← The David Pakman Show
The David Pakman Show
5/22/25: House passes Trump tax cuts, Trump threatens journalist
01:04:52
-- On the Show: -- Eoin Higgins, writer and historian based in New England, joins David to discuss his new book “Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left." Get the book: — House Republicans pass...
Loading summary
Transcript86 lines
- [00:08]
David Pakman
Welcome to the show. In a very chaotic and sleep deprived overnight session, the House of Representatives passed just barely, Donald Trump's really flagship tax and spending bill called the Big beautiful bill. The one big beautiful bill. It was a razor thin margin to 15 to 214. It happened just shy of 4am Pacific time, I guess almost 7am Eastern time. And the vote came after a whole bunch of floor fights and arguments and speeches and last minute arm twisting. And they broke into a chant of usa, usa. Republicans did as Trump gets a temporary win. This is certainly one of the most controversial legislative packages in years. We talked earlier this week about what's in it. I'll refresh that with you in a moment. Here are Republicans triumphantly and courageously celebrating. I don't really mean that, but it may be a premature celebration. We'll talk about why a little bit later. Take a listen. On this vote, the AZER215. The nays are 214 with one answering present.
- [01:27]
Donald Trump
The bill is passed.
- [01:39]
David Pakman
Okay. Anyway, so that went on, you understand, USA, etc. Cheering for a bill that will cut taxes for the rich, cut health care, all of the things that we talked about, because it's really way more than a tax bill. It's almost depraved to be cheering for this. It's a full blown ideological manifesto of sorts. So as a reminder, here is what they pushed through in the House of Representatives. While most of us were sleeping, I was awake, but most of us were sleeping. $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, mostly extending the 2017 cuts of Trump's first term. New tax exemptions on tips, overtime pay and car loan interest. Standard deduction increase up to $32,000 for joint filers, expanded child tax credit for older adults and a deduction for older adults. And to pay for some of this, Republicans put in new work requirements, benefits for people on Medicaid. Adults without dependents must work or do community service for 80 hours a month to maintain those benefits for SNAP and food stamps. Similar work rules now applying to people up to 64 years of age, including even to some parents with school age kids. What will that mean? It means some people will lose Medicaid. Some people, some people will lose SNAP and food stamps. That, that's just, it's the point of it. Let's make it more difficult to keep those benefits and kick some people off. Other provisions include, of course, rolling back green energy tax credits from Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction act, which were fantastic. $150 billion for the Pentagon. This includes the Money, at least theoretically, for Donald Trump's Golden Dome missile shield, which we spoke about yesterday. $12 billion for deportations and, and border enforcement with reimbursement for red states and the creation of these MAGA accounts. It's not Make America Great again. I forget what it is, but the acronym works out to be maga. It's a children's savings program branded with Trump's slogan, which actually isn't so hot, as I explained earlier this week. And then one of the bigger elements of this financially is the salt cap increase from 10,000 to $40,000 for earners up to $500,000, which is really, you know, you could argue as to whether it should be completely uncapped or not. And we've had this debate, but certainly it is something that will be extraordinarily expensive. The Congressional Budget Office has looked at the bill as passed by Republicans in the House. Now, remember that this has to make it through the Senate. It's not going to make it through the Senate in this form. Doesn't even have a chance. I'll talk to you about that a little bit later. But if this version became the law, you know, I'm just a bill up on Capitol Hill. And if it becomes the law, 8.6 million people would lose health insurance if passed like this. 3 million fewer people would get food stamps monthly. And about $4 trillion would be added to the deficit over a decade, even after accounting for all of the spending cuts. So the biggest big question, this is the big matzo ball hanging out there. Can this pass in the Senate in this form? It's unlikely and we'll delve into that more deeply. But maga, Mike Johnson and Trump really muscled this through in a very fragile coalition. They had to sort of cave to every faction, the Freedom Caucus hardliners, the New York moderates. And so it's like a Frankenstein bill cobbled together with a whole bunch of different contradictions. And so the, the, the fiscal hawks like Rand Paul in the Senate, I can't imagine he's going to go for it. The moderates like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski will be very concerned about some aspects of it, but they probably wouldn't vote for it in its current form. You're pro business Republicans, people kind of in the Mitt Romney mold. I don't think they want to roll back the renewable energy incentives in states like Iowa and Texas because those are good for those red states. So with a 60 vote filibuster threshold in the Senate, it virtually ensures that this version of the bill is dead on arrival. But that doesn't mean it can't pass in some form. And it probably will pass in some some form is my prediction. So the House Republicans know that what they passed this morning and cheered usa, usa. It's not going to survive the Senate in this form. That was never the point. The goal was let's give Trump a win. Let's create something we can run on. We passed it in the House, reelect me, I can't control the Senate. But we did our task. And then they will frame it as not only did we do tax cuts, we also did border security, immigration enforcement, all of it. And I think in MAGA world, based on the hours that have elapsed since 7am Eastern this morning, I think MAGA world is falling for it. The sun rose over Washington like a phoenix over the horizon. It and Republicans celebrated despite the fact that this will probably go to the Senate graveyard. They'll probably pass something, but it's not going to be this. Now, what is the Democratic view on what Republicans in the House just did? That's where I want to go next. We saw overnight speeches from Republicans and Democrats culminating, as I told you, in the House, passing by one vote the Trump sort of Frankensteined together tax bill just shy of 7am Eastern, 4am Pacific. One member of Congress who took to the floor in the late hours last night, I think this was right around, let's see, 1:50am Eastern, is Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. And she dropped what I think is maybe the most prophetic warning to Republicans for what they did, warning Republicans that when the country wakes up, there will be consequences. Now, I think she meant both literally when the country wakes up because this was the middle of the night and metaphorically, when the country realizes what Republicans are doing, there will be consequences. You know, I think I would put it a slightly different way. And it's if the country wakes up, let's watch the video and then I will explain. Her analysis is correct, but her prediction may be overestimating the country a little bit. Take a listen.
- [08:35]
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
13.7 million Americans. 13.7 million Americans are the number of people in this country whose health care care are going to be stripped in this bill. Now, Republicans are going to try to tell you every single distraction in the book from that essential number. I want people at home to understand that Medicaid and the federal matching funds for Medicaid can make up 30 to 40% of some of the state budget budgets that we have going on in back in your home. Republicans have put this bill together, rushed it together in a matter of hours, on the back of a napkin, shaking it, walking out of the White House, and brought it right here to this floor. They are defunding Planned Parenthood. They are ending tons of Medicaid coverage for 13.7 million Americans, including. Including Affordable Care act coverage as well. And if you want to get an abortion and have a silver plan on, a health care plan that you paid for, you will also be affected by this legislation as well. Also allowing suppressors on guns to be deregulated to some of the largest amounts that we have seen since the 1930s. This is just a Christmas street.
- [10:08]
Cyril Ramaphosa
I yield.
- [10:09]
Owen Higgins
Gentle lady issue, 30 seconds.
- [10:10]
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
And so I want people to understand for. For my Republican colleagues who assure what is in and not in this bill, in this process that has been this rushed, when you wake up in the morning, you will realize that you voted to defund Planned Parenthood and to take away health care from 13.7 million Americans. And when this country wakes up up in the morning, there will be consequences to pay for this. And I yield back.
- [10:39]
David Pakman
AOC's point is simple and it's correct. This is a cruel bill. The process was a joke. The consequences will be real. It's not something we sign, and it's merely theoretical. This is a very real, impactful bill. If it were to pass the Senate in this form, which it won't. But the point is, Republicans in the House have every intention of making it pass. But there's a deeper tragedy when she says, when the country wakes up. I don't think the country's awake right now. I think the country is in a proverbial coma. And I'm not convinced the country is going to wake up anytime soon. Because, let's be honest, Americans aren't totally unaware. Many of them have heard something about this bill. A debate, a headline, an excretion on X. But the problem is that a lot of Americans have stopped caring because the apathy is not born of ignorance. It's born of exhaustion and despondency and strategic disengagement, which on an individual level, I understand, but at scale is a real problem, because the average American will ignore anything so long as they think it won't affect their bottom line. And the catch to the entire thing is that it's very much about to. Because everything that's happening right now in sort of cumulative effect, when the financial fallout comes, when the bond yields explode and the markets crash and unemployment spikes and interest rates skyrocket, all Things I hope don't happen, but all things I worry will happen. They're not going to have a choice but to care. Not because of ideology, but because they're suddenly going to be forced to develop a passion for civic engagement, for, for their own self preservation. They'll care because they won't be able to afford not to. Because the economic chaos that is being sown here might make 2008 look like a hiccup. Now, I hope it doesn't happen, but you look at tariffs, spending bombs, deficit detonations, market instability, tax cuts for the rich, kicking people off food stamps, kicking people off Medicaid, this is really playing not only with the domestic economy, but the global economy. And Americans are understandably addicted to cheap debt, fragile supply chains and cheap tchotchkes from China. It's going to be sleepwalking off of a cliff. So AOC is right. There are going to be consequences, not just for maga, but for everybody. The people cheering this bill in the House are going to be the first to scream when their constituents Medicaid gets cut and suddenly their reelections are going to are a question mark. If it happens that people have that awakening when the rent doubles or they can't afford insulin and they start calling their members of the House. Now we're going to end up having to try to clean up this mess while Trump's donors offshore their profits and the base blames wokeness for 30% mortgage rates. I'm exaggerating. The only silver lining here, and this is accelerationist and it's not something I subscribe to really. But if there is any silver lining, it's that if it gets as bad as it might, maybe then Americans will care and they'll realize that the people screaming usa, usa. While voting to gut the social safety net that affects you. It's not patriotic, it's pathetic and they deserve to be voted out. So maybe, if there's any good to find here, and this is hypothetical, this is speculative, it's that maybe everybody will understand that this authoritarianism isn't about tanks in the street, although Trump wants that for his birthday. It's about institutional decay and economic pain and media silence and a population that's become numbed such that they don't react until it's too late. I hope a lot of this doesn't come to pass, but it will really depend on the Senate and we're going to talk about that after the break. If you or someone you love is on Medicare, this is important. The Department of Justice filed a major fraud complaint against three of the biggest Medicare brokers in the country. These brokers pretended to offer unbiased advice while secretly steering seniors into plans that paid them the greatest kickbacks. This is why I recommend chapter. After seeing their own families get scammed.
- [15:05]
Peter Alexander
They created a better way.
- [15:07]
David Pakman
CHAPTER is fully independent and the only national Medicare adviser that searches every plan available to find the one that actually fits your needs. They advocate for you, not the insurance companies. No steering, no pressure, no just expert help. Completely free. Chapter has saved the average senior over $1,000 a year and they are a free resource for my audience. So if you want help with Medicare, give Chapter a call by dialing £250 and saying the keyword Medicare. You'll talk to a real person who will help you figure out exactly which plan is right for you. Or go to ask chapter.org plan pacman. All you have to do is dial pound 250 and then say Medicare. Or you can go to ask chapter.org/pacman. The info is in the podcast Notes. The David Pakman show continues to be an audience supported program being funded primarily by you. To get the full David Pakman show experience with the daily bonus show, the commercial free audio feed, the commercial free video feed, the members only soundboard, and invites to members only town hall events, sign up@join pacman.com all right. Donald Trump's one big beautiful bill is about to hit a brick wall, and it's not going to be from Democrats. It's going to be from Republicans in the Senate. We are realistically expecting that some version of this bill is going to pass. Republicans control everything, after all. But in its current form, the form in which Republicans in the House of Representatives yesterday were, or this morning rather, were chanting usa, usa. USA for cutting Medicaid and kicking people off of food stamps and tax cuts for the rich. All the stuff that Republicans were cheering for in the House. It is going to hit a brick wall in the Senate and it's going to have to be changed significantly. They've been cheerleading this Frankenstein of tax cuts and Medicaid slashes and culture war crumbs on Trump's legislative centerpiece. Now, for several weeks, Speaker MAGA Mike Johnson, ever the Trump loyalist, tried jamming it all through in a massive package. Senate Republicans said we're not going to pass it in this form, but that's exactly what they did. And what they end up sending to the Senate is a bill that nobody really loves because it contains so many things that at least some Republicans are opposed to. You've got your hardline conservatives who are sort of furious that the bill isn't cruel enough, if you can believe that. We had members of the, I mean, you can even see, by the way, within the House, you had members of the House Freedom Caucus saying, we're not cutting enough Medicaid, we're not cutting enough nutritional assistance. The bill is way lighter than it actually is supposed to be. Sort of like, if we could starve the poor a little more, I would like it much more. You've got moderates who don't like this bill because of the huge increase to the salt cap, salt deduction cap, which disproportionately is something that in the 2017 version of Trump's taxes, it disproportionately hurt blue state liberals who live in blue states with higher or income taxes or higher income taxes. It helps blue state homeowners to raise the salt cap. And there are some Republicans that don't like that. And so you've got aspects of this bill that all sorts of different elements of the Republican Party don't really like. And so MAGA Mike Johnson gets his temporary pseudo victory. But remember that passing something in the House doesn't make it law. It now has to go through the Senate. And it is extraordinarily unlikely, dare I say impossible, that the Senate is going to go for this thing in anything approximating this form. An interesting aspect to this is that on the one hand, you could say, well, Trump is in control of his party because he was able to jam this thing through. I don't know that that's really accurate because they were able to get it through by one vote by putting completely contradictory things into the bill, things that are good for blue states and bad for blue states, things that are arguably more expansive when it comes to benefits and then also more restrictive when it comes to benefits. It's a completely incoherent bill that got amendment after amendment after amendment appended to the end just to secure votes. But it's just not going to work in the Senate. And that could be a disaster for Donald Trump. I want to kind of think Back to in 2017, when Republicans, after so many promises from Trump in 2015, 2016 to replace Obamacare with something beautiful, came up with a plan that would have kicked off 24 million to 32 million people from health care over the following decades. And ultimately Republicans realized in doing Trump's bidding, we would just shoot ourselves in the foot. Our constituents will be furious if we actually do this. And they ended up passing Nothing. And remember that we've heard nothing about a health care bill since other than predictions and promises from Trump that it's two weeks away. It never has been. This time around, they will probably pass something because Republicans will eventually fall in line, but it's not going to look much at all like what Republicans passed early this morning. And the question then becomes, does Trump still have a grip on Congress? Because this was going to be Trump's grand return to legislative dominance. Look at what we're going to do. And instead they put something through that has zero chance of passing in the Senate. So Trump's up against a brick wall. Would he rather pass something even if it's barely resembling what he originally wanted? Or is it better in some way to end up passing nothing at all and blaming a few so called rhinos? I don't know. But he is up against a real problem. Let me know what you think is going to be the ultimate result here. Donald Trump suffered a total meltdown and started shouting at the President of South Africa in a completely Kafka esque, dare I say, surreal Oval Office meeting yesterday. This is, I think in some way this is more deranged than Trump's meeting with Zelensky in the Oval Office. Here is Trump believed to be at the insistence of Elon Musk and others close to him. Remember, Elon Musk is South African. Trump pulling the whole there's a white genocide in South Africa thing. It gets really wacky. Let me present this to you.
- [22:18]
Cyril Ramaphosa
Do not go along with government policy. Our government policy is completely, completely against what he was saying, even in the parliament. And they're a small minority party which is allowed to exist in terms of our constitution.
- [22:39]
Donald Trump
But you do allow them to take land.
- [22:42]
Cyril Ramaphosa
No, no, no, no.
- [22:43]
Donald Trump
You do allow them to take land nobody can take. When they take the land, they kill the white farmer. And when they kill the white farmer, nothing happens to them.
- [22:52]
Cyril Ramaphosa
No, nothing happens. There is criminality in our country. People who do get killed, unfortunately through, through criminal activity are not only white people. Majority of them are black people. And we have now the farmers are not black.
- [23:11]
Donald Trump
I don't know that's good or bad, but the farmers are not black. And the people that are being killed in large numbers. And you saw all those grave sites and those are people that loved ones.
- [23:23]
David Pakman
Going, I guess this is completely deranged. I hope people can tell.
- [23:26]
Donald Trump
The Sunday morning they told me to pay respect.
- [23:29]
David Pakman
This is a narcissistic embarrassment.
- [23:31]
Donald Trump
Their loved ones that were killed, their heads chopped off, their. They died violently. And, you know, I mean, we're here to talk about it. And I didn't know we get involved here. But I will say this, that if the news wasn't fake, like NBC, which is fake news, totally one of the worst. Abc, NBC, cbs, horrible. But if they weren't fake news, like this jerk that we have here, we had real report.
- [23:59]
David Pakman
We'll get back to the attacks on who he's talking about, by the way.
- [24:03]
Donald Trump
They'd be covering it. But the fake news in this country doesn't talk about that. They don't want to talk about it. But now they have to talk about it. But they won't. This won't even be a subject they'll have him talking about. Why did a country give a. A free. Think. Think of this. Why did a country give an airplane to the United States Air Force? Okay, The United States. Not to me, to the United.
- [24:28]
David Pakman
Imagine being the South African president Ramaphosa and sitting there going, what the f is this guy talking about?
- [24:34]
Donald Trump
States Air Force so they can help us out because we need an Air Force One. Until our sense of Air Force One. It's being built. Two of them being built. But Boeing's a little bit late, unfortunately. So why did they give us a plane to the United States Air Force? That's what that idiot talks about after viewing a thing where thousands of people are dead.
- [24:55]
Cyril Ramaphosa
I'm sorry, I don't have a plane to give you.
- [24:58]
Donald Trump
I wish you did.
- [24:58]
David Pakman
Okay, we're going to get back to this. I wish you did have a plane to give us, but this is. I've never seen anything like this in my entire time covering American politics. I've never seen a president so deranged and narcissistic and egomaniacal as to bring people into the Oval Office and lecture them about things about which you're wrong, which I'm going to get back to in a moment. Now, white South African Elon Musk's presence in the Oval Office for this meeting is not lost on me. And seemingly Donald Trump also found it relevant to mention the Elon here today.
- [25:35]
Donald Trump
Many friends from South Africa. But many of those friends are. Or they can't go back. I have. Elon is from South Africa. I don't want to get Elon involved. That's all I have to do, get him into another thing. But Elon happens to be from South Africa. This is what Elon wanted. He actually came here on a different subject. Sending rockets to Mars. Okay, he likes that better. He likes that subject better. But Elon is from South Africa. And I. I don't want to talk to him about that.
- [26:05]
David Pakman
No, he doesn't want to get Elon Musk involved. Now, I think it's relevant here for me to tell you I don't have any problem at all with a president speaking frankly and clearly to other world leaders. This. This is not tone policing. This is not political correctness or we need decorum or any of it. The problem is Trump is spitting nonsense. Just a terrible hill to die on. As a president in a public setting, he comes off as condescending with. When he doesn't have the facts right, he comes off as. As just confused when he is just simply misstating just about everything that's going on here. Now, a reporter asked Trump, what will it take for you to be convinced there is no white genocide in South Africa? And Trump just goes, no, I've got a video. Check out this video. This is perplexing.
- [26:56]
Donald Trump
What does it take from you for.
- [26:58]
David Pakman
You to be convinced that there's no white genocide inside South Africa?
- [27:02]
Cyril Ramaphosa
Yeah, well, I can answer that for President.
- [27:08]
Donald Trump
I would rather have him.
- [27:12]
David Pakman
Our president will respond to you.
- [27:14]
Cyril Ramaphosa
Thank you, Mr. President. It will take President Trump listening to the voices of South Africans, some of whom are his good friends, like those who are here. When we have talks between us on the quiet table, it will take President Trump to listen to them. I'm not going to be repeating what I've been saying. I would say if there was Africana farmer genocide, I can bet you these three gentlemen would not be here, including my Minister of Agriculture. He would not be with me. So it will take him.
- [27:52]
Donald Trump
Him.
- [27:53]
Cyril Ramaphosa
President Trump listening to their story.
- [27:55]
David Pakman
Good luck with that. Fat chance to their perspective.
- [27:59]
Cyril Ramaphosa
That is the answer to your question.
- [28:01]
Donald Trump
But, Mr. President, we have. No, no. We have thousands of stories talking.
- [28:09]
David Pakman
Here comes the ambush.
- [28:11]
Donald Trump
We have documentaries, we have news stories. And is Natalie here? Somebody here to turn that? I could show you a couple of things and I would. I just. I have to. It has to be responded to.
- [28:25]
Cyril Ramaphosa
Sure.
- [28:26]
Donald Trump
Let me see the articles, please, if you would. And excuse me. Turn the lights down.
- [28:33]
David Pakman
We've got a presentation down.
- [28:36]
Donald Trump
And just put this on. It's right behind you, Johan.
- [28:40]
Cyril Ramaphosa
This parliament can do with or without you.
- [28:44]
Donald Trump
People are going to.
- [28:45]
David Pakman
At this point, the South African president is completely just perplexed by what is taking place.
- [28:52]
Cyril Ramaphosa
We require no permission from you, from the president, from no one.
- [28:57]
Donald Trump
We don't care. We can do whatever you want to do.
- [29:00]
David Pakman
All right. So they turn the lights down low and they play a video with all sorts of wild allegations being made. And then finally, Donald Trump sort of putting the cherry on top, these white genocide allegations, saying this will be the end of the country of South Africa if it's not resolved.
- [29:18]
Donald Trump
It's got to be resolved. It should be resolved. It's. I mean, it's a little bit bad when you see a stadium with 100,000 people in it, because that means it's more than just a little movement. It's a pretty big movement in South Africa. So it has to be resolved. It'll be the end of the country if it's not potential for the relationship moving forward. I hope so. So that's why I'm here. I mean, I'm not here for my health.
- [29:42]
David Pakman
I mean, it'll be the end of the country if it's not resolved. If there were, you know, we try to boil Trumpism down into its key component parts. The most important currency in Trumpism, I've told you, is loyalty. The most important perspective on the world around you in Trumpism is confidence, even when you're completely clueless. Total and complete confidence bordering on condescension in some cases, clearly condescension even when you don't know what the hell you are talking about. And Trump is really embodying that very well. Now, later in the show, we'll get to the discussion about a free plane between Ramaphosa and Trump. And we'll also get to Trump attacking a journalist in the Oval Office with words he didn't like, try to smother him or anything like that physically with words attacking Peter Alexander.
- [30:42]
Peter Alexander
Did you know that an estimated 5 billion plastic hand soap and cleaning bottles are thrown away every year. Our sponsor, Blue Land, is on a mission to eliminate single use plastic by reinventing cleaning essentials to be better for you and better for the planet, but with the same cleaning power that you're used to. The idea is super simple. Blueland offers refillable cleaning products with a beautiful cohesive design that'll look great on your countertop. You fill your reusable bottles with water, drop in the tablets, wait for them to dissolve, and you'll never again have to grab the bulky cleaning supplies on your grocery run. Refills start at just $2.25. You can set up a subscription or buy in bulk for additional savings. And Blueland products are independently tested to perform alongside major brands. They are free from dyes, bleach and harsh chemicals, from cleaning sprays to hand soap, toilet bowl cleaner, laundry tablets. All Blue Land products are made with clean ingredients. You can Feel good about Blueland is trusted in over 1 million homes, including mine. I've been using the Blueland dish to detergent and the toilet bowl cleaner for a while. Couldn't be happier. And you'll get 15% off your first order at blue land.com/pacman. That's blue e land.com/pacman for 15% off. The link is in the podcast notes.
- [32:15]
David Pakman
It's great to welcome to the program today. Owen Higgins, who's a writer historian based in New England. His new book is Owned How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left. It's so great to have you on. You know, there are so many people in my audience who over the last several years have speculated with me when I take calls, etc. How did we see someone like a Tulsi Gabbard have the apparent political awakening at this stage in her life? It's sort of a similar question that we've seen sometimes asked about someone like a Dave Rubin. How do you end up being 40 something and, and all of a sudden your entire worldview reverses and there's sort of something strange or unexplainable about it. Take us into kind of like the primary thesis in the book Owned as to big picture structurally, how and why we're seeing some of this.
- [33:14]
Owen Higgins
Sure. So I think, I guess I'll start with the book which talks about the influence and the power of tech billionaires who have kind of created this new alternative media ecosystem or have, have if not created it at least certainly funded it quite a bit. They've, they put a lot of money and power into it. And that alternative media ecosystem kind of exists to provide a, an alternative to, to the mainstream media, which they have become critical of mostly in the last 10 to 15 years. And primarily because the mainstream media, especially tech reporting has become popular, critical of Silicon Valley, has become critical of these tech billionaires. So they, in their kind of, you know, usual way of doing things, decided that they wanted to switch things up. They wanted to change how this industry operated and they found an opportunity to do that just by kind of throwing their money around. You have people like Mark Andreessen investing in Substack. This was, you know, one of the, one of the large early investments in this stuff. He also co founded or at least like was it was an early investor in Clubhouse, which was kind of like an early kind of interactive podcasting network. Then you had David Sachs, who's now Trump's crypto czar. He founded or you know, Seed invested Colin, which was kind of a clubhouse clone. You have Peter Thiel investing his money into rumble alongside JD Vance. They led the funding round into that in May 2021. And all this stuff kind of, you know, it funneled a lot of money to alternative media creators. And I don't want to say it was all people on the right. I certainly, you know, I took money from Colin that, that story is in the book. But in order to kind of maintain your access to this money, to maintain your access to this power, you kind of had to tow a certain line. And people like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi, who are the focuses of my book, are certainly two people who did do that quite a bit. I'd say Taibbi maybe more blatantly and sycophantically than Greenwald, but Greenwald as well, kind of, you know, choosing who to criticize, choosing what topics to cover, choosing how to kind of engage in the culture war as these guys have, and also to, you know, who they criticize. I have obviously no problem criticizing Democrats. I probably do it more than I criticize Republicans. But I would say that with Matt and Glenn, they kind of do the same, but it's a more of a partisan thing. They don't criticize Republicans, not because they don't see the point, which is kind of like, for me, I don't really see the point in criticizing people who are my political adversaries. They, they criticize, they, they don't criticize Republicans because they're kind of aligned with them on a lot of issues. Maybe you've seen that with Glenn, now that the Trump administration is in power, while he's maintained some of his ideological criticisms of, you know, Trump on Gaza in the same way that he was critical of Biden in Gaza and, and a couple of other issues overall. I mean, he's kind of, you know, taken a lot of what Trump has said in, and, and in a way that is kind of almost like strange credulity for how gullible he's being. You know, Trump saying offand he's going to cut the Pentagon budget and then Glenn trumpeting on, on Twitter. See, don't you see that's really going to happen? Of course it's not going to happen. He wants the biggest Pentagon budget ever. And then, you know, somebody like Taib, I think is just kind of doing this kind of gutter right wing politics at this point. But I think that, you know what's interesting, I think this is kind of what you're getting at right. Is that these guys have shifted. Like, they used to be aligned with the left, and they used to be. They used to at least have like, criticism for everybody or, you know, it used to be coming from what seemed like a place of principle, and now it's just kind of, you know, partisanship. I would say that somebody. I just, I just do want to add, I would say that somebody like Tulsi Gabbard. If you look into her background, her politics started on the pretty far right. She was a pretty hardcore social conservative. And then, you know, over time, she kind of became more, quote, unquote, liberal as she, as she kind of climbed the ranks of the Democratic Party. And then I think rather opportunistically kind of took the, the Bernie campaign in 2016 as a way to kind of strike out again independently. So I think that with her, I think there is some, you know, a little distinction to make there. But, but she also. Look, August 2021, this is, you know, a few months after J.D. vance and Peter Thiel invest in Rumble and Rumble starts handing out deals. August 2021, you know, Glenn gets his big deal. That's, that's announced, but he's the secondary character, I think, in the Washington Post article about it, because Tulsi Gabbard is the number one. So she's aligned with all these guys as well and has been for some time.
- [38:17]
David Pakman
Is there. I want to get back to like, the tech space and the funding that you talked about, and then maybe we'll get back to the trajectory of some of these individuals. At some point there was sort of the idea that the Silicon Valley tech space leaned left, and I wonder whether that was ever correct or whether social issues were overrepresented in that analysis when maybe there was like a more right, libertarian economic perspective that just wasn't getting the attention maybe it deserved. So starting with the funding and the tech space, has that space shifted or was it just not accurately described originally?
- [38:55]
Owen Higgins
Yes, I mean, it's kind of both. Right. Like, so you have an industry where the people who are in charge, like most industries are rather conservative or at least are kind of more friendly towards the, the, the more pro business policies, I think of, of the Republican Party, or at least, you know, like that that's how they would frame it. But the Democrats are also pretty pro business as well. I mean, like, there's not a lot of daylight between the two parties or there wasn't for a long time, at least as far as Silic went. You know, like the tech industry made billions of dollars off of George Bush and his, you know, so called war on terror. They made billions of dollars under Obama doing the same thing. I would say that the big difference for the Obama years, that Obama really opened the White House to tech in a way that hadn't been done before. And so the tech guys kind of align themselves with this version of, of liberalism and this, this kind of vision of the Democratic Party that was friendly to Silicon Val and the Democratic Party, or at least as it existed under Obama, was, was very happy to do that as well. But I wouldn't, I wouldn't say that, you know, during this time, these guys were all liberal on social issues. I don't really think that they really care about it that much. I think they're very willing to kind of go with the flow on this stuff. You know, you have people like Peter Thiel and people like David Sacks who have been pretty, you know, arch conservatives for a long time. That did not stop them from making lots of money under Obama and from working with Obama's federal government to get contracts. So, but having said all that around, like 2016, 2017, Trump wins. Pretty much all of these guys completely reverse themselves. They're like, oh no, we love Trump. Trump's great. Like, they just spent, you know, like a whole year basically saying publicly and privately that they didn't, you know, didn't care for Trump. And, you know, they're. I think that a lot of this too has to do with the fact that Silicon Valley workforce is rather liberal. Right? Like, like the leaders are not liberal, but the, but the workforce is. Yeah. And so, you know, a lot of these guys were just kind of trying to hit the balance. And once Trump got elected, then they all go to kind of bend the knee. At this, this famous meeting with Trump in December 2024, this is facilitated by Peter Thiel, who was one of Trump's big backers, or, you know, basically his biggest backer in Silicon Valley, his biggest public backer. And after. So, so that happens. I think that's like kind of part of the shift. And then there's. The media has been getting critical of them for some time and they haven't really liked that. They haven't really enjoyed, like the way this social media has made it so that people talk back to them online. Like they don't like that. Right. Like, they don't think that the peasants really have a right to, to. I mean, this is my interpretation. I don't think that they think the peasants really have a right to like, talk back to them. And so these things kind of combine. And then finally there's this final, final piece, which is that the Democratic Party kind of turns against the tech industry. And they do this primarily, I think, because they're casting around, they're trying to figure out, like, how did we lose to Trump? And, you know, especially in those early months, I think, of 2017, the party infrastructure is trying in a lot of ways to find a way to say we lost to Trump that doesn't, like, specifically implicate anything about the party itself. And so one of the things that they do is they just go really hard into blaming social media for radicalizing the American people. I want to be, like, clear here that this is not, like, they're not wrong about that, but they. They went pretty hard on it. And again, you know, I don't think it's. It's bad to go after, like, any industry, especially not one as big as Silicon Valley. I'm just trying to, like, present kind of the context here. And so, you know, over. Over the next few years, once the Democrats regain control of the House, you know, they start holding hearings. This is a very kind of antagonistic, from the point of view of the tech industry situation, and it just kind of pushes these guys to the right even further, where someone like Andreessen in 2019 is now investing in Substack, you know, and he invests in substack. And what happens after that? Substack starts to kind of really promote, like, these more conservative voices. It starts to give a lot of money to a lot of people. But the conservative voices seem to be the ones who get the lion's share promotion and kind of algorithmic favor, at least from the outside. That's certainly what it looks like. So. So all of that happens. And then, of course, you have Covid in 2020, and. And the Black Lives Matter protests. And this is kind of like a radicalizing moment for a lot of people who are kind of soft conservatives. And I think Silicon Valley is a part of that. So if you kind of like, trace. Trace that evolution and then kind of trace their investment at this point, yeah, it kind of follows along that line.
- [43:54]
David Pakman
Was there something. Because you focus in the book and you talk about Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi, was there something about them that made them ripe targets, either about their reach or something about their sensitivities or loyalties or, like, what makes someone more or less susceptible to entering this kind of trajectory that you describe?
- [44:19]
Owen Higgins
Yeah, that's a great question. I think that. And I think that the answer, once again, right, is kind of like, it. It's. It's complicated. So you have someone like Len who, for after. Well, I say Glenn and Matt After 2016, I don't think either of them, like, particularly wanted Trump to win. I think they both wanted Hillary to lose. But I think those are, like, those are different and distinct things, and they should be. They should be understood as different and distinct things. And I think that they're. They. They watched as part of the Democratic establishment's reaction to this was not only to kind of, you know, go after the tech industry, but to kind of like, go all in on Russia. And these guys really pushed back on it. And I was. I was somebody who was writing a lot of pushback on this as well. But I would say that where people like myself and Adam Johnson, you know, to name another person who was doing, like, would, like, strongly differ with, like, Matt and Glenn, is that Matt and Glenn kind of stopped really criticizing the Republicans at all at this point. Like, like, they stopped really. And, you know, Glenn has said a couple times on Twitter, at least around this time, that one of the reasons he stopped doing that was that people, if they wanted to hear criticism of Trump, they could just turn on the mainstream media, which is true. But it doesn't mean that there's not a space for independent media to also criticize Trump because there are things that he was doing and is doing now that aren't, you know, getting maybe sufficient coverage in the mainstream media, for which. Whichever reason, I mean, like, there are. There's. There's also, like, only so many hours in the day. Right. And. And so I think there's a really strong place for independent media to step up and. And to do that. And I think that it's kind of an abdication of responsibility to take that. To take that position. But anyway, so they. They kind of start shifting. Their audience are shifting to the right, whether or not they do. And I think, you know, kind of around. I think this is really a Covid thing, really kind of pushing. I'd say that Matt did have a kind of Me too cancellation moment in 2017, late 2017, and that kind of, I think, kind of soured him on liberals and. And the left in. And with Glenn, I. I think that. I mean, I think there are, again, I think that for both these guys, a lot of complicated and complex reasons, but I think that you had to boil it down to just one thing for Glenn, I think, is that, you know, MSNBC and CNN stopped having him on TV and Fox did have him on tv, and you kind of watch his audience shift to the right. And his politics, at least is the public politics, the stuff that he tweets about, stuff that he writes about, start to shift to the right or at least, like, stop prioritizing certain, like, things that the left would like to cover. Right. So by the time the 2020 rolls around, I think these guys are both prime targets for this funding. But I don't think that they were really, like, plucked. I think that they both. I mean, if you look at the trajectory, they both kind of went independent relative, like, within. Within a year or two of each other, and then they were rewarded. Glenn got this, you know, he. Huge contract with. With Rumble after, you know, making who knows how much money on Substack once he went independent on Substack. I want to be clear, Substack didn't give him money to come on the service, but once he did, he made a lot of money off it.
- [47:42]
David Pakman
Yep.
- [47:42]
Owen Higgins
Matt didn't get money to come on to substack either, or to move all of his stuff on his substack primarily. But he did get plucked out of, you know, any number of. Of journalists to break this Twitter file story because Mark Andreessen recommended that Elon Musk. Oh, no, sorry. David Sachs recommended that. That Elon Musk have. Have him do it. Mark Andreessen recommended Barry Weiss, who's another. Another one of these characters who. For the Twitter files, which then, you know, like, explodes Matt Substack and makes them even more money.
- [48:15]
David Pakman
So I wanted to ask you about Twitter files. It's interesting you mentioned that, because that was going to be my next thing. My recollection. I haven't looked at the numbers recently, but my recollection was that after all the buildup to the initial Twitter files, that first tranche got a fair bit of attention and really helped him grow his independent following, but the subsequent ones did not seem to do so well. And my retrospective memory of the whole thing is that was the entire Twitter files thing was significantly overblown relative to the blockbuster nature that was kind of attributed to it. Question 1. Is my recollection accurate as you see it? And question two, do you have an opinion as to whether Taibi really saw the Twitter file stuff as as much of a bombshell as was promoted or that he saw it as a vehicle for growing his following? Primarily, yeah.
- [49:11]
Owen Higgins
Okay, so I think the. The first one, your recollection is largely correct. I would say that the first tranche of files were about the Hunter Biden laptop Story which Facebook and Twitter made the, in, in my opinion, kind of questionable decision to suppress the New York Post story about it. However, this was kind of a complicated. I mean, it's, It's. Now that we know that the information was legitimate, it's kind of hard to like, go back and remember the situation at the time. But I think it's valuable to do that because even though we know that now, we didn't know that then and it was totally reasonable for any, any number of platforms or media companies to be like, hold on, let's slow down. Like, this seems like a total rat, if I can say that. You know, like, this is a situation where it really seems like a political party is going after another political party or like going after their camp. We don't know where this laptop came from. We don't know the information in it is legitimate. And so we need to take a step back. This was one of the things that, that Glenn didn't like that the intercepted. And this is one of the reasons that he left the Intercept was that they would. They did not want to publish this stuff as fact because the provenance of it was just not clear at this point. And it couldn't be clear with within time to publish, which as a journalist, I think, like, that's, that's an ethical thing. I think that's. That's what you have to do. But the, the tranche of files that he had, like, they were like, they were promoted as explosive, but they weren't. There wasn't really anything in there that like, says anything that I didn't just say. Right. Like, it seemed, it seemed, you know, they may have made a. That wasn't the, the brightest one. And, you know, within 24 hours they reversed it. But that's not really an explosive revelation. And the rest of them just didn't really show that either. It was interesting from my perspective to see like, kind of how Twitter operates, like, or how it operated. The. Interesting to look at that. But that's not a bombshell report. That's just like an interesting piece of news or, you know, something you can put into a book. I'd say the two pieces of news that came out that were interesting is that Lee Fong then of the Intercept had a report out about State Department or something like that, like, like, like these influence campaigns that were. That, that were getting kind of greenlighted by Twitter. And then Barry Weiss in inadvertently revealed that Chaya Raichik, the Lips of Tick Tock lady, had kind of like extra added protections, even under the prior Twitter regime. So, so, so that's a long way of saying yes, you were actually recollection is correct. There wasn't really much to it as far as, like, what Taibi believes. I, I don't know. I mean, I think that part of him believes that it was real because he has to, because that's basically what his career is about now. He certainly, I think that he really thought that he was going to be so explosive, that it was going to be like the NSA stuff with, with Edward Stone. He thought this was going to be his like, blend moment, and it wasn't. And I think that part of his bitterness is, is based in that, that like, people just kind of made fun of it because he promoted this huge thing and it just really wasn't that. Yeah, I, I, but I don't really know, like, beyond that, like, how he feels about it. I will say that just from my perspective, Matt has completely lost the plot at this point.
- [52:38]
David Pakman
That that is as a not as closely following individual of the story as you are. That's the conclusion I've come to. But I do encourage my audience to check out the book to get a much broader and more detailed perspective on what we spoken about here. The book is Owned How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left. And we've been speaking with the book's author, Owen Higgins. Really appreciate your time and your insights today. Thank you.
- [53:06]
Owen Higgins
Thanks so much for having me. Thank you.
- [53:08]
Peter Alexander
So many different VPNs reach out to me wanting to advertise on the show, and I always turn them down because most of them do not pass the sniff test. Most VPNs are all owned by the same big mysterious company. They log your Internet activity so they can sell it or give it to law enforcement. And these VPNs are just out to make a buck without really protecting your privacy. The only VPN I trust enough to have as a sponsor is Private Internet Access. Our sponsor, Private Internet Access, is the only VPN who has proven multiple times in legal proceedings they don't keep logs of your activity. The judge ordered that PIA show user activity history each time they demonstrated. They don't have the records that no log policy is also independently audited by Deloitte. And PIA is also open source, so you can also see in the code that none of your activity is being logged and you can protect unlimited devices with just a single account. Private Internet Access is giving my audience 83% off, which is just 203amonth plus four extra months for free. Go to PIA vpn.com/. David. The link is in the podcast notes.
- [54:32]
David Pakman
All right. Well, this is completely humiliating on an international scale. I want to go back to this very. I mean, is tense even the right word, Comically pathetic. Oval Office meeting yesterday involving South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and Donald Trump. And most of the meeting was a bizarre confrontation over debunked claims of a supposed white genocide happening in South Africa of South Africa's white farmers. This is a far right conspiracy theory that Trump's been parroting, really, since his first term, actually. But the real moment that broke through the noise wasn't so much about race or refugees. It was about a plane. This plane thing simply will not go away. And the big story here is that the plane thing is globally humiliating. Let's play the moment that we saw just the very beginning of earlier in the show when the topic of the plane came up and Ramaphosa says, I'm sorry, I don't have a plane to give you. Check this out.
- [55:37]
Donald Trump
We need an Air Force One until our sets. Air Force One is being built. Two of them being built, but Boeing's a little bit late, unfortunately. So why did they give us a plane to the United States Air Force? That's what that idiot talks about after viewing a thing where thousands of people are dead.
- [55:54]
Cyril Ramaphosa
I'm sorry, I don't have a plane to give you.
- [55:57]
Donald Trump
I wish you did. I would take it. If your country offered the United States Air Force a plane, I would take it.
- [56:04]
Cyril Ramaphosa
Okay. But coming back to this issue issue, which I really would like us to talk about and talk about it very calmly. We were taught by Nelson Mandela, all.
- [56:15]
David Pakman
Right, so they get off the plane. So the unbelievable thing here is that Trump doesn't even pretend to be insulted by, I wish I had a plane to give you. Ramaphosa is clearly pointing out Trump's upset with Ramaphosa. He's giving him the Zelensky treatment in the Oval Office. They're not getting along. It's tense, it's ridiculous. And Ramaphosa goes, I wish I had a plane to give you, sort of pointing out that Trump's currency is loyalty, and he wants gifts and he wants people supplicating, and if he had a plane, that that would be apparently something that would make Trump treat him better. And Trump goes, yeah, I wish you. I wish you did have a plane. Trump replies, I would take the plane from you. So let that sink in, because this is significant and it's really not getting the attention it deserves. The sitting President of the United States is not joking, and he's not deflecting. And he admits, I would accept a luxury plane from another foreign leader. He's already accepted one. Why wouldn't he accept another? And it's not just that he would accept it. He wishes that he could get a plane from South Africa. This isn't just cringe. This is globally humiliating. Imagine watching this from the UK Or France or wherever and realizing, if you didn't already know it, that the American President treats the presidency and alliances like a bidding war. If your nation can scrape together a Gulf stream and slap a bow on it, or if you can put, you know, get a 7, a 747 painted the same orange color as Trump's makeup and fly it over to the United States as a gift, you can buy good favor from Trump. This is not about exchanging the plane for specific policy, even. It's just, we would be getting along better if you had given me a plane rather than come here and tell me that my conspiracy theories are wrong. So he's saying the quiet part out loud, in a sense. And the subtext, if you want something from Trump, bring him a bribe, is red alert flashing here, okay, I wish you could afford to buy better treatment from me. And the irony is that Trump told the truth for once. He would take the plane and it would help their relationship. And it's kind of the most honest thing that Trump has said in weeks. This, by the way, also exposes the deeper rot underneath Trump's second term, because it's not just policies and it's not just the authoritarian power grabs. There's a complete and total lack of shame here. That is remarkable. There's not even an effort being made to pretend that he's not corrupt anymore. And Ramaphosa's jab about the plane wasn't just a personal burn. It was really a diplomatic warning to the world. This is what the American presidency has become. Bring gifts, or you might not even want to bother showing up, because truth and dignity and democratic values are not what is going to get you in the door. And then, meanwhile, maybe the most dystopian moment of the entire thing. Trump attacking a journalist. And I want to talk about that next. In a completely chaotic moment, during Donald Trump's failed meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphoso, Trump explodes at reporter Peter Alexander and threatens to have him investigated. After he asks Trump about the reports that he's keeping the damn $400 million 7:47 from Qatar, arguably one of the most insane moments of Trump's second term so far. Take a look at this. Okay, Mr. President, the Pentagon announced it would be accepting a Qatari jet to be used as Air Force One.
- [60:01]
Donald Trump
What are you talking about? You know, you ought to get out of here. What does this have to do with the Qatari jet? They're giving the United States Air Force a jet. Okay. And it's a great thing. We're talking about a lot of other things. It's NBC trying to get off the subject of what you just saw. You are a real. You know, you're a terrible reporter, number one.
- [60:25]
David Pakman
You.
- [60:26]
Donald Trump
You don't have what it takes to be a reporter. You're not smart enough. But for you to go into a subject about a jet that was given to the United States Air Force, which is a very nice thing, they also gave $5.1 trillion worth of investment.
- [60:40]
David Pakman
Remember that? That's a lie.
- [60:41]
Donald Trump
In addition to the jet. Go back. You ought to go back to your studio at NBC because Brian Roberts and the people that run that place, they ought to be investigated. They are so terrible, the way you run that network. And you're a disgrace place. No more questions from you. Go ahead.
- [61:01]
David Pakman
Trump cannot control himself. He just can't. He is an authoritarian through and through. He wants to be dictator. He wants to determine what questions he's asked and when he's asked them. And. And he's the one who determines what counts as valid journalism. And by the way, what counts as valid journalism is questions like, can you tell me all the ways in which you're so much better than every Democratic president? That. That's like a. That's the sort of question that Trump wants to be asked. In this same meeting, a reporter asks Trump, can you explain why you're allowing white Afrikaners here when other refugees have had all of their protected status revoked? And Trump goes, this is fake News.
- [61:48]
Donald Trump
Any questions?
- [61:48]
David Pakman
Mr. President, white Africana refugees here, can you explain to me this is the same reporter. I should be clear. It's Peter Alexander, Americans, why it's appropriate.
- [61:57]
Donald Trump
To welcome Africana is here when other.
- [62:00]
David Pakman
Refugees, like Afghans, Venezuelans, Haitians have all had their protective status revoked.
- [62:08]
Donald Trump
Well, this is a group, NBC, that is truly fake news. They ask a lot of questions in a very pointed way. They're not questions as they mess.
- [62:18]
David Pakman
And of course, pointed questions are questions. They might be questions you don't like. You could take issue with the framing. You could take issue with what's what the premises of the question are. But journalism involves answering pointed questions and Trump just doesn't like it. You know, what's interesting to see here is that Trump truly, you see the real Trump in these moments. He doesn't like what the South African president is saying to him. Having the audacity to say what you're telling me about white genocide is not true. He doesn't like the questions that he's been asked. And he becomes this dark, dystopian authoritarian that you just know is on the verge of cracking and exploding. And he did saying we got to investigate this NBC News thing. This is the real Trump, an angry, of course, self centered and narcissistic guy, but he's an angry, dark person and you really see it come through in these situations. What a humiliating event for the United States and for anyone watching. Really just so embarrassing. On the bonus show today, we will talk about Jake Tapper's controversial book about the alleged cover up of the decline of Joe Biden. Jake Tapper doing some interesting interviews over the last few days that I want to discuss and go over with you. We are now seeing yet another major retailer. Last week it was Walmart. This week it's Target saying we are issuing a warning about what's happening economically and what to expect from 2025. Retail is a very interesting sector in terms of what it tells us about the broader economy. And finally, Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister says that they are Canada is in talks to join the golden Dome defense system proposed by Donald Trump. All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. I would love for you to get the bonus show. You can do it instantly by signing up@join pacman.com this goes directly to support independent media. You know, if you don't like this show, support a different one. But we should be supporting the shows we value and like because we are up against it both when it comes to this administration and corporate media dollars. So I would love for you to become a member of the David Pakman Show. If there's other progressive independent shows you like more. Well, subscribe to those if they have such a mechanism. But we do need to build the ecosystem and direct support I think is the best way to do it. We'll see you on the bonus show. I'll be back here tomorrow with a brand new program.