4/7/25: Protests fill streets, Trump even angering elites

Summary

The David Pakman Show: April 7, 2025 Episode Summary

Title: Protests Fill Streets, Trump Even Angering Elites
Host: David Pakman
Release Date: April 7, 2025

---

1. Introduction and Overview of Nationwide Protests

David Pakman opens the episode by highlighting a significant surge in protests across the United States, marking what may be the largest one-day demonstration against former President Donald Trump's presidency. These protests, spanning approximately 50 states and extending internationally, collectively may have involved millions of participants.

Key Points:

• Scale and Scope: Protests occurred in over 1,300 locations, including major cities like Washington D.C., Minneapolis, Boston, Portland, and San Diego, as well as internationally in cities like Berlin, Paris, London, Ottawa, and Lisbon.
• Unified Message: The primary slogans centered around "hands off our rights," "hands off our institutions," and "hands off our democracy," with additional chants targeting Elon Musk, reflecting discontent with his influence over government roles.
• Organizational Backing: Over 150 organizations, including civil rights groups, labor unions, LGBT rights organizations, and environmentalists, coordinated these protests, emphasizing their grassroots nature.

Notable Quote:

David Pakman [00:07]:
"This protest message overall was hands off, hands off our rights, hands off our institutions, hands off of our democracy, and hands off as in get Elon Musk's hands off of the government."

---

2. Analysis of the Administration's Policies and Public Discontent

Pakman delves into the underlying reasons fueling the protests, citing a series of contentious policies implemented by the Trump administration that have eroded public trust and rights.

Key Points:

• Government Overreach: Slashing of federal agencies, reduction of public services, and concentration of power among billionaires, particularly unelected figures like Elon Musk.
• Social and Economic Policies: Chaotic immigration raids, rollback of LGBTQ+ rights (notably transgender rights), detrimental changes to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, coupled with new global tariffs causing economic instability.
• Economic Indicators: Mention of significant stock market declines with the Dow Jones Industrial Average experiencing notable drops.

Notable Quote:

David Pakman [00:07]:
"We've seen the deep agency cuts and we've seen the chaotic immigration raids, also a target of these protests... and of course, in the midst of all of this, the new global tariffs causing this economic upheaval."

---

3. Historical Context and Significance of Mass Protests

Pakman references historical movements to underscore the power and legitimacy that mass rallies can confer upon social movements, positioning the current protests within a broader historical framework.

Key Points:

• Echoes of Past Movements: Comparisons to the civil rights movement, anti-Vietnam War protests, George Floyd protests, and the Arab Spring, all of which utilized mass gatherings to catalyze change.
• Visibility and Legitimacy: Emphasis on how urban centers serve as "visibility machines," amplifying the movement's message and garnering media attention, thereby legitimizing the cause.

Notable Quote:

David Pakman [00:07]:
"There is really no better stage than a packed city square. And as we look back... the civil rights movement to a degree succeeded because people filled the streets."

---

4. Critique of Donald Trump's Economic Competence

A substantial portion of the episode focuses on dissecting Trump's understanding and handling of economic policies, particularly his stance on trade deficits and tariffs.

Key Points:

• Misunderstanding Trade Deficits: Trump incorrectly equates trade deficits with economic loss, failing to recognize that a trade deficit signifies that a country imports more than it exports, which can be indicative of a strong consumer economy.
• Tariff Policies: Trump's imposition of tariffs is critiqued as economically unsound, functioning effectively as taxes on American consumers and businesses rather than beneficial protectionist measures.
• Potential Consequences: Discussion on how tariffs can lead to retaliatory measures, harm exports, and negatively impact sectors like agriculture and manufacturing, exacerbating economic downturns.

Notable Quotes:

Donald Trump [07:37]:
"We're not going to have deficits with your country."

David Pakman [08:14]:
"Trump is, of course, as is always the case, confusing different economic elements. And here Trump is saying a trade deficit is a loss... This is just wrong."

---

5. Rising Criticism from Influential Figures and Allies

The episode highlights a growing chorus of dissent against Trump from within his former allies and influential figures, signaling fractures within his support base.

Key Points:

• Elon Musk's Opposition: Musk publicly opposes Trump's tariff policies, advocating for zero tariffs and increased freedom of movement between Europe and North America, directly contradicting Trump's economic nationalism.

  Notable Quote:

  Elon Musk [22:15]:
  "I hope it is agreed that both Europe and the United States should move, ideally, in my view, to a zero tariff situation, effectively creating a free trade zone between Europe and North America."

• Maria Bartiromo and Other Republican Critics: Long-time Trump supporters and Republican figures like Maria Bartiromo and Senator Rand Paul critique the administration's tariff policies, labeling them disastrous and advocating for congressional oversight.

  Notable Quotes:

  Maria Bartiromo [28:30]:
  "The tariffs are a debacle and suggests Congress stopping the tariffs."

  Rand Paul [29:38]:
  "Trade is proportional to wealth... Whenever you trade with somebody, when an individual buys somebody else's product, it's mutually beneficial or you wouldn't buy it."

• Ted Cruz's Hesitant Stance: Senator Ted Cruz acknowledges the negative impacts of the tariffs but refrains from outright opposition to maintain political alignment with Trump.

  Notable Quote:

  Maria Bartiromo [31:10]:
  "I don't think that we will have high tariffs in perpetuity... Tariffs are a tax on consumers."

• Ben Shapiro's Departure from Support: Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro criticizes Trump's tariff policies, highlighting their immediate negative effects on the economy and contradicting his previous support.

  Notable Quote:

  Ben Shapiro [46:22]:
  "President Trump... is a guy really making it up as he goes."

---

6. Shifts in Media and Public Discourse

Pakman observes a notable shift in media consumption patterns, with progressive voices gaining momentum on platforms like YouTube, challenging the dominance previously held by right-wing channels.

Key Points:

• Growth of Progressive Media: Progressive creators on YouTube have experienced faster subscriber growth compared to conservative counterparts in Q1 2025, signaling a shift in audience preferences.
• Decline of Traditional Cable News: While Fox News ratings have risen, CNN and MSNBC have seen declines, not due to dwindling audiences but because viewers are migrating to more dynamic platforms that align with their views.
• Implications for Political Alignment: This shift indicates a realignment in how audiences engage with political content, moving away from legacy media towards more interactive and diverse online platforms.

Notable Quote:

David Pakman [47:03]:
"Left leaning YouTube is surging, outgrowing right wing YouTube in the first quarter of 2025. This is not an opinion, this is data."

---

7. Legal and Constitutional Concerns Over Trump’s Policies

The discussion intensifies around Trump's proposal to deport American citizens to foreign prisons, raising significant legal and constitutional red flags.

Key Points:

• Unconstitutionality of Deporting Citizens: Pakman explains that Trump's proposals to exile American citizens violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which guarantee due process and equal protection under the law.
• Supreme Court Precedents: Reference to Afro Yim v. Rusk (1967), where the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot involuntarily strip citizenship or remove citizens from the country.
• Violation of the Eighth Amendment: Sending citizens to foreign prisons like El Salvador’s Seekot would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, which is expressly forbidden.
• Lack of Statutory Authority: There is no legal framework permitting the executive branch to outsource the incarceration of American citizens to foreign nations.

Notable Quotes:

Donald Trump [16:35]:
"I love that idea... if you could take some of our 20 time wise guys... I'd be honored to give them."

David Pakman [17:48]:
"What Trump is proposing is completely illegal and unconstitutional."

---

8. Conclusion: The Future of Trump's Influence and Policy Direction

Pakman wraps up the episode by contemplating the sustainability of Trump's policies and his grip on his support base amidst increasing opposition from key allies and public figures.

Key Points:

• Potential Policy Reversals: Speculation that Trump might pause the tariff implementations under pressure, claiming negotiations with trading partners and support from tech leaders.
• Erosion of Support Among Elites: With figures like Elon Musk and Maria Bartiromo turning against Trump, there's a growing disconnect between Trump's policies and those who were once his staunchest allies.
• Shift in Media Consumption: The rise of progressive voices on digital platforms suggests a potential long-term decline in Trump's media influence.
• Uncertain Political Landscape: While Trump's base remains largely loyal, the increasing criticism from influential figures and the broader economic fallout may signal challenges ahead as the midterm elections approach.

Notable Quote:

David Pakman [40:52]:
"If any fraction of this were done, for example, by Barack Obama, these people would be losing their minds."

---

Key Takeaways:

• Mass Protests Reflect Deep Public Discontent: The widespread and organized nature of the protests underscores significant opposition to Trump's policies and leadership style.
• Economic Missteps Undermine Credibility: Misunderstandings and mismanagement of economic policies like tariffs and trade deficits reveal weaknesses in Trump's administration, eroding trust among both the public and former allies.
• Growing Elite Opposition Signals Vulnerability: Prominent figures and traditional supporters beginning to distance themselves from Trump indicate potential vulnerabilities within his support base.
• Media Dynamics Shifting Toward Progressive Voices: The increasing prominence of progressive content creators on platforms like YouTube highlights changing media consumption trends and the potential for greater influence of left-leaning perspectives.
• Legal and Constitutional Challenges Loom: Trump's controversial proposals raise serious legal and constitutional questions, potentially setting the stage for significant legal battles and policy reversals.

---

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the critical discussions, insights, and conclusions presented in the April 7, 2025 episode of "The David Pakman Show," providing a coherent narrative for those who have not listened to the episode.

Transcript

[David Pakman]

Welcome to the show. Hope you had a great weekend. What a weekend it was. This weekend the country saw it might be the largest one day protest of Trump's presidency, dating all the way back to the first little period of the first term. Possibly millions of people across 50 states and even internationally. And the message was quite simple at most of the protests, some of them kind of being hijacked. But the protest message overall was hands off, hands off our rights, hands off our institutions, hands off of our democracy, and hands off as in get Elon Musk's hands off of the government. And this was not only about Trump and Elon Musk, who by the way, now leads this Orwellian doge, which in practice is going to be winding down, I guess, but at least Elon Musk is leaving. But we don't really know. But they've been slashing federal agencies, gutting public services, and of course concentrating even more power in the hands of billionaires and even an unelected billionaire. We've seen the deep agency cuts and we've seen the chaotic immigration raids, also a target of these protests. And we've seen attempts to roll back LGBTQ + rights with a lot of focus on that T, trans rights, harmful changes to Social Security, to Medicare, obvious attempts to gut Medicaid. And then of course, in the midst of all of this, the new global tariffs causing this economic upheaval. Thursday and Friday, two of the biggest consecutive stock market decline days. As I am taping today, we have a Dow Jones industrial average that is down, okay, another 300 points. We'll see where it ends up landing. So that another focus of these protests and then the broader authoritarian direction of this administration, the deportations without due process and all of it. So the great news is that these were not free fringe protests. This was over 150 different organizations, civil rights groups, labor unions, various LGBT rights organizations, environmentalists, coordinating protests in more than 1300 locations. Of course, huge rallies in major cities, D.C. minneapolis, as Trump calls it, Boston, Portland, San Diego, countless others. Now I write in my book the Echo Machine, now a New York Times bestseller. And by the way, I'm not patting myself on the back when I say that I'm patting you on the back. I'm humbled that you all made it a New York Times bestseller instantly. In the Echo Machine. There's a reason I write that authoritarians fear mass rallies in urban centers. It's because these urban centers are what we might call visibility machines. They concentrate attention, they inspire copycats in a positive sense, and they Force corporate media, and by extension, they force the public to notice that this is going on. Movements have gained legitimacy in history because they were seen. And there is really no better stage than a packed city square. And as we look back, as I do in the book, the civil rights movement didn't succeed just because of backroom policy debates. The civil rights movement to a degree succeeded because people filled the streets. And yes, of course, it also succeeded on the back of incremental change and presidents who appointed certain Supreme Court justices. Of course, we understand that as well. The anti Vietnam War movement, the George Floyd protest, you know, a lot of these movements started with rallies just like the ones we saw this weekend. You could even argue that the Arab Spring started with massive symbolic gatherings in the urban cores of society. That is how momentum is built. So we saw 30,000 people in Boston, we saw 100000 people in DC, 25,000 in Minneapolis. Elected officials showed up. I saw our friend Jamie Raskin deliver a great speech in D.C. protesters marched in cities, yes, but also in suburbs, in rural areas, internationally, in Berlin, Paris, London, Ottawa, Lisbon. So what's most important is that these were not top down protests. They were organized organically. Neighbors, friends, coworkers. That's really what grassroots looks like. And you know, I got a few emails over the weekend from people saying, you know, David, I saw this one rally taken over by, by the woke stirs. You know, someone wrote to me and said that, or another one said the rally was taken over only by anti Israeli sentiment and it started to feel anti Semitic. Listen, anecdotally, that stuff happened over and I warned about that. Overall, these were really broad, mostly inclusive rallies. Mostly inclusive rallies. And it was a statement, it was a warning. And it really follows a pattern that I talk about often, which is that when people feel like the normal political system has been hijacked, they go outside, into the streets, into the parks, on social media as well, into the public square and it gets attention. This is just the beginning, right? This is like when some of you wrote in and said, you know, Cory Booker's 25 hour filibuster speech. What? Not really a filibuster because it wasn't against a specific bill, but 25 hour speech, it was merely performative. Well, it was performative. It wasn't merely performative. The merely will depend on what happens next. And we saw after the Cory Booker speech, now we've seen these protests. Oh, these protests are performative. Well, there is a performance aspect to it and better performers are more effective at inspiring others to take action. Now, let's see what happens. As we are close to entering the midterm period, let's see what happens. But a very good start. Meanwhile, the economy is in freefall. Markets are collapsing. We've got troops dying overseas. And Trump going, I didn't even hear about it. Hours after it took place, intel is leaking over signal. Americans are being sent to foreign prisons. And Trump, Trump is golfing. That's what Trump spent the weekend doing. And then he answered questions on Air Force One. A sweaty and disheveled Trump seemingly panicking as he realizes, damn, I may not have an exit strategy here. Trump claiming he spoke to leaders, all of the best leaders all over the world, and saying really confusing thing about surpluses, deficits, trade balance, suggesting that he may not really have a clue what the hell is going on. You talked to a lot of leaders this weekend. Can you tell us, were there any deals made?

[Donald Trump]

I spoke to a lot of leaders, European, Asian, from all over the world. They're dying to make a deal. But I said, we're not going to have deficits with your country.

[David Pakman]

I said, I'll tell you what, we're.

[Donald Trump]

Not going to do that because to me, a deficit is a loss. We're going to have surpluses or at worst going to be breaking even. But China would be the worst in the group because the deficit is so big and it's not sustainable. And, you know, I was elected on this. This was one of the biggest reasons I got elected, was exactly because of this.

[David Pakman]

And it's actually not. Trump is, of course, as is always the case, confusing different economic elements. And here Trump is saying a trade deficit is a loss, that if we import more from a country than we export, that that is a net loss to the United States. This is just wrong. He doesn't have a clue what's going on. A trade deficit just means you import more than you export. It's not inherently bad. And in fact, countries with strong consumer economies like the United States almost always run a trade deficit. The United states economy for 50 years has been based around running trade deficits. Because we've calculated and by our choices, we have decided we would rather import a lot of stuff at cheaper prices from other countries. We buy a lot of stuff, importing more. Having a trade deficit can reflect a strong dollar, it can reflect buying power, it can reflect a thriving service sector where we move in the direction of service economy, and we import a lot of cheap stuff, quite frankly, from other places. So when Trump talks about breaking even, he's Talking about a trade deficit going to neutrality, where we import and export the same amount of stuff from every country. It's a fantasy. It's a complete and total economic fantasy for a country that is, for now as, despite Trump's best efforts, a country that is, for now, as wealthy as the United States is. Trump thinks that a trade deficit means someone else won. Like, oh, because we have a trade deficit with China. China gets, you know, a trophy after each shipment or whatever. Just total confusion about what these terms even mean. A reporter asks Trump, is there a Trump put. Of course. Talking about puts and calls. And Trump says the. Trump says the question is stupid. And sometimes the stock market needs medicine, which is what I think Trump claims to be giving it in the world.

[Donald Trump]

Which is what it should be, though.

[David Pakman]

Is there a mark? Is there pain in the market at some point? You're unwilling to tolerate this idea of a Trump put. Is there a threshold?

[Donald Trump]

I think your question is so stupid.

[David Pakman]

Yeah, your question is so stupid.

[Donald Trump]

I think it's a. I don't want anything to go down, but sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something. And we have such a horrible. We have been treated so badly by other countries because we had stupid leadership.

[David Pakman]

That are almost satire at this point. Let me translate what Trump's means there. He doesn't know. He doesn't understand the question. He probably doesn't even know what a put is. He thinks that the question is some kind of a trick. He has no idea. Now, Trump also claimed during this sort of turbulent, figuratively and literally turbulent press conversation, Trump says that the tariffs are going to make us a lot of.

[Donald Trump]

Money big and it's not sustainable. And, you know, I was elected on this. This was one of the biggest reasons I got elected, exactly because of this. And we're going to put tariffs. We've already put them on. It's not a question if we will. We're going to put them on. And those tariffs next year will make us $1 trillion. In addition to the $1 trillion, thousands of companies are going to relocate back into the United States. In North Carolina already, furniture people are starting to move back in, in Detroit and Michigan, which I won because of what I said. What I'm. Car companies are starting to open up in Indiana. A big one is under construction. As an example, Honda. But they are moving in like nobody has ever seen this before. So it's unsustainable for us to allow China to have surpluses of a trip anyway.

[David Pakman]

You know, tariffs don't make us money in any sustainable Way tariffs are a tax on American consumers and businesses. When you put a 25% tariff on Chinese electronics, it's not President Xi who pays that. It's not the Chinese companies. It's you at Best Buy, Trump's China tariffs are paid by you at your local. What? I don't even know where people go to buy stuff. I buy stuff online. The Best Buy, that's the only one I can think of. Target, Walmart. And what we are seeing right now is that the stock market has lost $10 trillion in market value as of April 4. That's not a rounding error. That is people's retirement savings. That is, for one case, that's very bad for people. All right, and finally, Trump says he's been talking to all of the greatest tech leaders about the tariffs, but he's not going to tell us who they are.

[Ben Shapiro]

Have you talked to any tech leaders.

[David Pakman]

Over the weekend about the tariffs?

[Donald Trump]

Yeah, I talked to the biggest in the world. I talked to the biggest of them all, many of them, but I've talked to, I would say four or five that are considered the biggest they know. And you know what they said? We don't blame you.

[David Pakman]

Who did you talk to?

[Donald Trump]

I don't want to say. I'll put it out. I may give it to you. I have to find out if they mind. You know, I don't know if that was confidential, but we had five or six.

[David Pakman]

There's something deeper going on here, I believe, than Donald Trump's economic illiteracy, because even being economically illiterate wouldn't necessarily point you to the policy that Donald Trump is pushing. This really is a form of economic nihilism, I would argue, by design. When Trump breaks things, it's not because he thinks it's necessarily going to work. It's because he thrives in chaos. And sometimes the play is to actually then come in and fix whatever you broke. And we've talked about this before. You blow up the economy through tariffs. You blame the Fed, you blame Democrats, you blame immigrants, you blame China, whoever. You just blame somebody else. And when people are desperate enough, you offer protection in exchange for power. This is classic authoritarian opportunism. If people are scared and broke and confused and desperate, they will trade rights for security. Could be economic security, could be, you know, militaristic security. In this case, the idea is they will hand the keys to the guy who pretends to be strong, even if the one who broke it is that very same guy. And by the time anybody realizes, you know, how deep the damage goes, he'll be on a plane back to Mar a Lago to spend another weekend playing golf. That seems to be the play here now. Meanwhile, we're starting to see more and more Republicans turn on Trump. We'll talk about that later. Meanwhile, we are starting to hear rumblings that Trump is going to reverse all of this and say, hey, I found reason to pause it because as he says, the countries are negotiating with me. The tech CEOs love it and they're. Everybody's just so thrilled I'm going to be able to pause this, whatever explanation he can give. That also is something that is being predicted. I don't know which way it's going to land. I don't know. We're just going to have to wait and see. If you believed that Trump's immigration policy couldn't get any more deranged or dystopian, he now says he loves the idea of sending American citizens to rot in El Salvador's most notorious super prison. Not suspected terrorists, not foreign nationals, not individuals in the United States illegally. American citizens. When Donald Trump was asked about this, he says, I love that idea. It's not satire. This is not a parody. This is Donald Trump in 2025 openly floating the idea of deporting people born in the United States, American citizens to be imprisoned in El Salvador. Listen to this.

[Donald Trump]

El Salvador. The president there said he would be.

[David Pakman]

Willing to take American citizens in the federal prison population. Is that one of the ideas are.

[Donald Trump]

Going to be, well, I love that if we could take some of our 20 time wise guys that push people into subways and that hit people over the back of the head and that purposely run people over in cars, if you would take them, I'd be honored to give them. I don't know what the law says on that, but I can't imagine the law would say anything different.

[David Pakman]

He can't imagine the law would interfere with this idea.

[Donald Trump]

They can house these horrible criminals for a lot less money than it costs us. I'm all for it, but I'd only do according to the law. But I have suggested that, you know, why should it stop just at people that cross the border illegally? We have some horrible criminals, American grown and born. And if we have somebody that bops an old woman over the head and we have somebody that is in jail 20 times and goes back and shoots people all over the place, and then has a bad judge or a bad prosecutor that do nothing about him, all they worry about is politics. They don't worry about that. I think if we could get El Salvador or somebody, but to take them, I'd be very happy with it, but I have to see what the law says says.

[David Pakman]

What Trump is proposing is completely illegal and unconstitutional. And of course, Trump only cares about the law and the Constitution to the extent that he can use it or ignore it to get out of investigations and consequences for crimes and wrongdoing. That's all okay. Under the Fifth and the 14th Amendments, American citizens are entitled to due process and to equal protection under the law. At its core, you don't get to disappear someone because you don't like them. But you also don't get to outsource your prison system to a foreign authoritarian regime because it's cheaper or you think it's a harsher punishment. And the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that the government cannot exile American citizens under any circumstances. Now, the key precedent comes from Afro Yim v. Rusk from 1967. And in that decision, the court ruled that American citizens can't involuntarily be stripped of citizenship or removed from the country. The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship and its protections. In our country, the people are sovereign, and the government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Now, you might say, well, you could ship them somewhere else. They're still citizens. They get to come back after serving their prison sentence. No, the Supreme Court says you can't do that. You can't ship citizens to a foreign country for imprisonment. That's called exile, and it is banned. The other aspect of this that I think is important, just to mention, even though it's not, it's not 100% related to what Trump says, but it's about 70% related. The alien Enemies act, which is the pretext that at the 40,000 foot level, is being used to justify these roundups and deportations. It does not apply to US Citizens to say the Alien Enemies act will be used in that way. Trump's administration is saying the 1798 Alien Enemies act allows the President to detain and remove noncitizens from hostile nations during wartime. We don't even believe that he is appropriately using it with regard to noncitizens. But there's a few problems with it. With regard to Trump's idea of El Salvador for citizens, number one, you can't use it on US Citizens. That is why federal judges are getting involved here and are very concerned. The eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment, realistically, would also bar sending citizens to seekot in El Salvador. This is a prison that's been Condemned for inhumane conditions, forced labor, no legal representation, no contact with the outside world, physical abuse, psychological abuse. We know that if the US Government knowingly sends citizens into that environment, it's not just deportation. It's a form of cruel and unusual punishment, which the Eighth Amendment specifically forbids. And then finally, there is no statutory authority to pay a foreign country to imprison American citizens that you just. You're not allowed to do it. Congress has not passed any law giving the executive branch that power. And of course, we know that despite claiming to be a conservative, whatever that even means at this point, small government, all this stuff, Trump has sort of pushed for or grabbed, better said, more executive power than any president in recent history. Now, I hate to say this, I hate that I'm in a position to have to admit this. What does it mean that something is illegal if no one stops you from doing it? And if there's no consequence or punishment for that thing? And that is a terrifying, terrifying reality right now. The guy who once said that Donald Trump was the man is now begging for zero tariffs, open borders, and freedom of movement. I'm talking about Elon Musk. Elon Musk now says that he hopes the United States and Europe move to a zero tariff situation, turning on Trump's total tariff takedown. And he says he also wants more freedom of people to move between Europe and North America. Here is Elon Musk. Take a listen to this. They are turning on Trump.

[Elon Musk]

And I'm hopeful, for example, with the tariffs, that at the end of the day, I hope it is agreed that both Europe and the United States should move, ideally, in my view, to a zero tariff situation, effectively creating a free trade zone between Europe and North America. And that would be my. That's what I hope occurs. And also more freedom of people to move between Europe and North America if they wish. If they wish to work in Europe or wish to work in America, they should be allowed to do so, in my view. So that. That has certainly been my advice to the president.

[David Pakman]

So this is 180, 80 degrees different than what Trump has been pushing and what Trump has proposed. Now, I see that there are some people out there saying, oh, David, this is not Musk breaking with Trump. They all have the same goals. Musk wants zero tariffs, and Trump eventually wants zero tariffs. This entire global tariff gambit where even islands inhabited only by penguins are having tariffs placed on them, this is all to eventually get to zero tariffs. Well, this isn't necessary. If the goal is to get to zero tariffs, go right to other countries and say, let's go to zero tariffs. You could do that. There's no rule that says you have to do this to get them to negotiate. And this Elon Musk video was published just days after Donald Trump doubled down on this catastrophic round of tariffs, which is tanking markets. It's putting global trade on red alert. So what you are seeing now is Musk, the guy MAGA thought was their billionaire champion, completely rejecting the economic nationalism of Donald Trump. When you say zero tariffs, meaning free movement of goods and you say movement of labor, that's the opposite of what Trump and his cronies want. Trump and the far right have worshiped Elon as the cool billionaire who gets it, the guy who fights the libs and he owns Twitter and he's playing 40 chess. But the truth is that Elon Musk's entire business depends on globalization. Tesla batteries made in China, starlink deals that are multinational AI talent, that is global manufacturing, that is cross border a workforce that depends on international visas to bring highly skilled people to the United States to work for Elon's companies. The Republican coalition is built on opposing much of that stuff. They want to be the party of billionaires and also of blue collar workers. How is that going to work? They want to worship capital, but they hate globalization. They want to stop immigration but grow the economy. It's just not possible right now. You can't run an economy like Elon Musk's while you are Trump pursuing protectionist trade policy. Elon wants cheap labor and open markets and talent mobility. Trump wants economic war with everyone who doesn't kiss his ass. Their goals are fundamentally incompatible. And after the break, we are going to talk about bigger cracks opening. It's not just Elon who now is saying, this isn't making a lot of sense. Now Ellen is on his way, on his way out. We already learned last week that Donald Trump seems pretty displeased with Elon pouring 25 million into that Wisconsin Supreme Court race and losing it. He's getting annoyed with Elon's presence. Elon has said he's going to go back to running his businesses. And then when Trump was asked, does Doge survive, Elon leaving, Trump said, I'm not so sure. At some point Doge is going to end. Well now it's getting even bigger. The cracks are turning into crevasses. And we are going to talk about that after this short break. Ladies and gentlemen, they're starting to turn on Trump when even brownnoser Maria Bartiromo thinks you've gone too far. You know that things are starting to unravel. The Wall Street Republicans, the libertarians, the Silicon Valley guys, the old school neocons, they are slowly starting to bail on Trump at the exact same time. And what I want to focus in on is why that matters more than people think. We start with free trade. Free trade conservative Jonah Goldberg, who posted an excretion to X where he said, quote, trumpers slavishly defend one man unilaterally screwing up the economy and the America led global order because he's some kind of genius. And it turns out, as was apparent for decades, he doesn't know what he's talking about. This is someone who spent decades defending Republicans. He helped build, in a way, the conservative intellectual infrastructure to the extent that it exists. And now Jonah Goldberg is saying it was always obvious Trump's a fraud. He's not a genius. He's a guy really making it up as he goes. Now that he's back in power, he's tanking the entire post World War II global order. This is not a left wing critique. This is coming from inside the House. Elon Musk we talked about earlier, I just want to include in the segment his brief comments about he would like zero tariffs.

[Elon Musk]

And I'm hopeful, for example, with the tariffs that, that at the end of the day, I hope it is agreed that both Europe and the United States should move, ideally in my view, to a zero tariff situation, effectively creating a free trade zone between Europe and North America.

[David Pakman]

All right, so we talked about that earlier. Elon Musk breaking with Trump on this issue. Then we get to her old friend Maria Bartiromo, who never saw a Trump policy she didn't like, basically a PR firm for Trump and for hedge funds. And she said on air that the tariffs are a debacle. A debacle, and suggests Congress stopping the tariffs. This is Maria Bartiromo, folks.

[Maria Bartiromo]

Question to you on this tariff debacle is should Congress be involved? California Congressman David Vellotto is supporting this bipartisan Senate bill which forces the President to get Congress's approval to use tariffs. Do you want that?

[David Pakman]

Well, I think being able to have input on these tariffs is extremely important. I think you're referencing the Grassley bill as well, where there's a number of senators who have signed on to that. I'm looking at it. All right, so the idea is, why don't you all do something about this? This is someone who spent years defending Trump's every economic move. She sat silently. Maria Bartiromo did When Trump blew up trade deals in his first term, cheered when he rolled back regulations, praised the 2017 tax cuts like they were, you know, handed down from Mount Sinai. She's basically begging Paul Ryan to come back from retirement and stop what she sees as insanity. We then get to Rand Paul, Republican Senator. We heard from him last week. I want to include this here as well. He doesn't want any of this. He thinks it's all a disaster.

[Rand Paul]

But on the tariffs, in particular, on the idea of trade. Trade is proportional to wealth. The last 70 years of international trade has been an exponential curve upwards, and the last 70 years of prosperity has been upwards also. We are richer because of trade with Canada, and so is Canada. Whenever you trade with somebody, when an individual buys somebody else's product, it's mutually beneficial or you wouldn't buy it. If the trade is voluntary, it's always beneficial. There is no Canada versus us. The consumer wins when the price is the lower, lowest price.

[David Pakman]

All right, so he's not wrong, by the way, that tariffs are taxes. Tariffs are a form of economic planning. Tariffs are government interference in markets. Now, you can argue some interference is good. We want regulation. Absolutely. We'll have that conversation. But he's not wrong that at its core, this violates a principle that Republicans claim to support. Now, whether they do or they don't. Right. That's where sort of the. The rubber meets the road. We then get to one of the most repulsive figures in American politics, Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Maybe the most calculating principle, free opportunist in the Senate, I dare say, who will hold, you know, a Bible in one hand and a bag of Chinese donor cash in the other hand. At the same time, Ted Cruz says these tariffs would be bad if they remain in place. So he's hedging a little bit and sort of saying if these were to stay in place, that would be better.

[Maria Bartiromo]

Look, I think it is a mistake to assume that we will have high tariffs in perpetuity. I don't think that would be good economic policy. I am not a fan of tariffs. And the announcement yesterday, look, time is going to tell in the next month or two or three what happens if the result of yesterday's announcement is a lot of our trading partners across the globe dramatically reduce the tariffs they charge on US Goods and services, services. And the consequence of that is the US Government dramatically cuts the tariffs that were announced yesterday. That would be a great outcome that would be good for America if the result is our trading partners jack up their tariffs and we have high Tariffs everywhere. I think that is a bad outcome for America. Tariffs are a tax on consumers.

[David Pakman]

So listen, Ted Cruz knows these tariffs are a disaster, but he knows also that this is completely radioactive politically. And he wants, he wants to stay on Donald Trump's good side, because for Trump, loyalty is the only thing that matters. So you've got all sorts of folks that want out. You have people who just have a modest 401k, and I heard from three of them this morning, and they say I can now retire for 12 days. That's all I've got left, sort of tongue in cheek. But the point is they're for when their modest 401ks are crashing. Trump's billionaire buddies I don't think are very happy, as they have significant holdings in the stock market as well. Libertarians are saying that this is a form of socialism and central planning. Media allies like Maria Bartiromo are starting to question, does this make sense, calling the tariffs a debacle. The donors are panicking and the base is still out here, mostly posting memes about gas prices. Ok, so the, the reason that this matters, as I kind of teased at the beginning, is that what will really determine the future path of this is whether the base starts bailing on Trump. I'm extraordinarily skeptical that it will because they've not bailed on him over anything. And case in point, let's go to an analyst to tell us about tariffs next. All right, we are now going to hear from a completely delusional Trump supporter on the topic of tariffs. She says that tariffs are freedom. She doesn't know anything about this issue, but remember when Trump said he loved the poorly educated? I'm not making fun of this woman, but one of the reasons we explained that Trump loves the poorly educated is that the well educated aren't going to fall for his nonsense. The well educated aren't going to say, oh, the tariffs do make sense. No, they're not. So let's listen to this economic analyst, and I use that term extraordinarily loosely, and then we will talk about the claims that she makes.

[Unnamed Trump Supporter]

Truly wish more people understood the tariffs that President Trump is implementing. I wish more people knew what kind of freedom that's going to give the American people.

[David Pakman]

Okay, tariffs aren't freedom. Tariffs are a tax. That's all that they are. And if normal income taxes aren't freedom, then tariffs also aren't freedom. Tariffs are taxes on imported goods. They're paid by the importer here in the United States. They're passed down to consumers through higher prices. When Trump implements tariffs, you just pay more at the store for the same stuff. That's not freedom, it's less buying power. Tariffs can be useful in narrow contexts if you want to protect a particular fledgling industry temporarily. But broad, sweeping tariffs like Trump's, they hurt the whole economy. They promote retaliatory tariffs, which we're already seeing. It damages exports. That hurts farmers, it hurts manufacturers. All right, let's continue.

[Unnamed Trump Supporter]

President Trump is trying to use these tariffs to get rid of taxes.

[David Pakman]

No, he's not. This is not how the federal government works. Tariffs don't replace income taxes or other forms of taxation. And in fact, tariffs bring in a really small portion of federal revenue. Even before the, you know, you go back to before the income tax was instituted in 1913, government was tiny. It didn't do much. No Social Security, no Medicare, no highways, no defense infrastructure. Tariffs right now make up less than 2% of federal revenue. You can't fund the federal government, even in a bare bones way on tariffs alone. And Trump, although once he said we might be able to someday get rid of taxes with tariffs, he's not actually proposing to do that. The idea is a complete and total fantasy.

[Unnamed Trump Supporter]

And I'm telling you guys, he is very smart. That's how the country was ran before taxes.

[David Pakman]

She says that the country was ran before taxes on tariffs. At best, that's a half truth. Before the 16th Amendment in 1913, we didn't have a federal income tax. That's because the government didn't provide most of the services that we rely on today. No income tax met, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no epa, no federal funding of public schools, no fema, no VA hospitals, no food safety regulations, no modern government. And I know that there are some who still say, I'd love to go back to when the government just did less. But the idea that we can go back to a 19th century taxation model while keeping anything acceptable, reasonably acceptable in terms of 21st century service, it's like a nostalgia fueled misinformation bomb.

[Unnamed Trump Supporter]

I truly have a hard time understanding how anybody could be against that. I understand maybe not liking him, but who could be against getting rid of taxes? Who is against having more money in your pocket? The only people that could be against that are the people who has truly never paid taxes.

[David Pakman]

The people who has never paid. So a couple of things. You know, who could be against getting rid of taxes? She says you can't have functioning infrastructure, military, public safety, social programs without taxes. Most people don't love paying taxes, but most people understand why taxes exist, and it's a matter of figuring out what should the tax rate be and what should it be spent on. Even most sort of tax skeptical right wingers who argue for lower taxes aren't arguing to eliminate taxes altogether because that would crash the entire system. She also loves this. Only people who have never paid taxes would be against getting rid of them. This is such a condescending straw man. Many of Trump's critics right now do pay taxes and they oppose his policies because the policies don't reduce their taxes. They're just tariffs. It's a tax on imports. That's why they're against them. Tariffs have increased costs on consumer goods in the past and they hurt industries like agriculture. We saw it during Trump's first term. Farmers lost access to foreign markets because of the retaliatory tariffs. This is a textbook case of economic populism built on false premises. Let's listen to just the last few seconds of this insanity before you complain.

[Unnamed Trump Supporter]

And talk about how terrible it is. Give him the opportunity to show you. I hope all you guys are having a wonderful day. It's a beautiful day here in the state of Kentucky.

[David Pakman]

Yeah. Tariffs are not a path to freedom. The modern American government can't run on tariffs. The trade policy that Trump is pushing will hurt many Americans, including the rural voters who supported him. And of course, eliminating taxes while expanding services is a sort of math free fantasy. This is why a lot of people aren't yet turning on Trump, because they've convinced themselves with the sort of logic or lack thereof that this woman is pushing, that this is all going to be a great thing for them, when of course it's very clearly not this. The, the hope is that Trump bails says praise me for putting out the fire I started and things sort of settle down. As of this moment, rumors that Trump would put a 90 day pause on the tariffs have not come to fruition. Maybe by the time you hear today's show, that will have happened, maybe by tomorrow. But for now, it's all looking extraordinarily grim. But thanks to defenders like this woman who don't have a clue what is going on, at least for now, Trump gets to keep his base's support. Former President Barack Obama spoke over the weekend and he made a comparison that I think is extraordinarily apt. Which is that if he had done even a fraction of the things that Donald Trump has been doing, the amount of apoplexy and panic that you would be hearing and seeing from right wing media would be absolutely off the charts and too much of what is going on right now, we are hearing not a peep from right wing media occasionally. I mean, listen, Maria Bartiromo said the tariffs are a debacle, but big picture, the due process, free deportations and all of it, if any fraction of this were done, for example, by Barack Obama, these people would be losing their minds. Let's hear former President Obama lay it out. And I want to talk about, about it.

[Barack Obama]

Imagine if I had done any of this. Let me just, I just want to be clear about this. Imagine that. Imagine if I had pulled Fox News credentials from the White House press corps. You're laughing, but no, this is what's happening. Imagine if I had said to law firms that were representing parties that were upset with policies my administration had initiated that you will not be allowed into government buildings. We will punish you economically for dissenting from the Affordable Care act or the Iran deal. We will ferret out students who protest against my policies. It's unimaginable that the same parties that are silent now would have tolerated behavior like that from me or a whole bunch of my predecessors. So, and I say this, I say this not on a partisan basis. This has to do with something more precious, which is who are we as a country and what values do we stand for?

[David Pakman]

That last question, what are the values we stand for? That's really a central question to this entire thing. And of course, I laid out some of my values last week in a segment, especially as we have a lot of new viewers now because of the book and different things, just seeing a lot of growth. I laid out my values, but more explicitly how they relate to policy. One of the problems, and of course, President Obama is correct about what are our values? Do we value free speech or don't we? One of the problems, as I write about in the book, is that their stated values don't really mean anything to them at the end of the day. And so this has a twofold impact, or it's sort of meaningful to think about for two different reasons. Number one, is it really worth engaging in these abstractions about values and philosophy when it's worth nothing? It's worth, it's worth as much as we pay to hear it from them that they value liberty and they value lack of regulation and they abandon every single one of those values as soon as it's inconvenient. We've seen them abandon every one of the values just in the last two months as it's become antithetical to the way that Donald Trump is Actually governing. So, number one, all of the discussions about my first principles and values in philosophy, these people don't really care about that stuff. It's a way to get us away from actually dealing in practical and tangible policy ways with what's going on and the problems we want to fix. But number two, it is, of course, the double standard. And as President Obama correctly points out, if he had done even a fraction of this stuff, they would be calling for his head. They would be saying, Use the 25th Amendment to remove him from power and all of it. So what utility does this have to us? Well, first of all, let's stop wasting time engaging with what they say and let's really engage with what they do. Oh, Trump would mean our next example of Ben Shapiro. By the way, Shapiro is a guy who for a year was saying, I don't think Trump's really going to. Trump does says a lot of things, but it doesn't mean he doesn't. And now Ben Shapiro has turned against the tariffs because Trump is doing it. It. So let's engage with what they do, and importantly, let's not allow abstract conversations to supplant dealing in practical policy terms with what's going on. All right. Ben Shapiro is now pounding Trump for the insane tariffs. Why do we care what Ben Shapiro says? There are really two reasons. Number one, this is a very strong supporter of Trump's who has often said before, sure, Trump says a lot of things, but the things he does are basically fine. Ben Shapiro in fact, said during, I believe it was a debate with Sam Harris some months ago, before Trump was elected, Trump's not actually going to do a lot of this stuff. I don't remember if he included the tariffs in that. But he said Trump's not going to do a lot of the stuff he's saying he's going to do. And now Ben Shapiro seems almost shocked that he is indeed doing this stuff. Secondly, this guy has a huge audience on the right, so it does matter if he starts to say this doesn't make sense. Let's take a listen.

[Ben Shapiro]

Yesterday, President Trump declared that it was, in fact, Liberation Day, his giant tariff policy that he just dropped on the market unilaterally, probably unconstitutionally. Trump's reciprocal tariffs impose hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes on Americans, be the largest tax increase since the revenue act of 1968, one of the biggest tax increases on American consumers in the history of America. And it's going to cost American consumers. It will cost American producers who use inputs from other countries, the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted immediately more than a thousand points. The s and P500 plummeted more than 3%. The NASDAQ plummeted almost 4 1/2%. There are real world implications for this sort of stuff. Trade wars are in fact not good and not easy to win.

[David Pakman]

Right.

[Ben Shapiro]

If you don't actually have a plan, it is predicated on a bad idea of how international trade works. A fundamental misunderstanding of trade deficits. Trade deficits are a, they're an accounting procedure. Trade deficits have pretty much nothing to do with the health of an economy. I can name you a period in American history where there was a fairly large surplus in America's balance of trade. The entire Great Depression.

[David Pakman]

Yeah, so he makes a lot of points here that you can't dispute. I mean, tariffs are a tax. You can't dispute that. It's a tax on import specifically. It's not a tax on income, it's not a tax on sales, it's a tax on imports. That's undeniable. Secondly, the trade balance and in fact, the trade deficit is not objectively a bad thing. It's sort of like is unemployment, is 5% unemployment good or bad? Well, you have to consider what's the trend, what's the state of the economy, what's the age distribution of people in the economy? There's all, how many open jobs are there? All of these different things. And similarly, the trade deficit is a result of 50 years of cumulatively making economic decisions that make us increasingly an economy of services rather than products and an importer of stuff we would rather pay less for than pay more and manufacture it domestically. The trade deficit in a sense is actually a sign of an economy that has matured to a degree beyond simply manufacturing of widgets. Now you can say it's good or bad, you can say it should change, but the trade deficit in and of itself is not a problem. And similarly, Ben Shapiro correctly assesses that there is no real plan here. Now, if you ask different people associated with maga, what is the plan, they'll give you a couple of answers. One is this will make countries treat us fairly so that then we will have growth. It's not really a plan and it's not really the way economic economics works. Another one. Well, over the long term, this, there will be short term pain, but over the long term we're going to start manufacturing all of this stuff domestically and we will be better off. Now, there's no question that over a decade we could start to manufacture a lot of the stuff we are tariffing domestically, but it's going to cost along a lot more. Take a thousand dollar phone which just on an inflation adjusted basis in a decade would cost who the hell knows, 1500 bucks. We could start manufacturing it domestically, but in a decade it would be the equivalent instead of the fifteen hundred dollars that the foreign one will be inflation adjusted it would be $2,000 or 20 $200. Do people really want to do that? And that be the solution at the end of the rainbow and pay higher prices for the next decade? Maybe we do, but most people don't. And so this is, this is the problem with the off ramp. So I expect that these tariffs will not last indefinitely. I expect that when Trump pulls them back, he will say that it's because he won and everybody capitulated. I don't expect that to actually be true, but it will be Trump saying praise me for putting out the fire that I set. For years, YouTube politics was MAGA country, right wing channels, the Daily Wire, Prageru, Ben Shapiro. These empires were dominating YouTube, feeding a steady diet of outrage and fear and own the libs content to millions of people. And the narrative was very clear. The right has figured out the Internet and the left is playing catch up. And that has been true. And to a degree it is still the case. But we see a change in what might be probably the biggest shift since YouTube's political rise. Left leaning YouTube is surging, outgrowing right wing YouTube in the first quarter of 2025. This is not an opinion, this is data. In Q1 of this year, progressive creators added subscribers faster than their conservative counterparts. A great piece looked into this. Crowder, Shapiro. They're still churning out content, but the growth is slowing down for them. And meanwhile the progressive voices are really building momentum and finding real audiences on YouTube. Note that we, the David Pakman show grew faster than Tucker. We grew faster than Jordan Peterson. We grew almost as fast as Rogan in Q1, who has $100 million or more behind his operation. And here's something else to pay attention to. Fox News ratings are up since the election. CNN and MSNBC ratings are down. But that doesn't mean that left wing viewers are disengaging. It means that they are done with the bland, centrist, milquetoast cable news stuff. The MSNBC watchers of the Trump years, they haven't disappeared, they've moved. And they're coming here to YouTube, to podcasts, to creators who are speaking plainly, who don't have to act like we're still living in 2012. So this is a very quiet realignment that no one in legacy media seems to have seen coming. The post election cable drop off is an apathy. It's migration. The audience is there. It's just not tuning in anymore. To the usual suspects. So thank you to everyone who has been helping us help us keep accelerating it. It costs nothing. It costs Nothing. Subscribe on YouTube subscribe to the audio podcast get on our Substack newsletter. All of this stuff is free and the more we feed the ecosystem the more that the algorithm is going to reward all of the left wing on that platform. I couldn't be happier to see that this is going on. So thank you. On the bonus show today, no state has gotten rid of of its income tax in 45 years. There are now two southern states looking at doing exactly that. We will discuss. Secondly, the National Park Service under the orange guy has removed references to Harriet Tubman from its Underground Railroad webpage. Here we go again. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The tragic secretary of Health and Human Services has visited the epicenter of the Texas measles outbreak after the death of another kid who was infected. This is terrible stuff and RFK doesn't seem like the right guy to deal with this. All of those stories and more on today's bonus show.

[Maria Bartiromo]

Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money.

[Donald Trump]

Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad.

[David Pakman]

Why not sign up@join pacman.com, get the full experience. I'll see you then.