6/26/25: Trump’s meltdowns get worse as new left movement rises

Summary

The David Pakman Show – Episode: "Trump’s Meltdowns Get Worse as New Left Movement Rises"
Release Date: June 26, 2025

---

Introduction

In this compelling episode of The David Pakman Show, host David Pakman delves deep into the evolving dynamics within the American political landscape. The central theme revolves around the increasing instability of former President Donald Trump juxtaposed with the emergence of a new political order on the American left. Pakman explores whether recent political victories signify isolated incidents or the dawn of a transformative movement reshaping the Democratic Party and broader progressive politics.

---

The Rise of a New Left Movement

Key Points:

• Emergence of Progressive Candidates: Pakman discusses notable primary victories such as Zohran Mamdani in New York City, a Democratic socialist who refused corporate donations, and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), who similarly overcame established Democratic figures.
• Disillusionment with the Democratic Establishment: There's growing skepticism among younger voters towards the traditional Democratic Party, seen as too centrist and compromised by corporate interests. This sentiment is encapsulated in the failures of candidates like Kamala Harris, whose campaigns relied heavily on fear-based messaging rather than visionary policies.
• Grassroots Demand for Change: The new movement is pushing for a complete break from the donor-driven political system, advocating for candidates who prioritize structural changes over mere policy tweaks.

Notable Quotes:

• David Pakman (07:45): “The grassroots isn't just asking for better, better Democrats. It really wants a clean break from the donor class political ecosystem.”
• Rutger Bregman (36:35): “Technological advancements present an enormous opportunity to totally reimagine the role of work in our life.”

Analysis: Pakman emphasizes that the national Democratic Party remains largely under the control of centrist strategists and donor-backed moderates. However, on the ground, especially among Gen Z voters, there's a palpable demand for leaders who are willing to challenge the status quo and introduce more radical, systemic changes.

---

Donald Trump’s Increasing Instability

Key Points:

• Public Meltdowns: The episode highlights a recent incident where Trump exhibited signs of emotional instability during a press conference in the Netherlands, struggling to respond coherently to questions about Spain's economic policies.
• Propaganda and Media Manipulation: Trump’s interactions with media personnel, particularly his criticism of reporters and demands for favorable coverage, mirror tactics seen in authoritarian regimes. His erratic behavior on platforms like Truth Social is cited as a dangerous trend, with potential implications for democracy.
• Enforcement of Unlawful Directives: A whistleblower complaint revealed that Emile Beauvais, Trump’s nominee for a federal judgeship, instructed DOJ lawyers to ignore court orders, signaling a blatant disregard for the rule of law.

Notable Quotes:

• Donald Trump (17:33): “If you pitch this as fiction, studio executives would go, it’s too on. It’s just not believable enough.”
• David Pakman (60:59): “Trump tagging in Pete Hegseth to just say, you’re all so terrible to this guy. Why can’t you just talk about how awesome he is?”

Analysis: Pakman draws parallels between Trump’s recent actions and behaviors typical of authoritarian leaders, stressing the perilous implications of having an unstable figurehold the highest office in the United States. The lack of media accountability and the complicity of certain Republican figures in sanitizing Trump's rhetoric exacerbate concerns about the erosion of democratic norms.

---

The Intersection of Progressive Movements and Internal Conflicts

Key Points:

• Internal Struggles within the Progressives: Despite the victories of figures like AOC, there is internal contention as some progressive supporters accuse their own leaders of compromising their values in the pursuit of legislative success.
• Energy vs. Power: While there is substantial grassroots energy supporting the new left-wing movement, Pakman questions whether this will translate into tangible political power, especially given the entrenched nature of the Democratic establishment in Washington.

Notable Quotes:

• David Pakman (15:57): “There is tremendous energy, but energy is not the same thing as power.”
• Rutger Bregman (46:53): “If someone says, look, what I do is just utter bs, I can go on strike and no one will give a shit, I think we can believe them.”

Analysis: Pakman underscores the critical distinction between grassroots enthusiasm and actual legislative influence. The episode highlights the challenges faced by progressive movements in converting voter dissatisfaction into concrete political victories, especially when internal factions disagree on strategies and compromises.

---

Solutions and the Path Forward

Key Points:

• Cultural Shifts and Moral Ambition: Rutger Bregman, a guest on the show, advocates for a cultural transformation where doing good becomes more fashionable, drawing inspiration from historical movements like the British abolitionists and the Progressive Era.
• Reimagining Work and Capitalism: Bregman discusses the potential for technological advancements, such as AI and automation, to reduce the necessity of long workweeks, envisioning a society where labor is restructured to enhance human fulfillment rather than economic output.

Notable Quotes:

• Rutger Bregman (44:38): “We got to fight for it. And we, yeah, we got to at least start with asking the right questions.”
• David Pakman (40:32): “Is it simply a structural thing where there is no technological advance that will open the door to everybody’s 15-hour workweek?”

Analysis: The conversation pivots to actionable solutions, emphasizing the importance of redefining societal values around work and success. Bregman’s insights suggest that leveraging technological progress to create meaningful employment and reduce work hours could address the widespread disillusionment with current job structures.

---

Authoritarian Tendencies in Media Relations

Key Points:

• Suppressing Press Freedom: Pakman critiques Trump's attempts to control media narratives, likening his demands for favorable reporting to tactics employed by authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent and manipulate public perception.
• Media Complicity: The episode highlights the reluctance of mainstream media to adequately address or challenge Trump’s destabilizing behavior, often portraying his actions as strategic leadership rather than signs of instability.

Notable Quotes:

• David Pakman (58:45): “There's nothing more beta, than saying, this is what I need you to write about. That's pathetic.”
• Donald Trump (62:06): “President Trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history.”

Analysis: Pakman underscores the dangerous synergy between Trump's unpredictability and the media’s failure to hold him accountable. By framing Trump’s erratic actions as effective leadership, the media inadvertently strengthens authoritarian impulses, undermining democratic accountability.

---

Conclusion

In this thought-provoking episode, David Pakman navigates the turbulent waters of contemporary American politics, juxtaposing the growing instability of Donald Trump with the nascent rise of a more radical left movement. Through insightful analysis and expert interviews, Pakman highlights the critical junctures at which the Democratic Party and progressive movements stand, urging for a reimagined political and economic framework that aligns with the values and aspirations of the younger, more progressive electorate. The episode serves as both a warning and a call to action, emphasizing the need for strategic cultural and structural changes to foster a more equitable and sustainable political landscape.

---

Notable Moments with Timestamps:

• 07:45 – Discussion on grassroots movements demanding a break from the Democratic establishment.
• 17:33 – Analysis of Trump’s destabilizing behavior during the Netherlands press conference.
• 36:35 – Rutger Bregman on reimagining work and societal values.
• 46:53 – Bregman elaborates on the prevalence of "bullshit jobs."
• 58:45 – Critique of Trump’s demands for media compliance and favorable reporting.

---

This summary encapsulates the essence of the June 26, 2025 episode of The David Pakman Show, providing listeners with a comprehensive overview of the critical discussions and insights shared during the broadcast.

Transcript

[David Pakman]

Welcome to the show. I'm back from Washington, D.C. almost didn't make it back. You know, five minutes of thunderstorms near DCA set off an unlikely but disastrous series of creeping delays. And it was a close one. It, it was a close one. But I did fortunately make it back for the show. I've been asking myself, and I want to ask you and bring you into this conversation, are we witnessing right now the rise of a new political order on the American left wing? Is this happening? I'm going to give you the bullet points, I'm going to give you my analysis, and then I want to hear from you. We saw in New York City, Zohran Mamdani, an open Democratic socialist, refuses corporate money. Defeat in the Democratic primary. Elements of the Democratic machine that include, of course, former Governor Andrew Cuomo. It was a pretty convincing defeat. And this is arguably the same movement that gave us Congresswoman Alexandria Cassio Cortez, who similarly one a stunning upset Democratic primary in her district at the very start of her involvement in American politics. This is the same movement, to a degree that backed Bernie Sanders for president multiple times when the Democratic establishment attempted to shut him down. And this is a movement that is now loudly saying, as I hear it, we do not trust the old Democratic Party to stop Donald Trump. So the natural question right now, almost July 2025, is are these some isolated victories or is this actually the beginning of a new political order on the American left? Now, the answer to a degree, depends on what you want to see. I know that my audience is not totally united on this, but if you step back and look at the national Democratic Party, mostly still run by what we would call centrist lifers, consultant, class strategists, donor backed moderates, a growing number of left wing voices, including, I know many in my audience are done with that. And if you look at just the comment sections for my interviews with any elected senator, it is palpable that there is a contempt among some in my audience, no matter what they say. Very mixed reaction. I mean, just yesterday interviewed Cory Booker. We posted a clip. I think Cory Booker said some excellent things. If you just analyze what he said and the comments are riddled with people who are just furious. How dare I even interview him? And what about this thing he did? What about that thing he did? When I think if we zoom out, Cory Booker is among Democratic senators, one of the better allies that we have. And talking to him both on camera yesterday and behind the scenes only reinforced that. So if we look at this new political order, it of course blames Trump's return on the people that voted for Trump on maga, but it also blames Trump's return on Democrats who stood for very little. Part of my analysis of why Kamala Harris lost Democrats that ran on fear and fundraising emails without really offering a vision that goes beyond what we aren't Trump. Where Trump's terrible, we're not Trump matches the criticism that I've had. But now we are seeing that rejection of establishment Democrats really show up at the ballot box. So we suck hand that it's like Mamdani in New York City. It used to be fringe not to take corporate PAC money. Now it's almost a requirement if you want credibility with these younger left wing voters. And more and more, the grassroots isn't just asking for better, better Democrats. It really wants a clean break from the donor class political ecosystem. And they might be right, because when you talk to Gen Z voters and many of them don't even see the Democratic Party as the opposition anymore, Trump's in office, the far right is in charge. Young voters feel like Democrats have already surrendered on so many issues. You look at climate or housing, labor. It's a very long list. So into that very vacuum of leadership steps a new kind of leader. People like aoc, Bernie Mamdani, people who don't just say vote blue, but who say, hey, the Democratic Party needs to be rebuilt. Now, there's an acceleration aspect to that that is not exactly my politics, but it doesn't matter. I, I'm secondary here. I'm just analyzing what we are seeing. I only get one vote. There's a generational line that is sort of hardening here. The party of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries is still dominating in Washington, D.C. and boy, do they, do they dominate. I mean, that's one of the things that was very front and center when I was there yesterday. But you look on the ground in districts and in cities and around the country and it's a very different story. You see voters under 35, it's not just that they're more progressive, that, that's, there's an aspect of that, but it's more so that they are more skeptical of the institutions that goddess the modern Democratic Party. They're more willing to call out corporate capture. They're more open to structural change that starts to border on accelerationism. So this is not just a messaging issue. In some of my conversations with elected officials that will be playing over the next few days that I recorded yesterday in D.C. you'll see that there is a focus on politics policy and there's a focus on messaging, but it's not even really that we are increasingly facing a worldview gap. And that may be a greater dividing line in this new political order of the left. Now, I also want to do sort of like a reality check about where we are. Zoran Mamdani won a primary. Okay, we'll see what happens in November. It was a primary. Often the primary is a proxy to the general in a lot of these elections. But we have to wait and see what happens in November to get say, ok, was this actually an instance of vignette in this new political order? Aoc, for all her star power and how I think she's developed into a far more pragmatic and effective member of Congress. She is still a member of Congress with limited legislative wins. And, and this is the part that gets tough. Much of. Let me take that back. Some of this new left that brought her to victory at the beginning of her political career is now angry with aoc. To some, AOC has sold out now because she is more cognizant of how you get power and how politics in Washington works. So we'll see what is next for her. Bernie never became president. He's made it clear he's not running again. He's near the end of his career. So the point here is there's a lot of energy. There is clearly a desire for this new left political order. Energy is not the same thing as power. Yet we will see whether the energy translates to power now. Still, if the Democratic establishment keeps offering nothing except Trump sucks, and if Trump keeps getting worse, which he almost certainly will, this new movement might not just be the future of the left, it might be the only thing that's left. If the establishment Democratic Party just keeps running on Trump's bad, which doesn't really seem to be that great of an idea for winning elections. For years, the progressive left have. Has lifted, lived in a sort of state of suspended animation. Maybe a lot of ideas, but nowhere really to go. We now see a different playbook. Build power locally, win primaries, reshape the bench. It's not glamorous to the same degree, but it is how a lot of historically successful movements have started. So we're going to see if it grows or whether the establishment is able to crush it. Sometimes insurgencies that challenge power do get crushed by the establishment. So we will wait and see. But this may be the rise of a new political order on the left. I want to hear from you about it let me walk you through something that should set off every alarm bell in your head. Emile Beauvais, Donald Trump's former former acting assistant Attorney general and now a handpicked nominee for a lifetime seat on the federal bench, was just exposed in a whistleblower complaint for ordering DOJ lawyers to break the law. This is not novel interpretation of the law. This isn't bending it. This isn't skirting it. This is breaking the law. This was not some vague political directive or a poorly worded email. According to a 27 page sworn whistleblower statement, Beauvais explicitly told DOJ attorneys, Ignore federal court orders, deport people anyway. In other words, if the court tells you to stop, do it anyway. The planes take off no matter what. This was, by the way, yesterday. When we did our interview with Cory Booker yesterday, it was minutes after he came off of the hearing floor where he was questioning Beauvais about exactly this. This was happening in real time. So let allow to sink in what this is a Justice Department official saying to lawyers, you all should say f the courts and do whatever Donald Trump wants. That's not tough immigration policy. It's not strong leadership, it's criminal conduct. Now, here's where it gets even worse, because you would think, well, if it's illegal, surely there are consequences, right? But this is Trump's America. Illegal is a suggestion, illegal is an idea. Illegal is a theoretical concept. Unless someone enforces the law, you know, indictment, whatever, these are just headlines. At the end of the day, a guy tells staff to violate a court order and what happens? Nothing. A few senators maybe will grow a spine and we'll see something, but nothing. This guy might even get a promotion for it. And the dirty secret about power that we've learned really quickly over the last few months is that if there's no real enforcement, then illegal is a theoretical concept of no substantive value. It's like speeding in a town where there's no cops. I see the speed limit. I went at twice the speed. There's no police, there's no red speeding cameras. Technically, it's against the law, but how are you going to enforce it? What does it mean? It's against the law if there's no enforcement mechanism. And what we've seen under Donald Trump is that they're building a government around. There's no enforcement mechanism to stop us. Now, if we talk about Emil Beauvais a little bit, this is the guy who recently showed up in court asking to dismiss Eric Adams corruption case New York City Mayor Eric Adams not Because Adams is innocent, but because Trump wants political favors. Straight up quid pro quo. And this is the sort of thing that used to happen behind closed doors. It now can happen in broad daylight, because why not, right? What's the consequence? When DOJ attorney Erez Rouveni tried to tell the truth in court, he was told to lie and to go back and change the filing to commit perjury. And when he refused, they fired him. Because, again, in this world, the truth gets you punished, lying gets you promoted. And now that guy, Emil Beauvais, is up for a lifetime seat on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. He said, ignore the judiciary. He wants to be the judiciary. If you pitch this as fiction, studio executives would go, it's too on the. It's just not believable enough. And if you want to talk about irony, the very courts that Beauvais wanted to ignore, those are the courts that he might soon command. It's sort of like hiring an arsonist to run the fire department. It's sort of like putting someone in charge of a government agency that they don't think should exist. Which, by the way, is exactly what Donald Trump does. Let's not kid ourselves. If the Senate signs off on this, if Republicans nod and smile and do their advice and consent, and they're not going to do anything about it, they really aren't just complicit, they're coconspirators. And the truth is that Beauvais is the blueprint, not an outlier. Trump surrounds himself with people who hate the agencies that they are meant to lead. And now this is what we are up against. If you are the kind of Republican senator, as many are who say that they respect the Constitution, here's your moment, right? If you confirm a guy who told DOJ lawyers defy court orders, you're saying the Constitution is optional and that Law and Order was just a campaign slogan, which, of course, we know that that's all it was. We've seen what happens when people like Judge Eileen Cannon get lifetime appointments. It's real damage. It's generational damage. And if you give someone, like, a meal, Beauvais, a robe and a gavel, you're institutionalizing corruption. So this is the part where I say we're going to stay on the story because we're going to. At the same time, what can be done? What can be done? That's what we need to figure out. Make sure you're subscribed to the YouTube channel. We're going to take a quick break. We've got a great program today. Are you feeling stuck in your job? Many people are. And true career growth does require some strategic thinking, and that's where Strawberry.me comes in. Our sponsor, Strawberry Me, is a platform that will connect you with certified personal coaches specializing in career growth. If you're planning your next move, Transitioning fields if you want to lead more effectively, they can help. This is not therapy. This is not bogus generic advice. These are certified, trained professionals who work with you to create a personalized plan that aligns with your goals and your values. You can clarify your challenges, build a strategy, and maybe most importantly, they'll hold you accountable every step of the way. So if you're ready for the next step, visit strawberry.me/pacman. There's a short quiz in It'll match you with the right coach. Sessions are virtual, flexible and also designed to work with your schedule. So stop guessing and start growing. Go to strawberry.me/pacman to get started that strawberry.me/pacman the link is in the podcast Notes. You know, for weeks now, discussions have focused on Trump's big, beautiful bill and its potential Medicaid cuts. However, a far more dangerous overlooked provision in the bill exists. At Ground News Slash Pacman, you'll discover what MAGA lawmakers quietly included a provision that could block federal judges from enforcing court orders unless a bond is posted, and if this passes, it could render Trump above the law. This is a critical detail. It's largely unknown and it really exemplifies this flood the zone strategy of the Trump administration. Now this is why Ground News is essential, and it really is the best way to uncover buried information by showing you not just the story, but its origins across the political spectrum. You can see bias ratings, credibility scores, coverage timelines, and their browser extension also will flag potential bias when you're on a news site, sort of guiding you to more reliable sources for fact checking. Ground News gives you a smarter and more reliable way to stay informed, and I'm partnering with them to give you 40% off their unlimited vantage plan, which makes it just $5 a month. Visit Ground News Slash Pacman Scan the QR code or use the code Pacman in the app to start the link is in the description the David Pakman show is an audience supported program. I invite you to join the ranks of membership signing up@join pacman.com Very much appreciate everyone who is newly supporting the show and folks who have been supporting for more than a decade. In some cases you can use the coupon code. It will end soon this reign of terror, of Trumpism, will end soon. That's the coupon code. It will end soon. You can use that@join pacman.com when you sign up. Donald Trump at Naito, hunched over, confused, dejected, and all of a sudden turning his attention to Spain, saying, it's terrible what Spain has done. Do not adjust your screen. Do not be confused. This really is Donald Trump disoriented and diminished. No idea what's going on. Trying to make heads or tails out of it. Let's take a look at some of the statements that this is the President of the United States at Naito. Such an important place, and this is the nonsense that is coming out of his mouth. Listen to this.

[Donald Trump]

A question on Spain.

[David Pakman]

Are you satisfied with today?

[Pete Hegseth]

Oh, I think Spain's terrible, what they've done. No, I do. They're the only country that won't pay the full up. They want to stay at 2%. I think it's terrible. And, you know, they're doing very well. The economy is very well. And that economy could be blown right out of the water with something bad happening. Spain is the only country that. Are you from Spain?

[Donald Trump]

Yeah.

[Pete Hegseth]

Good. Congratulations. You're the only country that is not paying. I don't know what the problem is. I think it's too bad.

[David Pakman]

This is 10% funny. Like, listen, I get it. Are you from Spain? Oh, that's too bad. Like, I have a sense of humor. And this is Trump being unintentionally funny. There is something funny about it, but 90% of it is Trump thought at one point Spain was part of brics. Trump, I would be shocked if he knows a damn thing about Spain, like much of the things and countries that he talks about. And this is what happens when the president just doesn't know anything. And this is seen as a virtue. Not knowing anything has been molded and repackaged and squeezed into the container called I'm an outsider. Trump's ignorance has been reframed as an asset. This guy is not a political insider. And it got even worse with people in the crowd sort of snickering as another question about Spain came up. And Trump just hunched over and stumbling through non, non answers that are just rambling. And people in the crowd realize, damn, none of this makes any sense. I wanted to know if you're where from? Spain. I wanted to know if you want to.

[Pete Hegseth]

That's the Spain corner right there. Shouldn't have said that. That's okay. I do like Spain, by the way. I think it's unfair that they're not bank, but go ahead.

[David Pakman]

Are you going to negotiate directly with the Spain about?

[Pete Hegseth]

I'm going to negotiate directly with Spain. I'm going to do it myself. They're going to pay. They'll pay more money this way. You should tell them to go back and pay. You're a reporter. Tell them to go back. They ought to join all of those countries that are paying 5%. Spain's going to be just about the only one that's not. They were the most hostile toward. Toward doing it. It just doesn't make sense to me. Okay.

[David Pakman]

So again, this. There is so much about politics that is what is the story that you can sell? And we see this and we go, oh, my goodness, he's arguing with reporters. He's being rude to people. He's dismissive. He has this condescending, I know more about everything than you attitude. This is an embarrassment. This is not diplomacy. That's the view of many of us. And I'm there with you. Like 10% of it is funny. His attitude is sort of funny. But globally humiliating, of course, to Maga. They love this shit. You. We really have to understand that one of the things we on the left sometimes fall for is we see something so pathetic and embarrassing and we assume everybody's going to see it the way we do, and everybody's going to react the way we do and they're going to realize this is terrible to have a president who behaves like this. If you look on Twitter, you look at the comments to some of these things, people go, damn right. Look at Trump finally standing up for the United States. He's not the president of Spain. He's saying, Spain's got to pay. We love it. This is strong, Trump. This is what we voted for. This is fantastic. It's a completely different perspective. And so we have to remember just showing them the stuff isn't enough to get them over to our side. In terms of worldview, now the question came up of what happened to ending the Russia, Ukraine war in 24 hours. Trump hates this damn question. He first said he would end it within 24 hours of becoming president elect, then 24 hours of getting inaugurated. Then within 100 days, it's all come and gone. And Trump's answer is, it's harder than people know, which really means it's harder than Trump knows. We all knew the promises made no sense.

[Pete Hegseth]

Go ahead. Right in the back. Yeah. View tall one. The tall man. Mr. President Johannes Petra from Austrian national television.

[David Pakman]

He once said that you would end the Ukraine war. In 24 hours. You later said. You said that sarcastically.

[Pete Hegseth]

Of course it was sarcastic.

[David Pakman]

But you've now been in office. Now it's sarcastic five months and five days. Why have you not been able to end the Ukraine war?

[Pete Hegseth]

Because it's more difficult than people would have any idea. Vladimir Putin has been more difficult. Frankly, I had some problems with Zelinsky, you may have read about him, and it's been more difficult than other wars. I mean, look, we just ended a war in 12 days. That was simmering for 30 years.

[David Pakman]

Frankly, he ended a war in 12 days. That's the new view. So, listen, his explanation is it was. It's just really difficult to end the Russia, Ukraine war. What about mentioning that before? Before, no. Then it was time for the sarcasm that he would end it in 24 hours. And this is what always happens. Who could have known health care could be so difficult? That's what we heard in 2017 when Trump abandoned his plan, which would have cut health care from 24 to 32 million people. It just. It's tough. People don't know that it's tough. We've all been saying it's tough. We've all been saying the predictions make no sense. And then finally, really wacky moment. Trump tags in Pete Hegseth during this presentation so Hegseth can rail against the media.

[Pete Hegseth]

And so people like you picked up and said, oh, it's not severe. We're just. The report was not a complete report. Yeah. The message was probably. Wait till you know the answer before you answer.

[Ted Cruz]

Did you not have a public opponent to your Zelensky meeting for a tactical reason with President.

[Pete Hegseth]

Let him answer this.

[Ted Cruz]

Hello, Mr. Secretary.

[Pete Hegseth]

Yeah.

[Donald Trump]

There's a reason the President calls out fake news for what it is. These pilots, these refuelers, these fighters, these air defenders, the skill and the courage it took to go into enemy territory, flying 36 hours on behalf of the American people in the world to take out a nuclear program is beyond what anyone in this audience can fathom. And then the instinct, the instinct of cnn, the instinct of the New York Times is to try to find a way to spin it for their own political reasons to try to hurt President Trump or our country. They don't care what the troops think. They don't care what the world thinks. They want to spin it, to try to make him look bad based on a leak. Of course, we've all seen plenty of leakers. And what do leakers do? They have agendas. And what do they do? Do they share the whole information or just the part that they want to introduce and when they introduce that preliminary, a preliminary report that's deemed to be low, a low assessment. You know what a low assessment means? Low confidence.

[David Pakman]

Get, get, get, get that, get this guy out of here. Trump tagging in Pete Hegseth to just say, you're all so terrible to this guy. Why can't you just talk about how awesome he is? Put this, put a pin in this. Because we're going to get back to Pete Hegseth demanding with a straight face that the media produce pro Trump propaganda the likes of which would make North Korean news anchors blush about how outrageous and suck up it is. So we're going to get back to that. Trump at Naito did not go well. This led to an all night meltdown. Here's the reality. Donald Trump melted down in real time on Truth Social overnight. Truth Central on that one. And corporate media just doesn't notice. We have an unwell person that we are dealing with here and we are watching him unravel in real time. Over the course of just a few hours, Trump posted a series of completely unhinged rants to his social media platform. Each one of these is more detached than the last. These are the posts of someone deep in a spiral, completely unable to regulate himself, emotionally unable to stop, but still in possession of the most important office in the country, still with access to the nuclear codes. Take a look at this and just imagine if Joe Biden did 2% of this Trump posting. Quote, Secretary of Defense War Pete Hegseth together with military representatives will be holding a major news conference tomorrow morning at 8am Eastern at the Pentagon in order to fight for the dignity of our great American pilots. These patriots were very upset. After 36 hours of dangerously flying through enemy territory, they landed. They knew the success was legendary. And then two days later they started reading fake news by CNN and the failing New York Times. They felt terribly, fortunately for them, as usual, solely for the purpose of demeaning President Donald J. Trump. The Fake News Times and CNN lied and totally misrepresented the facts, none of which they had because it was too soon. There were no facts out there yet. The news conference will prove both interesting and irrefutable. Enjoy. We're going to get to that press conference later. But understand two things very important. Number one, during the Bush Iraq years, some in the audience may not have been following politics then or maybe were too young then to follow politics. During the Bush era. They did a version of this, which is if you question any aspect of the mission, you're you're attacking the troops, you're making the troops feel bad. You're not supporting the troops. You're unpatriotic. That's something that was big during the lead up the drums of war, beating up to the Iraq war and then after it started as well. This is back in 2003. They're doing the same thing. And I think there's an irony also, which is we're simultaneously supposed to believe that our troops are the big strong men, Right? And also they feel really bad when they see these articles. They just, they feel bad. You're making them feel bad. So wait a second, are they the tough guys or aren't they? Now, this entire narrative of they feel bad, I think it's completely fabricated by Trump. I think it's plain and simple. That's what it is. But ok, so starting to spiral on truth social then Trump continues. Breaking news. I was shocked to hear that the state of Israel, which has just had one of its greatest moments in history and is strongly led by Bibi Netanyahu, is continuing its ridiculous witch hunt against their great wartime prime minister. Bibi and I just went through hell together. Yet Trump had to take a break from golfing to launch the bombing. Bibi and I just went through hell together fighting a very tough and brilliant longtime enemy of Israel, Iran. And Bibi could not have been better, sharper or stronger in his love for the incredible Holy Land. Anyone else would have suffered losses. Blah, blah, blah. Trump then gets to I just learned Bibi has been summoned to court for the continuation of his long running. He's been going through it since 2020. Unheard of. First time an Israeli prime minister has been on trial. Sitting prime minister, politically motivated case. Blah, blah, blah. He wants it canceled immediately, says Trump. Cancel the case against Bibi Netanyahu. Put aside anything you feel about Bibi Netanyahu just for a moment. I don't like the guy. I think there's never going to be peace when Bibi Netanyahu is in charge. Also not when Hamas is in charge. But put that all aside for a second. For Donald Trump to be demanding that the legal system of Israel end a specific case against their prime minister. Just beyond the pale. I mean truly, completely beyond the pale. Trump calls it a travesty of justice. The travesty is Trump posting these messages. Ok, then Trump continuing to just rant and rave is just endless fake news. CNN is so disgusting and incompetent. Some of the dumbest anchors in the business. And then finally Trump posting rumor is that the failing New York Times and Fake News. CNN will be firing the reporters who made up the fake stories on the Iran nuclear sites because they got it so wrong. Let's see what happens. And the media is basically silent about this. Are they, you know, they're either obsessed with whether Joe Biden looked tired when he was videoed getting an ice cream last week or they're pretending that Trump's behavior is normal or even worse. You'll see in a moment. They're pretending that Trump's lashing out on Truth Social is strategic and that it's a form of leadership. This is not normal. This is not strategic. This is deeply dangerous. And people in the media have to do a better job of covering this for what it is. This is not only an obviously unwell man, he has the power to, to sign executive orders and appoint judges and command troops and launch nuclear weapons. And the fact that this is yet another overnight meltdown to me only, only makes it more serious. It's, it seems that this is just 24 7. 247 with Donald Trump. The last message there was at 8 this morning and they, they went overnight. This isn't ending, it's escalating. But Fox News loves it. This, you have to see if you believed as I do, that Donald Trump's early morning and overnight all caps tantrums on Truth Social are signs of a guy who's unraveling and unstable. Maria Bartiromo and Ted Cruz want you to know this is leadership. Trump hitting Truth Social heavily and they say that he is showing leadership on Truth. I don't even know how else to explain it. They describe it as a very busy morning on Truth Social. They should be questioning his stability. They should be questioning his judgment. They should be bringing up the sheer weirdness of all of it from a sitting president. But they call it leadership. Take a listen.

[Ted Cruz]

Today the president had a busy morning on Truth Social posting this Israel is not going to attack Iran. All planes will turn around and head home while doing a friendly plane wave to Iran. Nobody will be hurt. The cease fire is in effect. The president brokering cease fire and peace in the Middle east yesterday. Joining me now is Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Judiciary Committees. Senator, it's great to see you again. Thanks so much for being here this morning. Assess the president's leadership on all of this and what has taken place. How do you see things?

[Jennifer Griffin]

Yeah, well, I think President President Trump's leadership has been extraordinary. It has been clear eyed. He has stood unshakably alongside our friend and ally, the state of Israel. And he acted decisively this weekend to take out Iran's nuclear capability. The military attack that our soldiers carried out was incredibly effective. We had seven B2 stealth bombers that dropped a total of 14 bunker busters bombs on three nuclear facilities, annihilated those nuclear facilities.

[David Pakman]

I think you get the point. They love it. Very busy on Truth Social extraordinary leadership. As if nothing says strength like being up at 5am posting dozens of times to truth social with fake polls, jail threats, random TV rantings and other non presidential stuff. It's not only dangerous the way that Trump is behaving, it's dangerous the way that right wing media and Republicans are reacting because he's pushing conspiracy theories, threatening enemies, spiraling publicly. But instead of confronting it, the enablers go, this is brilliant stuff. Really, really brilliant leadership. And they're gaslighting the country into pretending that a deeply unwell man is a political genius. And that's an authoritarian, a playbook item known for a long time. Whatever the leader, the Dear Leader does, whether it's erratic or cruel or unhinged, it's not just acceptable, it's inspiring. We should be impassioned by the behavior of the dear Leader. And if you disagree, you're simply the problem. This is the sort of thing you see in North Korea, where the Supreme Leader's every utterance is declared profound, wise and historic, even if he's ranting about how the moon obeys his commands. And when Trump posts 30 times before breakfast about fake trials and television ratings, suddenly it's evidence of brilliance. So this is no longer news, it's propaganda. It's an attempt to launder an unstable guy into strength. And it's a classic of authoritarian regimes. They rely on this kind of distortion. You don't ever explain the leader's behavior. You sanctify it, you praise it. You take something unhinged and you say, what a heroic act. Trump could bark at a mailbox and Ted Cruz would say, I appreciate Donald Trump taking a powerful stand against the deep state. And what's happening here isn't just absurd, it's a test to see how far they can go. And sadly, I think they can get very, very far with this forced adulation. And it's terrifying. Have you ever wanted to feel more connected to your partner but found that daily life gets in the way? There is an app designed specifically to help couples deepen their bond, called Paired. Our sponsor. Paired gives you daily personalized questions, quizzes, fun games, really, just crafted to inspire meaningful and enjoyable conversations with your partner. And you won't see your partner's answers until you've shared your own. So it's like a safe, genuine space for honest dialog and discovery. Recently, one Paired prompt asked, what's something you admire most about your partner? Answering this simple question created a conversation with my girlfriend and highlighted things that we sometimes overlook. The Paired app is a great daily reminder of the qualities that make relationships special. Whether you're just starting to build your connection or you've been together for years, Paired helps make it easy and enjoyable to strengthen your relationship. And it's just five minutes a day. Head to paired.com/pacman for a seven day free trial and 25% off your subscription. That's P A I R ed.com/pacman the link is in the podcast notes. It's great to welcome back to the program after far too long. Rutger Bregman, historian, bestselling author, co founder of the School for Moral Ambition and also his latest book is called Moral Ambition. Stop wasting your talent and start making a difference. It's so great to have you back. First of all. Thank you.

[Rutger Bregman]

Thanks so much for having me. David. It's so good to see you again.

[David Pakman]

You know, one of the things I like about talking to you is very often we get into the we get tunnel vision when talking about problems in society where we just are arguing over the answer to the question. And what I like that you sometimes do and you did it, you know, at Davos years ago in those viral videos and in different places is you'll say, wait a second, I don't know that we're even asking the right question necessarily. Let me reframe the question we're asking rather than just start arguing about the answer related to your book and also the status quo around jobs and employment, the meaning of work to people's lives and just sort of in this general area. Is there something in the conversation around labor, working and jobs? Maybe in the United States. But you can answer more broadly as well if necessary, where you think the wrong sort of question is being asked or or debated. Like is something missed about when we talk about minimum wage, tying health care to employment, or whether college degrees are really, you know, the micro. What is the macro that maybe is getting missed in this conversation?

[Rutger Bregman]

So look, I was watching MSNBC the other day after, you know, the the great victory of Mandani in New York and you know, corporate media again, being very scared of like a democratic socialist and I thought it was really funny from a European perspective, because for me, like Mandani is like a total middle of the road politician, right? Just the old fashioned European social democrat, you know, coming up with very like pretty obvious idea like let's support the working class. You know, there's a real cost of living crisis here. We got to do something about that. Affordable child care. Oh, pretty mainstream, I would say. This is like not radical, like a tiny little bit higher taxes. So indeed, I think we can expand the imagination, especially in this era of massive geopolitical shifts and massive technological shifts. In my very first book, Utopia for Realist, I already wrote about the rise of the robots, or AI as we call it today, right. And I think this presents, you know, an enormous opportunity to totally reimagine the role of work in our life. So today we have around 25% of people in rich countries who think that their own job is socially meaningless. Bullshit jobs, as the anthropologist David Graeber called them. I think there's a real possibility if we go on like this, that that number will keep going up. You know, it could be 50%, could be 75%. As the AI, as AI keeps taking more and more jobs, we should never underestimate capitalism's extraordinary ability to come up with new bullshit jobs, right? But there's an alternative here as well, and this is an alternative that has been dreamt about by some of the greatest thinkers for the past two centuries, by people like the British economist John Maynard Keynes or the science fiction writer Isaac Asimov. Actually, in the 60s and the 70s, people said, you know what the future of capitalism is going to be? Total leisure for everyone, fully automated. Luxury communism. I think that's what our friend Aaron Bastani over at Novara Media calls it. And that is, I would say, definitely a possibility. But we got to fight for it. And we, yeah, we got to at least start with asking the right questions.

[David Pakman]

Is it fair to say, or. Let me ask it this way. I've read probably 30 or 40 books in my life that reference, when Keynes said technological advance will lead to a 15 hour workweek. And of course every technical technological advance led maybe to more efficiency, maybe to more surplus value from, from people's work hours, but we haven't quite gotten to that 15 hour workweek quite yet. Is it, is that simply a structural thing where there is no technological advance that will open the door to everybody's 15 hour workweek? And only if we decide that it's a worthwhile goal, which is a different question, it's going to be a restructuring of Society and the economy that would achieve that.

[Rutger Bregman]

Well, again, there are alternatives here. As a guy who comes from the Netherlands, which is the shortest working week in the world and that still has a very productive economist capitalist economy. I know that, you know, there's, there's a big bandwidth. There are, there are lots of alternatives out there. And also what history teaches us is that actually the work week was shrinking up until the 60s and the 70s. You know, people worked much harder in the late 19th and the early 20th century. It's just that it stopped doing so. And especially in the US people started working more again. And yeah, there are many books to be written about why that happened. I would say that the corporate takeover of America has a lot to do with that. Um, but yeah, I would say that the ultimate goal of technological prosperity has, has always been or should always have been. Yeah, freedom and so that we can finally figure out what life is really about.

[David Pakman]

What's your view of the. Oh, I'm. It's the ultra. What's the altruist movement? I forget that, that, you know, Sam Bankman Fried was a part of.

[Rutger Bregman]

Altruism. Yeah.

[David Pakman]

Yes, Effective altruism. I'm curious what your view of how that intersects with you. You know, in your book you talk about moral ambition and people in high achieving professions, but who are feeling morally stagnant, for lack of a better term. You know, the effective altruism movement has had some setbacks, maybe because of some, I don't know that I would call them pseudo scandals, but just individuals that got involved who maybe, you know, were not the best representatives of it. But I find it to be an interesting movement in that one perspective is you can actually have the greatest impact by staying in the high achieving job but donating a lot of money effectively rather than, for example, abandoning that and doing something that might be personally more rewarding. Do you have an opinion on the movement?

[Rutger Bregman]

Oh, absolutely. There's a lot to say about this. The first thing I would say is that I'm a guy who comes from the political left and sometimes I worry that we have a lot of people who are good at raising awareness, you know, expressing the right opinions, winning debates in the group section, the comment section, but don't actually make a big difference. Right. What I like about effective altruism, I've visited a conference once. You see a lot of people, you meet a lot of people who actually practice what they preach. So I've never seen as many vegans, you know, in one conference room. I've never met as many people who've donated their kidneys to random strangers. I've never met as many people who donate a significant amount of their wealth and their income to pretty effective charities. So there's a lot to like here, honestly, and a lot to admire. Well, they had some bad press recently and there was quite a bit of hubris in the movement. I mean, I would say that the collapse of ftx, Assemblyman Fried, that wasn't a minor incident.

[David Pakman]

It didn't help.

[Rutger Bregman]

It didn't help indeed. But there's something to be said for the whole notion of earning to give. Actually, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels did it already. Like Friedrich Engels was making the money so that Karl Marx could write capital. So it's a pretty old idea and we've seen it throughout history that some of the greatest movements for human rights, the abolitionists, the suffragettes, they didn't get government subsidies. You know, you couldn't like say, hey, give me a grant to fight slavery. You know, you were flying, fighting the government. You didn't get some fancy corporate sponsorship deal. No, you really needed to rely on ambitious philanthropists. And this has been true for all these movements in the US you had the Garland Fund, for example, an amazing fund that hired the first full time lawyer for the civil rights movement and that basically laid the groundwork for the eventual victory with Brown v. Board of Education. So I'm a guy who's known for dunking on billionaires and their philanthropy and I will keep doing that until my dying breath. But as a historian, I do know that there have always been exceptions and I would love to see more of that.

[David Pakman]

I want you to talk a little more about how you define bullshit jobs. If people haven't read David Graber's book, Bullshit Jobs, it's excellent, and you referenced him, but you mentioned something a few minutes ago about, I think it was the way that the job is or isn't fulfilling to the person doing it. You know, I think one of the interesting things is that, you know, if you take a job like driving for Uber, in a sense it's the ultimate non bullshit job in that people need transportation. You are moving people from where they are to where they need to be. And there's a significant pragmatic utility to it. And a lot of the problem with it is actually that the driver is undercompensated and that is in a relationship with the company that, you know, based on the Uber drivers I've talked to and what the revenue split is seems fundamentally unfair, fair. So it's not really A bullshit job. It's a gig job that maybe is unfair in some way. Can you elaborate a little bit on the definition as you see it and what qualifies?

[Rutger Bregman]

Sure, sure. I think David Graver's powerful insight was that we can just ask people themselves, like people themselves are the real experts on their own job. So if someone says, look, what I do is just utter bs, I can go on strike and no one will give a shit, I think we can believe them. And since Graeber's book came out, we got new evidence. The best study that I know of was done by two Dutch economists. They had a data set of more than 40 countries, 100,000 employees who were all asked this question. Yeah, what do you think about the social meaning of your work? Do you make this world a better place? Yes or no? Or are you in doubt? And the number they arrived at is 25%. 25% of the modern workforce think that their own job is bs. And what's really interesting in the paper is that they break it down by profession. So you can see how different professions think about it. And it's more or less what you would expect. So marketeers score very high on the BS ranking. It's like 40% or something. Same is true for bankers, HR consultants, journalists are somewhere in the middle with 20%. And then firefighters, police officers, well, they yet have to find the first firefighter that considers his or her own job bullshit. Bullshit.

[David Pakman]

Right.

[Rutger Bregman]

But that is a pretty radical insight because 25%, that is five times the unemployment rate. And these are very often people with nice resumes who went to good universities, who earn quite decent money. But again, let's repeat this again. They could go on strike and it wouldn't matter. Just imagine how huge this waste of talent is, right? If. If all these people would be working on actual problems. And we do face some pretty substantial problems as a species, just imagine how much better this world could be, right? Or we could shorten the working week by at least a quarter or maybe a third. So there's a lot of opportunity here as well. And as I said, moral ambition is trying to be the antidote to that. It's all about devoting your career, those 2,000 work weeks to some of the most pressing issues we face as a species. And I co founded this organization, the School for Moral Ambition, to actually help people, because it's not easy in the current capitalist economy where so often BS is rewarded and the socially meaningful work is not. So it's a whole journey that people have to go on. But it can be a really rewarding journey.

[David Pakman]

I'm curious what you think are the lowest hanging fruit in terms of changes, solutions, or policies. Sometimes when people who are more technocratically minded hear what we're talking about, they will often talk about, well, we need a system for government to compensate work that's often unpaid but high value, like parents who aren't working outside of the home. Or, you know, there's sort of like a more technocratic approach. Andrew Yang was a guy who had some really specific ideas when he ran for president about let's assign some dollar value to your data. And that's a way where people can maybe recover some money that has been redirected that's really theirs. I'm curious whether some of those technocratic ideas appeal to you or what's the. What's the lowest hanging fruit that we could do?

[Rutger Bregman]

So here's how I think about this. Marx famously had a very materialist view of history, right? He said that it's basically the economic forces that determine our destiny. And sure, there's a lot of truth to that. The distribution of wealth and power and technology matters immensely. But what I see when I study some of the greatest movement we've ever seen, I spend a lot of time studying the British abolitionist movement, for example, because that one was super successful. Way more successful than the American or the Dutch abolitionist movement. I'm from the Netherlands. And also the move from the Gilded Age to the Progressive Era, what I see in those moments is that doing good became more fashionable. People redefined what it meant to be successful. So maybe the Gilded Age is the best example, right? You had the robber barons becoming incredibly rich, you know, abuse, abusing their, their workers who were not paying and being paid a living wage. Incredible monopolies and also incredible immorality and corruption. Does that remind you of something today? But then what came after that was the Progressive Era led by people like Theodore Roosevelt, who was a pretty privileged guy, you know, came from a very privileged family. He studied at Harvard and he was just utterly fed up. He was very angry at his peers. He was angry at the people in his bubble. He was like, come on, just complain about a problem and not do something about it. That's, that's in my view, called whining. And honestly, I wrote this book, Moral Ambition, and started this movement because I feel a similar anger. I'm just really fucking angry at many of my peers who ended up in these BS jobs at McKinsey or Goldman Sachs. And they are pretty talented. I know many of these people, right, and they could make a great contribution, but instead they've ended up in these super boring jobs. While they could make a massive difference in the fight against tax avoidance, for example, or tax evasion. So it's a bit of a long winded answer to your question, but I really think that that's the low hanging fruit. I believe that there's a possibility of a massive cultural shift that we can make doing good more fashionable once again. And I see some early signs of that. I mean, the extraordinary victory of Mandani in New York, I mean, that is like a beautiful example of me, to me, of moral ambition. Someone who actually cares about achieving results and winning elections, who's not wallowing in his own moral purity as we've been doing way too much for the past decade or so on the left. So yeah, I would love to see much more of that.

[David Pakman]

The new book is Moral Ambition. Stop wasting your talent and start making a difference. We've been speaking with the book's author, historian Rutger Bregman. Always great to talk to you. Thanks so much.

[Rutger Bregman]

Thanks for having me, David.

[David Pakman]

Your personal data is everywhere and you might not even know people. Search sites and data brokers are quietly publishing your name, address, phone number, even things like personal property records, political views. It is not just creepy, it's dangerous. Because scammers and fraudsters and shady marketers can use this information every day. Our sponsor Incogni solves the problem for you. Incogni contacts the data broker sites on your behalf and forces them to delete your data. The data brokers are legally obligated to comply and Incogni handles the entire process for you. Incogni is now taking this even further with their custom removals feature included in the unlimited plan. They've got their 250 plus sites where removal is automated. But if you find your information anywhere else, you can custom submit that and they will have it removed manually. This is serious protection. Using Incogni can cut way down on the spam calls and the messages that you get. Fewer risks, more control over your identity. Try it risk free for 30 days and get 60% off an annual plan when you go to incogni.com/pacman. That's incogni.com/pacMan for 60% off the link is in the podcast notes. One of the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes is is they are nasty to the media. Anybody that reports critically about what they're doing or that they even perceive to be reporting critically, even if they're just reporting the Facts, they become the target of anger and sometimes they become the target of prosecution. And in some places they get killed. We're not there yet in the United States, fortunately. But Donald Trump yesterday, during this Naito press conference in the Netherlands, which, by the way, Trump struggled to say Netherlands many times Trump went after a CNN reporter and then said to everybody, what are you people doing? Why aren't you telling the story as I want it told? And this is an authoritarian who isn't in control enough of the media outlets for his liking. Let's take a look at this. This, this is really ugly stuff.

[Donald Trump]

The fake news wants to say, but you're not disputing.

[Ted Cruz]

The report said what it said, even though it was initial.

[Pete Hegseth]

The report said what it said and it was fine. It was severe, they think, but they had no idea. They shouldn't have issued a report until they did. But we've gotten the information. I think Pete said it better than you can say it. And you know, you should be proud. You especially, you should be proud of those pilots and you shouldn't be trying to demean them. Those pilots flew at great risk.

[David Pakman]

Imagine talking to members of the press like this and said they'd never come.

[Pete Hegseth]

Back home and see their husband or their wives. Let me just tell you, you and NBC Fake News, which is one of the worst, and cnn, New York Times are all bad. They're sick. There's something wrong with them. You know what? You should be praising those people instead of trying to find some. By getting me, by trying to go and get me. You're hurting those people. They were devastated. You know, I got a call from Missouri, great state, and I won three times by a lot. And I got a call that the pilots and the people on the plane were devastated because they were trying to minimize the attack. And they all said it was hit, but, oh, but we don't think it was really maybe hit that badly. And they were devastated. They put their lives on the line.

[David Pakman]

And your attempts to report facts are really upsetting the soldiers.

[Pete Hegseth]

And they have, and I'm not referring to you, but real scum, real scum come out and write reports that are as negative as they could possibly be. It should be the opposite. You should make them heroes and heroines. You should make them them.

[David Pakman]

That's what Trump wants telling exactly how everything should be reported on.

[Pete Hegseth]

Really people that, they were so devastated when they heard this news. And you know what they said? One of them, I spoke to one of them said, sir, we hit the site, it was perfect. It was dead on because they don't understand fake news. Because they have a normal life, except they have to fly very big, very fast planes.

[David Pakman]

That's right. Why can't you base all of your reporting around really big, tough members of the military who are upset by your reporting and also don't understand fake news? What a, what a vote of confidence from Trump. And it's interesting because if you really look at the language, even though what he's trying to do is attack the media for the reporting, he's kind of demeaning to the service members. They can't handle reporting that attempts to comport to the facts and they don't understand fake news. Here's another clip of Trump during this rant. I believe this is a separate, a different clip. There may be a little overlap.

[Pete Hegseth]

Shouldn't have issued a report until they did, but we've gotten the information. I think Pete said it better than you can say it. And you know, you should be proud. You especially, you should be proud of those pilots and you shouldn't be trying to demean them. No, those pilots flew at great risk.

[David Pakman]

All right. Okay, so there's overlap here with the, with the earlier clip. This is the epitome of thin skinned and unfortunately a lot of authoritarians had very thin skins. And so what did Donald Trump do? He made Pete Hegseth hold another one of these 5am Pacific press conferences this morning, 8pm Eastern. And what Pete Hegseth did, I don't think I've ever seen anything like this. The Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth came out and said, here's what you need to be producing, demanding that the media produce glowing Soviet style propaganda about what Donald Trump has been doing.

[Donald Trump]

Because you, and I mean specifically you, the press, specifically you, the press corps, because you cheer against Trump so hard, it's like in your DNA and in your blood to cheer against Trump because you want him not to be successful so bad. You have to cheer against the efficacy of these strikes. You have to hope maybe they weren't effective. Maybe the way the Trump administration has represented them isn't true. So let's take half truths, spun information, leaked information, and, and then spin it, spin it in every way we can to try to cause doubt and manipulate the mind, the public mind, over whether or not our brave pilots were successful. How many stories have been written about how hard it is to, I don't know, fly a plane for 36 hours?

[David Pakman]

That's what the reporting should be. This is really hard, guys.

[Donald Trump]

Has MSNBC done that story as Fox have We done the story how hard that is. Have we done it two or three times so that American people understand how about how difficult it is to shoot a drone from an F15 or 16 or F22 or F35? Or what it's like to man a Patriot battery. Or how hard it is to refuel midair, giving the American people an understanding of how complex and sophisticated this mission really was.

[David Pakman]

Imagine if the media actually took Pete Hegseth's advice and you open up a YouTube channel or a publication and it goes. Article about how difficult it is to fly for 36 hours. Article about how this has never been done before and so successfully. Article about how great all of Donald Trump's intentions are. That's what they want. It's pathetic. And there's nothing more beta, than saying, this is what I need you to write about.

[Donald Trump]

There are so many aspects of what our brave men and women did that because of the hatred of this press corps are undermined because your people are trying to leak and spin that it wasn't successful. It's irresponsible.

[David Pakman]

And he's just scolding reporters.

[Donald Trump]

Folks in this room are privy to that information because of the proximity here in the Pentagon. It's an important responsibility. And time and time again, classified information is leaked or peddled for political purposes to try to make the President look bad. And what's really happening is you're undermining the success of incredible B2 pilots and incredible F35 pilots.

[David Pakman]

It goes on like this for a little while, okay? Unbelievable. This is the demand for compliance. This is what authoritarian regime, authoritarian regimes and dictators do. A couple other notable moments from this totally deranged press conference. Jennifer Griffin, who, by the way, is no left wing bomb thrower, says, are you sure that the uranium wasn't moved before the attacks? Because it's really seeming like the uranium was moved before the attacks. And Pete Hexeth goes, oh, you've been one of the worst, Jennifer. One of the worst. Scene that suggests his former colleague at.

[Donald Trump]

Fox, by the way, we didn't hit exactly what we wanted to hit in those locations.

[Emile Beauvais]

It's about highly enriched uranium. What do you have certainty that all the highly enriched uranium was inside the Four Dome Mountain? Or some of it? Because there were satellite photos that showed more than a dozen trucks there two days in advance. Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved?

[Donald Trump]

Of course. We're watching every single aspect. But, Jennifer, you've been about the worst. The one who misrepresents the most intentionally.

[David Pakman]

What the President says, you're terrible.

[Emile Beauvais]

I'm familiar about the ventilation shafts on Saturday night. And in fact, I was the first to describe the B2 bombers, the refueling, the entire mission.

[David Pakman]

Notice how she's actually going. I did a bunch of the suck up journalism. I said how awesome these B2 bombers.

[Emile Beauvais]

Are with great accuracy. So I take issue with that.

[Donald Trump]

I appreciate you acknowledging the first operate, the most successful mission based on operational security that this department has done since you've been here. And I appreciate that.

[David Pakman]

Yeah, he appreciates that. And then just one more of these demanding more glowing reports.

[Donald Trump]

Let me read the bottom line here. President Trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history.

[David Pakman]

Right?

[Donald Trump]

And it was a resounding success, resulting in a ceasefire agreement and the end of the 12 Day War.

[David Pakman]

Move over D Day. What Trump did was the most complex and secretive military operation in American history. And what a pleasure it was to Pete Hegseth to be able to attach his name to it. They always go too far. The hyperbole knows no bounds. Embarrassing, humiliating, but dangerous. Because when they demand compliance in this way, when you don't comply, it can get very, very ugly. For the press. We've got a great bonus show for you today. We will talk about the signature policy bill of Republicans facing major problems in the Senate. We will talk about Republicans now asking Trump to revoke the citizenship ship of Zoran Mamdani, who won the New York Democratic primary mayoral primary. And we will also talk about this new weird daddy thing that the White House is obsessed with regarding Trump. Getting creepy. It's getting very creepy. Sign up@join pacman.com get instant access to the bonus show.