But sitting in first class, sometimes being upgraded based on his personal status with the airline. It seems so quaint. And Pete Buttigieg was actually flying for his job for actual work related stuff. And here we have Cash Patel flying his girlfriend around for entertainment. They didn't really care about people who to judge flying in first class. It was another grievance that they found that they could weaponize against Democrats. Now FBI directors are required to use government planes for security reasons. But the catch is that for personal trips, they only reimburse the cost of a coach ticket. The $60 million jet, the fuel, the crew, the operational costs, that's on you, the taxpayer. And on top of it, he's now using it to transport his girlfriend. Now it's not a one time thing. Back in April of this year, two months after taking the job, Cash Patel reportedly made multiple trips to Nashville to see Wilkins, flew her to hockey games. And it's just a regular affair that is going on. So next time you're cramming into a middle seat on Spirit Airlines, just remember the FBI director is flying his girlfriend around the country courtesy of your tax dollars while you sit there asking could I, could I get one peanut? Even if it's been on the floor, just give me one peanut. It is more of the draining the swamp that we were promised, isn't it? We've got a phenomenal bonus show today. We are going to talk about the Tucker Carlson Nick Fuentes interview that many of you asked me about. We will talk about a student handcuffed after a Doritos bag was mistaken for a gun. I hope it wasn't Cool Ranch. And more jewel heist arrests after the Louvre probe deepens all of that and more on the bonus show. Sign up@join pacman.com Remember to hit the subscribe button if you're watching on YouTube. It's completely free and it helps us push to 4 million YouTube subscribers. I'll see you on the bonus show.