7/1/25: Trump threatens to deport Elon Musk, Karoline has full blown collapse

Summary

Podcast Summary: The David Pakman Show – July 1, 2025

Title: Trump Threatens to Deport Elon Musk, Karoline Has Full-Blown Collapse
Host: David Pakman
Release Date: July 1, 2025

---

1. Trump’s Threats Against Elon Musk

Timestamp: [00:07] - [06:56]

David Pakman opens the episode by addressing the escalating conflict between former President Donald Trump and tech mogul Elon Musk. Trump, via his platform Truth Social, has issued a stark threat to deport Musk back to South Africa, potentially jeopardizing Musk’s businesses in the United States.

Notable Quote:

“Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. No more rocket launches, satellites or electric car production, and our country would save a fortune.”
— Donald Trump [00:07]

Pakman critiques Trump’s contradictory stance on electric vehicle (EV) mandates. Initially opposing EVs as "Marxist" impositions, Trump’s relationship with Musk and Tesla shifted. While Trump previously praised Tesla, he is now vehemently against the subsidies that benefit Musk’s enterprises, framing it as a threat to national interests.

Key Points:

• Subsidies and EV Mandates: Trump accuses Musk of being overly reliant on subsidies, threatening the sustainability of his businesses without governmental support.
• Political Maneuvering: Pakman highlights the political inconsistency in Trump’s approach, suggesting self-serving motives behind the threats against Musk.
• Economic Implications: Emphasizes the irony in Trump’s criticism, noting his administration previously provided substantial subsidies to Musk.

---

2. Alligator Alcatraz and Harsh Immigration Policies

Timestamp: [10:37] - [11:06]

Pakman discusses Trump’s proposed "Alligator Alcatraz," a brutal concept for handling illegal immigrants by using alligators as a deterrent and punishment mechanism.

Notable Quote:

“I know, I know that it's, like, so quaint at this point to be like, oh, the Constitution certainly, certainly would violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.”
— David Pakman [10:37]

Key Points:

• Cruel Punishments: The proposal is criticized for its inhumanity, raising constitutional concerns regarding cruel and unusual punishment.
• Critique of Practicality: Pakman argues that such measures reflect the deteriorating state of America’s prison system, highlighting existing issues like inmate safety and violence.

---

3. Trump’s Supporters: Tammy Bruce vs. Caroline Levitt

Timestamp: [15:59] - [28:46]

Pakman contrasts two Trump loyalists: Tammy Bruce, the State Department spokeswoman, and Caroline Levitt, Trump’s White House press secretary. Both are portrayed as unwavering supporters, but with differing levels of effectiveness.

Notable Exchanges:

• Tammy Bruce’s Defense of Trump:

  “Most recently on the 25th, he said, I consider him, Putin, a person that's been misguided.”
  — Tammy Bruce [16:00]

• Caroline Levitt’s Dodging Tactics:

  “I'm not going to comment on that.”
  — Caroline Levitt [20:30]

Key Points:

• Supportive Rhetoric: Both spokespeople exhibit strong pro-Trump sentiments, often deflecting criticisms and promoting his narratives.
• Ineffectiveness Highlighted: Pakman points out Levitt’s evasive responses compared to Bruce’s overt support, underscoring the lack of substantive defense against Trump’s policies.

---

4. Trump’s “Victory 45 to 47” Fragrance Promotion

Timestamp: [25:55] - [28:46]

Trump ventures into unconventional territory by promoting a cologne line named “Victory 45 to 47,” symbolizing his tenure from the 45th to the anticipated 47th presidency.

Notable Quote:

“They're all about winning, strength and success for men and women. Get yourself a bottle and don't forget to get one for your loved ones too.”
— Donald Trump [28:19]

Key Points:

• Branding Gimmick: Pakman criticizes the move as a grift, questioning its appropriateness for a sitting president.
• Public Perception: Highlights the absurdity and potential backlash of a president endorsing personal fragrance products.

---

5. The Big Beautiful Bill and Medicaid Cuts

Timestamp: [32:11] - [38:38]

The episode delves into the contentious “Big Beautiful Bill,” a legislative package spearheaded by Republicans aimed at significant Medicaid cuts and tax reforms favoring wealthy individuals and corporations.

Notable Quote:

“This is going to mean cutting people off the rolls. It's also going to mean that a lot of hospitals that are on the on the edge right now are going to end up closing their doors.”
— Adam Schiff [34:09]

Key Points:

• Medicaid Reductions: Schiff outlines how the bill’s Medicaid cuts will lead to millions losing healthcare coverage, increased hospital closures, and degraded public health services.
• Deficit Concerns: Despite Republican claims of fiscal conservatism, the bill is projected to increase the deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion.
• Economic Impact: Paket emphasizes the broader economic repercussions, including loss of healthcare services and financial instability for vulnerable populations.

---

6. Denaturalization Threats and Authoritarian Overtones

Timestamp: [50:00] - [59:53]

Pakman shifts focus to a Trump Department of Justice memo advocating aggressive denaturalization of naturalized citizens, posing significant threats to civil liberties and democratic principles.

Notable Quote:

“Denaturalization has a very, very ugly history. If you go back to the McCarthy era, you quickly learn that denaturalization was a tool used to purge so-called undesirable citizens.”
— David Pakman [59:53]

Key Points:

• Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings: The memo’s vague criteria and lower burden of proof under civil law make it easier to target innocent naturalized citizens.
• Historical Context: Pakman draws parallels to the McCarthy era, warning against the creation of a two-tiered citizenship system.
• Personal Implications: As a naturalized citizen himself, Pakman shares personal fears and the broader societal dangers of such policies.

---

7. AI Copycat Shows and Media Integrity

Timestamp: [59:53] - [60:14]

Pakman introduces a fictional AI-generated version of his show, raising concerns about digital impersonation and the potential spread of misinformation.

Notable Quote:

“Can you tell us a little bit about the plan? If indeed this bill passes in some form...”
— David Pakman [60:08]

Key Points:

• Digital Impersonation: Highlights the emergence of AI-generated shows mimicking real hosts, questioning their legality and audience engagement.
• Media Authenticity: Emphasizes the importance of verifying sources to maintain credible and trustworthy media consumption.

---

8. Guest Segments: Adam Schiff and Chuck Schumer

Timestamp: [32:11] - [50:54]

Adam Schiff on Medicaid Cuts: Schiff discusses the dire implications of the Big Beautiful Bill, focusing on Medicaid cuts and their impact on public health.

Notable Quote:

“It's going to mean cutting people off the rolls. It's also going to mean that a lot of hospitals that are on the edge right now are going to end up closing their doors.”
— Adam Schiff [34:09]

Key Points:

• Healthcare Crisis: Detailed explanation of how Medicaid cuts will leave millions without coverage, increase emergency room visits, and result in hospital closures.
• Economic Strain: Highlights the inadequate nature of proposed economic savings from the bill, arguing that the cuts do not sufficiently offset tax breaks for the wealthy.

Chuck Schumer on Legislative Strategies: Schumer outlines the Democratic strategy to oppose the bill through Senate amendments and grassroots mobilization.

Notable Quote:

“Can you imagine they want to take food out of a starving child's mouth to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. That's what they're doing.”
— Chuck Schumer [43:35]

Key Points:

• Amendments Strategy: Schumer explains the use of amendments to expose the hypocrisy and negative impacts of the bill.
• Grassroots Mobilization: Emphasizes the importance of constituent outreach, especially in Republican-leaning states, to pressure senators to vote against harmful provisions.
• Economic and Social Impact: Discusses the broader consequences of the bill on clean energy jobs, rural hospitals, and public welfare programs.

---

9. Closing Remarks and Upcoming Topics

Timestamp: [60:14] - End

Pakman wraps up the episode by highlighting the ongoing threats to democracy, the increasing authoritarian measures, and the importance of maintaining media integrity. He encourages listeners to stay informed and actively participate in the democratic process to counteract the alarming policies discussed.

Final Note:

“It’s getting very dark, it’s getting very scary. But we’re going to keep on it.”
— David Pakman [59:53]

---

Conclusion

In this episode, David Pakman provides a critical analysis of Donald Trump’s aggressive tactics against Elon Musk, the controversial Big Beautiful Bill threatening Medicaid and public health, and the disturbing moves towards denaturalization of citizens. Through interviews with prominent Democrats like Adam Schiff and Chuck Schumer, the show underscores the urgent need for grassroots activism and legislative opposition to safeguard democratic values and public welfare. Additionally, Pakman warns about the rise of AI-generated media impersonations, emphasizing the importance of credible news sources in the fight against misinformation.

---

End of Summary

Transcript

[David Pakman]

Welcome to the show. Donald Trump is now threatening Elon Musk with deportation. Yes, deportation back to South Africa. We're going to get to that. You all know that it was never really a match made in heaven when Donald Trump and Elon Musk came together. As predicted by many, it has completely exploded, imploded, I don't know. But there is now a new escalation after Elon Musk completely turned on the big beautiful bill because quite frankly, it's bad for Elon Musk's businesses. That's really the problem that Elon has with it. Donald Trump has now turned up the temperature even further and. And is threatening Elon Musk with deportation with the loss of government contracts for his businesses. We'll get to the video, but we'll start with the text. Donald Trump with a textual element published in an unhinged post to Troth Central, where Donald Trump said, quote, elon Musk knew long before he so strongly endorsed me for president that I was strongly against the electric vehicle mandate. It is ridiculous and was always a major part of my campaign. Electric cars are fine, but not everyone should be forced to own one. Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history by far. And without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. No more rocket launches, satellites or electric car production, and our country would save a fortune. Perhaps we should have Doge take a good hard look at this. Big money to be saved. Now. This is not just a rant, this is a warning. This is a threat. This is Trump saying, you'd better get in line or I'm going to come after you. But the funniest part of all of this is remember when, for years, Trump genuinely seemed to hate electric vehicles, saying, you can't go anywhere, they have no range, it takes forever to charge. They're being forced upon people like Marxist something or others. Then all of a sudden, when he was on the ins with Elon Musk, as opposed to now he's on the outs, when he was on the ins with Elon Musk, it was all great With Tesla, Tesla was awesome. Where's my Tesla clip? Here. Oh, whoops. That's Trump grunting. Oh, here it is.

[Peter]

I love Tesla.

[David Pakman]

I love Tesla. Tesla was awesome all of a sudden. And of course, at the time, I told you, Trump hasn't changed his opinion about Tesla. It's that he's changed his opinion about Elon Musk and he now wants to help Elon Musk. That's all. This is always grift and cronyism and all of it. And the. And then, of course, now Trump's like, electric vehicles are fine, I guess, but it's not like this is so good. And without the subsidies, they would be nothing. And so we find ourselves in a situation where Trump is now, after telling us he loves Tesla, he's complaining about electric vehicle subsidies, he's bragging about the fact that he gave Elon Musk billions in subsidies during his own presidency. And it's sort of like setting your house on fire and then demanding someone else put it out. I don't know if that analogy lands perfectly. If the point is, if Donald Trump believes that all of the subsidies aren't great for the country, why did he give them to Elon Musk, or at least some of them? If Trump thinks Elon should head back to South Africa, does that mean we're back to doing the racist birther thing? Or is it only for political reasons? Now, Trump said that the mandates are ridiculous, but the truth is it's really one of the few steps being taken to compete with China. Trump endlessly talks about how he wants to defeat China and be better than China and so on and so forth. If we're going to take seriously modernizing our infrastructure and, yes, fighting climate change, too, but just coming into the 21st century, if you look at the way China is doing this, we are laughably behind. Forget about on trains, but also on electric vehicles. Republicans say we want energy independence, but then all of a sudden, when it involves anything other than oil, they're not quite so happy. So Trump, I guess, hates mandates and subsidies, but he always ends up giving them to the rich guys who are his friends until he's no longer friends with them. And we're all still waiting for the health care plan he promised. And in 2020, while Trump's subsidies to his rich friends seem to continue unabated. So if you're Elon Musk, the question sort of is, was that 300 million well spent? 260 on Trump, 260 million on Trump's campaign, 25 million on the Trump picked Supreme Court, state Supreme Court nominee in Wisconsin. 285 million plus some changes. Was it worth it for Elon Musk? And then as far as Trump's threat to Elon, imagine for a moment if President Joe Biden had ever said about a private businessman, we might send him back to another country and damage his multiple businesses. If Biden had ever said that, they would have said communism. It would have been a month of content for Fox News. Trump is now saying, ellen, better be careful or the subsidies might be gone. And next thing you know, he might be back in South Africa. Now, the deportation threat, looking into deportation came a little bit after Donald Trump posted this message. Let's go to that. Donald Trump is going beyond his implied threat to Elon Musk made on Truth Central to actually saying we're going to have to have a look at deporting Elon Musk back to South Africa. When egomaniacal, self censor, self centered billionaire narcissists come together, you know, there's likely to be a falling out. And when the falling out happens, it goes absolutely nuclear. Here is Donald Trump this morning asked, are you going to look into deporting Elon back to South Africa? And Trump says we are going to have to take a look at that. Yes, indeed. And particularly important context about this denaturalization idea, which I'm going to give you after we take a listen to this.

[Peter]

I don't know. I think we'll have to take a look. We might have to put doge on Elon. You know, you know, Doge is Doji is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible? He gets a lot of subsidies, Peter. But Elon's very upset that the EV mandate is going to be terminated. And you know what, when you look at it, who wants, not everybody wants an electric car. I don't want an electric car. I want to have baby gasoline, maybe electric, maybe a hybrid.

[David Pakman]

Quite different from I love Tesla. I love Tesla.

[Peter]

Maybe someday a hydrogen, if you have a hydrogen car, it has one problem, it blows up, you know, so I'm going to give that one to Peter to let Peter.

[David Pakman]

We are going to have to look at deporting Elon Musk back to South Africa. Now, there's, there's several layers to this, all of them very relevant. Layer number one is this is a president of the United States. I know many of us don't like that. Many of us voted for something different. But he is the president. And to have the president saying we are going to have to look at deporting a citizen back to South Africa. Layer number two is that if you really want to be honest, this deportation wet dream is coming at the end of a personal problem that Trump is having with Musk. But if you go back to the beginning, Elon Musk was working in the United States illegally. You go back to the start of Elon's journey to the United States coming to America. He was here on a student visa and he was working. Arguably, Elon should have been deported way back then for violating the terms of his visa. But that's not why it's at issue now. Now it's just he's got a problem with Trump. And then the third layer of this deportation thing is that as we talked about yesterday on the bonus show.

[Chuck Schumer]

The bonus show where you want to make money, everybody else that makes money.

[Peter]

To fund themselves is bad.

[David Pakman]

Yeah. As we talked about yesterday on the bonus show, and as I'm going to talk about later today, the Trump DOJ is very into. They are very aroused by the idea of denaturalization, finding naturalized citizens like me to strip citizenship from and send them back from whence they came. So that's layer three, which is. It's not just Elon that they're looking to do this, too. So we're going to get back to that. A little bit later, Trump asked what happened to Elon Musk? And he's like, who? But then he says, elon's just upset. Who.

[Adam Schiff]

What happened to Elon Musk?

[Peter]

Nothing. You know, he's upset. He's. That he's losing his ev mandate and accept he's very upset about things. But, you know, he could lose a lot more than that, I can tell you right now.

[David Pakman]

And there is another instance of the threat, of course, he could lose a lot more than just the mandate, as Donald Trump published the Truth Social and even said during this press event, he could lose his companies and he could even lose his citizenship here in the United States. Finally, Trump asked about this alligator Alcatraz idea, an even more brutal prison for illegal immigrants. And Trump asked, is the idea that an alligator might eat the prisoner? And Trump goes, yeah, that is the idea. What a world.

[Chuck Schumer]

The idea that it's done. Illegal immigrants, we just get eaten by an alligator or.

[Peter]

I guess that's the concept. This is not a nice business. I guess that's the concept. If you, you know, snakes are fast, but alligators are. We're going to teach them how to run away from an alligator. Okay. If they escape prison, how to run away. Don't run in a straight line. Run like this, and you know what? Your chances go up about 1%.

[David Pakman]

There you go. So alligator Alcatraz. And of course, I know that it's, like, so quaint at this point to be like, oh, the Constitution certainly, certainly would violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. You know, sometimes you get these people who sort of joke, oh, you know, they got their prison sentence, but they might also get sexually assaulted in prison. And wouldn't that be great as a bonus little punishment? And it's like, no, actually, it's an indictment of our prisons that they're not even able to keep inmates safe, necessarily from violence, from sexual assault, etc. It's actually very anti American to say our prisons are so out of control that there are extra punishments because of our inability to keep inmates safe. And similarly, of course, alligator snakes. Who cares about the Constitution, right? Cruel and unusual punishment, whatever. So we're going to take a break. I hope that you're subscribed to the YouTube channel YouTube.com/the David Pakman Show. If you missed yesterday's Substack Live with Brian Tyler Cohen, it was actually packed. It was me, Brian Tyler Cohen, Brian Cohen, Brian Tyler, Tyler Bryanson and Tyler Cohen. Huge group of people. Substack Live. The replay of that Live with Brian is up on Our substack david pakman.substack.com so let's take a quick break. Uh, we're going to hear from Caroline Levitt. We're going to hear, by the way, later in the show, Chuck Schumer will be joining us for the first time and Senator Adam Schiff will also be back here. So all of that upcoming. I've been researching my family tree for years, and the tool that I keep coming Back to is MyHeritage. I started using it long before they ever became a sponsor. And what I love about myheritage, what really makes it powerful, are the features that simplify building the family tree. The other day, I used instant discoveries to uncover an entire new branch of my family I didn't even know existed with just a single click. I also found an old black and white photo of a relative. And I used MyHeritage's photo colorizer tool to really bring it to life. It's amazing what you can uncover. Immigration papers, census scans, records from over 33 billion historical documents. Like if you're watching this on YouTube, I'm showing a scan of an immigration document from when a relative of my mom arrived at Ellis island, which I found on myheritage, which just makes it easy and fun. Maybe you're just getting started with your family tree. Maybe you're picking up where a family member left off. It's a great time to dive in. And you can try it totally free for 14 days by going to David pakman.com/myheritage. The link is in the description the David Pakman show is an audience supported program that really means you. So if you care about preserving democracy, supporting alternatives to homogenous corporate and legacy media, pushing back against the extraordinarily well funded right wing media machine, that's what we're doing every day. There are many shows available for you to support it. It doesn't have to be this one, but support whoever you value and whoever's absence would be a detriment to the landscape. If it's this show, well then I'm flattered and I welcome your support. You can sign up@join pacman.com you can get a premium substack membership or you can even do both. That's what we call our gold members. Trump's got the gold card. We've got our gold members. Those are people who are members both on the website and and on the substack. Tammy Bruce is the State Department spokeswoman and her absolutely delusional and almost cult like worship of Donald Trump would make Soviet spokespeople blush. It would make those North Korean news anchors say, oh, this is just too, too much. Here is Tammy Bruce holding a press briefing yesterday about the goings on around the world and Trump can do no wrong in her mind's eye. And any question, any question can be turned into grow glowing praise for the orange one. Take a listen to this. Russians are stepping up their attacks on Ukraine which happen to be larger than ever before war. The president on Friday addressed Ukraine issue and he said that Putin, quote unquote respects our country again. Well, hours after that Putin unleash the largest ever attack on Ukraine. Do you think Russia respects President Trump?

[Tammy Bruce]

I'm sorry, do I think?

[David Pakman]

Do you think Russia respects President Trump? President Trump says that they respect me. Next hours, the question is, does Russia respect President Trump? Next thing we see hours after that they launched the largest.

[Tammy Bruce]

Well, again, I don't, I certainly for obvious reasons refuse to characterize the most powerful man in the world who is saving this country and the world at this time. But I can tell you other things that he has said. Most recently on the 25th, he said, I consider him, Putin, a person that's been misguided. I'm very surprised actually. I thought we would have had that set.

[David Pakman]

Yeah, the most powerful man in the world saving this country and saving the world. Even Kim Jong Un would be like, well, let's take a step back. That might be like a little bit too much. Take Tammy. The question came up after this incredible turnout in Hungary despite Viktor Orban banning the pride parade, the event recategorized by the mayor of Budapest as a municipal event. Hundreds of thousands of people showed up saying, we're not staying home because Orban said to stay home. And the question was asked of Tammy Bruce, do you believe it's appropriate to ban a pride parade? And well, here's Tammy Bruce's answer. Other case I'm preparing you, it is a meaningless word salad expression. Hungary Prime Minister Orban, who of course is a close ally, the president tried to ban a pride parade this weekend. Tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people came out. Does the US Have a view on that? Do you think that it's justified to ban an LGBTQ pride parade?

[Tammy Bruce]

Well, well, you know, when the vice president or any of us speak about the nature of policy or I think what's important regarding freedom of expression, that's our plan and what we feel is important to convey. And then what countries do is their business. Events happen all over the world, as we know, every day, which the United States has no comment about. And we have nothing to add on this matter. But again, I think it's him. It's about what other what countries do, the choices they make with their nations and what citizens do and how they respond to that.

[David Pakman]

With respect to translation, she has absolutely no idea what's going on and is trying to cobble together a essentially a no comment while continuing to insist that Trump is just so great and so awesome. Now, here's you're going to see a contrast here because we are next going to hear from Caroline Levitt, Donald Trump's White House press secretary. Both Caroline Levitt and Tammy Bruce are full blown Trump suck ups, but Tammy Bruce isn't nearly as good at her job as Caroline Levitt is. So let's compare and contrast. And now go to Caroline Levitt. Caroline Levitt is Donald Trump's White House press secretary. She is just as dishonest as State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce. She is just as much of a Trump sycophant as State Department press secretary Tammy Bruce spokeswoman Tammy Bruce, but she is not going to fall necessarily into the same traps that Bruce falls into. In other words, Caroline Levitt is better at her job than Tammy Bruce's, but she still has absolutely no idea what's going on. Caroline Levitt was asked a very specific question. It's a mathematical question. It's a question of reading and arithmetic. Okay. Two very important R words. Does the president support the big beautiful bill despite the imposition of new taxes on wind and solar? And Levitt thinks that there are credits, not taxes. Listen to this. Thanks, Kelly. Does the President support this new measure in the big beautiful bill that would.

[Caroline Levitt]

Impose steep new taxes on new wind and solar projects?

[David Pakman]

Ms.

[Caroline Levitt]

I believe you're referring to the credits for wind and solar projects. I'm not talking about the new tax. There's a new tax that it's estimated would add 10 to 20% to the cost of any new wind and solar projects that start after this year. Ms. Again, I don't want to comment on the specifics of provisions, but I'm sure the President will spend speak on that directly. Again, this is an ongoing process. The President continues to be very much engaged with the leadership in both the Senate and the House to get this bill back to his desk. Did the President ask for that provision?

[David Pakman]

Because the National Building Trades Union is saying that it's the equivalent of terminating.

[Caroline Levitt]

More than 1,000 Keystone XL pipeline projects.

[David Pakman]

Is that something that would concern him?

[Caroline Levitt]

Ms. Well, the President spoke on this yesterday in his interview, and he said he understands that legislatures want to protect protect legislators want to protect jobs in their communities and in their districts, and so he understands why some so she has no idea.

[David Pakman]

She's asked about some new tax. Supposedly Trump doesn't like new taxes, and she goes, oh, you mean the credits for solar and you mean the credits for when? No, no, no, we mean the new taxes on new wind and new solar projects. Well, I'm not going to comment on that. And the President Trump spoke about this, that and the other thing. Now, this is part of a bigger issue with this bill, which, by the way, I'm getting reports as we are filming that Republicans have the votes and this is potentially imminently going to pass. Then the fight will move back to the House to see if Republicans have the votes there. The big picture of the fiscal viability of this bill is that it increases the deficit dramatically, dramatic increase to the deficit. Caroline Levitt is asked, what about the nonpartisan assessment that confirms this adds to the deficit? She goes, nope, this is fiscally conservative, and it's one of these cases where I guess it's acceptable, no matter what the facts say, to just bury your head in the sand and go, no, but no, it really does cut the deficit, no matter what the facts point to. Can you respond to the CBO estimate.

[Caroline Levitt]

That the Senate bill would increase the deficit by nearly 3.3 trillion? This is one of the most fiscally conservative pieces of legislation that has ever made its way through Capitol There, speaker.

[David Pakman]

One that is very much untrue, $2.

[Caroline Levitt]

Trillion in mandatory saving savings in this bill. And not only that, the projected growth that this bill will bring to our economy, it will be an economic boom. The Council of Economic Advisers has an analysis that shows that the bill will generate $4.1 trillion in economic growth and it will cut taxes, putting more money back into the American people's pockets. That's why this president wants this bill to pass. And I know he's busy working the phones and doing what he needs to do today to make it happen. So we'll see you all later. Thank you. We'll see you in Florida.

[David Pakman]

Understand that this is simply not true. I would be, I would respect these Republicans much more if they said, hey, you know what our principle is one of fiscal responsibility. Our principle is we want bills to cut the deficit. Deficit. In this case, we're making an exception. The bill won't cut the deficit, but we believe that what the bill does is morally right and it's going to take the country in the right direction. And so we're making an exception. It does raise the deficit, but we believe that it's worth it. I would respect that way more than simply going, it doesn't increase the deficit, when of course it it does. But Republicans aren't really behaving in a way that draws respect, at least not from me. Ok, next topic. Caroline Levitt is asked about some videos of ICE officers. Levitt claims CNN is inciting violence against ICE officers. But then when she's actually more specific, she admits she hasn't really seen the clip in which CNN is supposedly inciting violence against ICE officers. I just watched a CNN segment on a new app called ICE Block and it kind of appeared to be promoting.

[Caroline Levitt]

This app where you can tell people where ICE agents are. Given the recent rise that tells people where ICE agents are.

[David Pakman]

Yes.

[Caroline Levitt]

And given the rise, I believe, 500% increase in assaults on ICE agents. I want to see if you could comment on that.

[David Pakman]

And what why CNN would be promoting such an app.

[Caroline Levitt]

Well, it's a very good question. I'll have to go back and watch the clip myself. But surely it sounds like this would be an incitement of further violence against our ICE officers.

[David Pakman]

As you know, haven't seen it, but it certainly sounds like you've stated there's.

[Caroline Levitt]

Been a 500% increase in violence against ICE agents, law enforcement officers across the country who are just simply trying to do their jobs and remove public safety threats, threats from our communities. And that's something we as Americans, including journalists at cnn, who live in many of these cities where Illegal aliens are hiding and were let in from the previous administration should be very grateful for. So we haven't seen the clip. We'll take a look at it, but.

[David Pakman]

Certainly haven't seen the clip. But I'm going to confidently tell you they're inciting violence @ CNN against ICE officers. And violence against ICE officers is way up. Next topic, trade deals. I know that this hasn't gotten a lot of attention over the last, you know, few days or week because of the big beautiful bill, but we are now days away. We are eight days from the 90 deals in 90 days deadline. How many deals that we have so far? Zero. There are zero deals so far. Where are we at in getting to 90? Caroline Levitt is going to let Trump speak on that.

[Caroline Levitt]

We've been hearing from White House officials for weeks that you're close on trade deals with a number of countries. Can we get any update on which countries will have deals by the 9th and when there may be any announcements? I'll let the president and the trade team speak on it.

[David Pakman]

Translation, we currently are on track for zero deals. Now, if I'm totally frank, I do expect Trump to strong arm someone by the 9th into signing some kind of deal. It may even be temporary. It may be like a six month or a year just, just to be able to say we did something here. Because if they get to July 9th with zero deals, I think it'll be a real problem. Finally, final bonus clip here from Caroline Levitt. Have you heard of swastikas? What about SWAT stickers? I know, I know.

[Caroline Levitt]

Vandalized with anti Semitic stickers, including one that showed the Israeli flag with a.

[David Pakman]

Swastika, a harp, SWAT sticker, veggie pot stickers, swastika. These briefings really are exhausting. They really take a lot out of you. Trump Fragrance. Fragrances are here. Perfume, I guess is what we would call it. Cologne. I'm not an expert on this stuff. I don't wear it. Donald Trump is now promoting Victory 45 to 47. What a great name for a cologne. Victory 45 to 47. I was convinced this was satire. I was convinced this was fake, but it's real. Donald Trump posting to his Truth Social account. Quote, trump fragrances are here. They're called Victory 45 to 47 because they're all about winning, strength and success for men and women. Get yourself a bottle and don't forget to get one for your loved ones too. Enjoy, have fun and keep winning. Go to get Trump Fragrances.com and not to be leaving it only to a truth social post. Here is video the sitting President of the United States, whose grift knows no bounds, where shame never plays a role in him saying maybe promoting cologne is like a little too much. Here is Trump. Dear God, Grants are here.

[Peter]

They make a great Christmas present. I've named them for Fight, Fight, Fight because they represent winning. We all want to be winning. We have to win as a nation. We want to win as a family. This fragrance is all about strength and success and confidence for men and for women. Get yourself a bottle and don't forget to grab one for your loved ones, too. They'll thank you and they'll even smell good. Enjoy. Have fun, Keep on winning and Merry Christmas.

[David Pakman]

You would really believe, you would really believe in seeing this stuff, that this would be too much for a president of the United States to do. But it is not. And meanwhile, I do think it's important to mention that there is a disclaimer that Trump has only registered the it's basically a branding deal that Trump is not actually manufacturing these. He, he's not actually distributing them. He didn't design them. He has put his name on these. Imagine for a moment if Joe Biden did this. Imagine for a moment if Barack Obama had done something like this. But it's Trump and it doesn't even make a dent anywhere. Trump fragrant fragrances. Why is that hard for me to say? Trump flagrantly fragrant with who knows what. Reportedly it has sort of a floral smell. Now I'm making that up. After the break for a more serious discussion. Senator Adam Schiff is going to join us, and Senator Chuck Schumer, currently the Senate Minority Leader, will also be joining us. Did you know that 80% of New Year's resolutions fail by February? Lumen is something you can do for your health that's easy to stick to. Our sponsor, Lumen, is the world's first handheld metabolic coach with a single breath. First thing in the morning, Lumen measures your metabolism. It tells you are you burning fat or are you burning carbs? And it'll give you tailored guidance for nutrition workouts, sleep and stress management. No more cookie cutter, one size fits all nutrition plans. Lumen lets you know what is happening in your body and in real time and will build a personalized health plan based on that data. Lumen gives you daily macro recommendations based on what's happening with your metabolism so you can really fuel your body with what's best right before a workout. Breathe into Lumen and it'll tell you if you're Burning carbs or fat lumen will tell you if you need to carb up before a workout for an energy boost or if you're good to go, get 15% off your lumen by going to lumen. Me slash Pacman. That's L u m e n.me/pacman for 15% off. The link is in the podcast notes. It is great to have Senator Adam Schiff joining us again. Senator, there's so many places we could start, but I want to Start here. Priorities USA Poll 48% of Americans have not heard about the big beautiful bill and the debate that's taking place. Of Those who have, only 8% know about the Medicaid cuts. For all of the discussion happening amongst your colleagues right now, we need to do something, I think, so that the average American knows what's happening. I know people are busy, people are working, housing prices are out of control. I get it. But also to build real opposition here, we need to do something, I think, to make sure the country knows what is even happening there, what can be done.

[Adam Schiff]

Well, I hope that poll is an outlier. The ones that I've seen have the recognition of the bill much higher and the negatives about it much higher. But we shouldn't assume anything. We've got to use every mechanism we can to push out the message. We are today offering amendment after amendment to try to put the Republicans on the spot to try to cut out these terrible Medicare cuts that would just result in millions and millions of Americans losing their health care. We're trying to restore SNAP funding, food nutrition assistance for people that is cut out of this bill. We're trying to make them own increasing the deficit in debt by trillions to fund tax cuts for rich people. So we're making the case in every way we can on the Senate floor, off the Senate floor, in interviews, over the airwaves in our districts. But we're going to keep at it. I think, you know, judging not from that poll certainly, but from many others that I've seen that the message is breaking through. But there is still, I think consistently still, a lot of folks who just aren't familiar with this debate or this bill.

[David Pakman]

There are a number of dishonesties, I believe, being perpetrated here about the bill. My view has always been let's just be honest about what's being proposed and then we can honestly judge whether these are things we want or that we don't want. But a couple of the really dishonest things that I wanted to run by you, number one, the claim that benefits aren't cut by the bill. There are simply new paperwork requirements. But of course, it seems to me that if you load up new requirements, don't communicate them to people, limit the hours during which people can call and ask questions or get help about those requirements requirements, the paperwork essentially becomes a cut, does it not?

[Adam Schiff]

It absolutely does. And in fact, Georgia adopted requirements that look a lot like what they're trying to put in this bill. And the result was that so many people lost their health care coverage as a result. We don't want that to be a nationwide phenomenon. But for well beyond these paperwork requirements, they're just slashing Medicaid, they're slashing reimbursement rates. They're slashing the degree to which states will now have to take up the fiscal responsibility, states that don't have the resources for it. So it's just going to mean cutting people off the rolls. It's also going to mean that a lot of hospitals that are on the on the edge right now are going to end up closing their doors. Others may be able to stay open, but they're going to close down that labor and delivery or they're going to close down that emergency room. There's just no mistake. And you take hundreds of billions of dollars out of health care system and people, millions of them, are going to lose coverage.

[David Pakman]

The other part that seems extraordinarily dishonest, that I really want people to understand, is that of course, if you slash a bunch of programs, you're going to be able to say, hey, I'm saving X amount of dollars. I'm saving billions. I'm saving tens of billions. Of course. But you have to also consider what's on the other side of the ledger. And the analogy I've made is if I come to you and I say I've got a great way to save money in our monthly budget, we're not buying groceries anymore. We just saved a couple, you know, however much, 1500 bucks a month in groceries. You would of course say to me, right. But David, we've got to eat. So are we now going out to eat? We have to talk about the other side of the ledger that's missing from these interviews that I see Republicans giving. The totality is that this is a very expensive bill, isn't it?

[Adam Schiff]

Oh, it's a very, very expensive bill. And I think you're absolutely right. We've got to point out, okay, you cut Medicaid for people. What does that mean? They're still going to get sick. They're still going to need surgery. They're still going to need medicine. So what it's going to mean is people don't get treated for things that might be treatable. They wait until it's an emergency. They end up in the emergency room. It's a lot more expensive care when they go to the emergency room. We ended up paying for it anyway. And we pay for it either by these emergency procedures that are costly, but also we pay for it in human lives lost, needlessly lost. And you're right, even with all of these supposed cuts, they're still borrowing money from our kids and grandkids to pay for these tax cuts for wealthy people. So the cuts don't cut enough for these wealthy people. And corporate tax cuts.

[David Pakman]

What is the best way for my audience to activate here? Certainly tell people who don't know about this debate that it's happening. But beyond that, you know, some people wrote to me saying they are calling the offices of the senators that are sort of borderline on this, but they're not all constituents of those senators, so they don't know, does it even matter if I call a senator that doesn't represent me? Others are targeting the donors to those key senators and this has led to some corporations today shutting off comments on all of their social media because they were getting absolutely crushed. What is most effective and useful for my audience to do right now?

[Adam Schiff]

You know, there are a handful of key senators who are on the fence about this bill and they've made statements that are critical of the bill or they've expressed concerns about the bill. The most effective thing is if they hear from their constituents now, people who are viewers of yours or listening listeners of yours who don't live in those states probably know someone who does live in those states and reaching out to them and asking them to contact their senators. That can be really effective because they are hearing from their own people that way. So that's what I would encourage. If you know someone in North Carolina, well, Tillis is already against the bill. But in Alaska or in Maine or in any of these other swing states or, you know, senators that you would think would on the natural support whatever the president wants. But pointing out through their constituents, hey, this is going to cost me my health care or hey, our hospital is already on a razor's edge. This is going to force it to close. You can't vote for this. That's really, I think, the most effective last thing.

[David Pakman]

And I'll let you go. There have been some ideas of funding for rural hospitals as a sort of make good for the Medicaid cuts, which many of your colleagues have said that, that, that this is, this is a ruse. This is not something that I like the sound of. Is that something that you feel Republicans are committed to, or is there some possibility that through amendments or negotiation, maybe that quid pro quo, for lack of a better term or trade could be turned into something where we don't get the cuts to begin with?

[Adam Schiff]

I think what they're looking for is political cover. They're looking for a fig leaf. So what they want, if they can't exempt the hospitals in their state, the rural hospitals in their state, they want to create a fund which the president will have discretion over to send money to their state, to their rural hospitals. And, but the amounts they're talking about compared to the need for these hospitals are so small, these hospitals are still going to go under. And in fact, the association representing these hospitals has made it clear none of this is going to work. It's a band aid when you're just slashing us. So it's political cover, but that's not going to help you if you need medical care.

[David Pakman]

All right. Senator Adam Schiff, thanks so much for your time today. I know you're busy over there. We're watching this very closely.

[Adam Schiff]

Thank you. You take care now.

[David Pakman]

It is great to welcome to the program today at a time of significant consequence, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer. Senator Schumer, we, as in my audience and I, are trying to figure out what can we do not just in opposition of this big, beautiful bill as it exists, but also what can we do? Because according to some surveys, half the country doesn't realize that this debate is taking place. And the consequence of this, give us, give us something. Point us in a direction if you're able to.

[Chuck Schumer]

Well, one thing I would do, it has gotten more listenership, you know, people listening in when we read the bill. I don't know if people know we forced them to read the bill. I was allowed to do that. That's one of the few prerogatives that the minority has in the Senate. And it took 17 hours. I know MSNBC and CNN played something. I don't know how much it was on the blogospheres, but it was out there. And people are, you know, I'm getting a lot of phone calls to my office today saying support the bill, fuck the Republicans, all that kind of stuff. And so I think the best thing people can do, we're going to keep this fight on, tell people to just tune in to C SPAN for a little bit, they'll enjoy. Every amendment we're doing, David, is aimed at showing the hypocrisy, the perfidy, the cruelness of these Republicans. I mean, can you imagine they want to take food out of a starving child's mouth to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. That's what they're doing. They're cutting snap. Kids who are, you know, whose parents can't afford food for them get SNAP. They've cut it to $5 a day. You can't buy a dozen eggs for a dollar five a day. So I think when people look at it, not only do they see it, but they talk to their friends, they talk to their family, they go online in their chat rooms and things like that. So the more people who watch it, the better. The second thing we're trying to do is get all the groups who are concerned to let their memberships know. So the environmentalists, you know, they're screwing. This is incredible. All solar and wind energy. They're going to shut those industries down. It's amazing. Well, first, we all know we're going to need a lot more electricity. AI needs much more electricity. And if we don't get more, it's going to raise people's electricity bills way up because AI needs for their databases tremendous amounts of power. The quickest, fastest way to get new energy, new electrons on the grid, is solar. It's cheapest and it's quickest. But the bastards who are the fossil fuel lobby, and this is not just Exxon and Chevron, it's a lot of these billionaires who struck it rich in Texas and Oklahoma and they don't want to pay any taxes they hate. It's almost a religion for them, clean energy because they know it's the future. You know, natural gas is going down, oil is going down in terms of consumption. Coal is really down. Clean energy is the future and they're cutting it. And here's the funny thing. 80% of these new projects for clean energy are in Republican states. So these guys, because they're so damn afraid of Trump, they're going to cut, lose thousands of jobs in their state. We estimate it's 850,000 jobs that will be lost in all these new plants that do solar, that do wind, that do batteries. It's amazing. So it's so incredible what they're actually doing. If people even get a little glimpse of it, they're going to talk about. And that's.

[David Pakman]

Can you explain the behind the scenes of are there Colleagues of yours in the Senate on the Republican side who come to you and privately say, listen, subsidies for coal, this doesn't make sense, but look at the position I'm in. I mean, do they acknowledge the absurdity of some of this?

[Chuck Schumer]

Yeah. I'll say two things. One of them, they're just scared shitless of Trump.

[David Pakman]

Is that what it is?

[Chuck Schumer]

Yes. At Lisa Murkowski said it. She set it up in Alaska. She's one of the bolder ones, you know, the ones who are more able to communicate. So she said, we are all afraid. And there are stories that Trump threatens people that Musk, when he was there, told people that he wouldn't give, you know, that he'd run a primary against him and put millions and millions of dollars in. So a, they're afraid. But look, one of them wasn't this Tillis. The North Carolinas would be one of the most hard hit states on both energy and Medicaid and health care. He quit and he was honest about it. He said, this is a good bill and I just don't want to be here anymore with so many people opposing it. I talked to the Republicans on the floor today, talked right at him. I said, you know that Donald Trump's alive. You know, he makes things up. Like when he says, no, we won't cut Medicaid, no one will lose their health care costs. Or when he says, this is a tax break for, you know, so many middle class people, not for the billionaires. They know he's a liar. So why do they go along with him? Fear.

[David Pakman]

Can you tell us a little bit about the plan? If indeed this bill passes in some form, approximating where it is now with who knows which amendments at this point in time? One of the difficulties over the last 15 years has been making sure voters know who to blame. And of course, what we care about is people's lives. But if you want to make change, it's important to know how we got to where we are with Obamacare. The example I give is when red state governors opted not to do the Medicaid expansion. Many voters didn't get their health care, not because of anything Barack Obama did, but because the governor said, we're not going to do that. But if they don't know that, when it comes to voting, we have a problem. Is there a plan here?

[Chuck Schumer]

This battle is now taking place on the floor of the Senate where we're making them vote after amendment after amendment. They're working on hot coals, they're working on shards of glass, they hate voting for these amendments because their constituencies are so much against it. You know, why are they having such trouble putting this together? Why are we, you know, why did they delay and delay and delay so they might not miss Trump's artificial deadline until I forth? Because they know their constituencies hate the bill. But. So we're fighting now, but this fight's got to continue. All of July and August, we have plans to go into Republican states, to go into Republican districts and let people know their congressman, their senator, when this plant closes down, when this hospital or rural, you know, the rural hospitals in Republican areas are the hardest hit. You know, they don't have a cushion. And this rural hospital is closing because your congressman, your senator, didn't have the courage to resist Donald Trump and vote the right way. So this is a plan that we're gonna carry out. And let me tell you, this is gonna become a real factor in the elections. You saw Tillis just quit.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Chuck Schumer]

Many of these other Republican senators know that this is real trouble for them in the elections. And if you think this isn't going to be the biggest issue in the campaigns, you're sadly mistaken. It is.

[David Pakman]

Senator, last thing I want to ask you, and I know you've got to run. Many in my audience are currently extraordinarily down on the Democratic Party. They voted in November and they saw, ok, the White House didn't go our way, the Senate didn't go our way, the House didn't go our way. And now they're looking around and they're seeing the rollback of rights, due process, evaporating, authoritarianism. I don't have to give you the list. And they are worried. Does the Democratic Party have a plan other than we aren't Trump for the midterms and of course, for 2028?

[Chuck Schumer]

Yeah.

[David Pakman]

Is there anything you can say to that group?

[Chuck Schumer]

Yes. First, some of the things we did are having an effect. The best place we're winning is the courts. When I was majority leader, we put 235 people in the federal district courts, two thirds women, two thirds people of color. I was very proud of that. Well, we have won. When you go to court, we're going against all the vile things Trump's administration is doing. We won 95% of the cases. So we're winning in the courts, and we're going to keep that up. But we are going to have a strong Democratic plan. It's going to be a sharp economic message that shows average folks how they can advance. You know, when I grew up in the 50s or 60s. If you ask the average person, well, how's your life going to be said? Well, you know, a 30 year old, well, if I work hard, I'll be doing better 10 years from now than I'm doing today. And my kids will be doing still better than me.

[David Pakman]

Right, True.

[Chuck Schumer]

Anymore people don't say it. Housing is a problem. Getting a good paying job is a problem. Costs. One of the things we're going to look at, David, is groceries drive people crazy. How expensive they are, 200, $300 each week for a bill of a single person. It's controlled by the food monopolies. Do you know that milk, all the 90% of the milk in America comes from one company. 80% of the eggs comes from two companies, 75% of the meat, three big beef houses. They bought up all the little farms, all the little companies and they raised prices through the roof. We're going to go after them. So we're going to make it easier to afford a home, particularly a down payment. You know, a lot of people, you know of this, of the new generation, they got enough money to pay the mortgage, but they don't have the down payment, which is way up. When I, when I bought a house, when my wife and I bought a house, it's 5% down payment. It's now 25%.

[David Pakman]

Right.

[Chuck Schumer]

Of course, housing is much more expensive. Help them with that down payment and then they can buy. Because when people are putting equity into a home and building equity and they know they'll have the home and they can pass it on to their kids if need be, they're building something. When they just put rent into the landlord's pocket, it's money down the toilet. And so we're going to do that. And we got to have really good training for the new jobs that are coming up, like the clean energy which they're destroying. That brought in 800,000 new people.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Chuck Schumer]

And most, many of them were poorer people, people of color, people who never had a good paying job before. Health care does it too. If you go to hospitals, you know, my city of New York, it's a ladder up. Three quarters of the people there are immigrants, poor people, people of color. And they're getting good paying jobs because there's a union. Good paying jobs. For the first time in their family's career, we have to emphasize these things. Good new jobs, cheaper housing, cheaper making groceries and other costs more affordable. And we got many. And with them we have to fight to preserve our democracy. And if we.

[David Pakman]

Senator, those are absolutely. Kitchen table issues. I look forward to seeing the plan laid out. And I know you've got to run. I really do appreciate your time today. Senator Chuck Schumer.

[Chuck Schumer]

Thank you, David. I'd love to come back. I've enjoyed, I've enjoyed listening to you.

[David Pakman]

Thank you so much. 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 policy 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. 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. 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. Once again, the Trump administration is getting closer and closer and closer to this stud every month that passes. It's either political targeting or it's media targeting or even potentially my citizenship status. So let me tell you what's going on. As many of you know, I am not from these lands. I am a naturalized citizen from Argentina. I was born in Argentina, came to the US when I was five. I was naturalized as a minor when I was 16 or, or 17. I don't remember exactly. There is a new Trump DOJ memo from this month which is telling attorneys to aggressively prioritize de naturalization. I was naturalized. Denaturalization means find naturalized citizens, find a reason to take away their citizenship and deport them from back to wherever they are. Presumably now, at least for now, they're not coming for every naturalized citizen. Initially, the idea is let's find naturalized citizens who have committed certain crimes and look at taking their citizenship from them. Now, the Department of Justice memo leaves the criteria pretty broad. It includes national security crimes, it includes government fraud, fraud. But it also includes any other case deemed important enough to justify denaturalization. That's very vague language and it's concerning. Now, denaturalization has a very, very ugly history. If you go back to the McCarthy era, you quickly learn that denaturalization was a tool used to purge so called undesirable citizens. And this practice was really reined in after a 1967 Supreme Court ruling which said, you know you're going to create two classes of citizens in theory at least, once you become a citizen, once you are naturalized as a citizen, you are the same as any natural born citizen. If you do a practice of targeting and denaturalizing those who were naturalized, you are creating two tiers of citizenship. Natural born citizens who cannot be denaturalized and naturalized citizens who are subject to losing their citizenship. But it goes even further than this because they're doing something really devious. They are approaching this, the Trump DOJ is approaching this as a civil matter. If these were criminal proceedings for denaturalization, everyone would have the right to a lawyer even if they couldn't afford one. And the burden of proof is higher. As civil proceedings, the defendants do not have a right to a lawyer. And the burden of proof is far lower. Law professors have weighed in. If they said, you know, you've got vague standards, meaning they can include any crime deemed important. And you've also got this civil infrastructure, no right to a lawyer, lower, lower burden of proof. This means that the DOJ could go after naturalized citizens with no serious infractions, and if they are politically useful scapegoats. So this is not law and order. This is, let's redefine who gets to really be a citizen. And if you're naturalized, you're in a different category where you are subject to our review. And this is part of a growing authoritarian project. First they silence dissent, then they threaten your legal identity and your status into me. David, personally, I'm watching this unfold not as an abstract policy debate somewhere out there. I'm watching this unfold as a naturalized citizen critical of Trump, living under Trump. I've been targeted by MAGA media. I faced harassment online. Remember when Don Jr. Tweeted about me and it became complete insanity? And the government is moving in my direction. They're not at my door yet, but they're moving in my direction. Legally, they're moving in my direction, structurally, ideologically, they are moving in my direction. It's not fear mongering or hyperbole to say they're getting closer. They're not yet at my door. But if indeed we do have these two tiers of citizenship, I'm not in the top tier. Okay? You will have your natural born citizens who can't have their citizenship taken, and you will have naturalized citizens like me who can. Even if you've done nothing wrong, the government can now dig into your past. They can look for reasons to kick you out. And of course, in addition to all of the other issues, this raises due process concerns. It threatens families, especially whose kids citizenship came through naturalized parents like my own. I used to think citizen means I'm safe. I don't believe that anymore. I'm not saying they will come after me, but what I am saying is they can come after me and they can really go after anybody. I mean, listen, Trump's now looking at deporting Elon Musk. Of course they can come after me if they can go after someone like Elon Musk. So here's what I can tell you. I can't predict where this is going to go. I can't predict what the outcome would be. What I can tell you is that even if Trump takes my citizenship and I have to go to back to Argentina, I don't know, wherever the show can, and it will continue as long as they don't take my camera and my beautiful microphone, even without my lights, I could do it as long as I had the microphone and the camera. So it's getting very dark, it's getting very scary. But we're going to keep on it. And even if that happens, even if they do show up at my door, I believe that the show is going to be able to continue, maybe from some far off place, but it will be able to continue. All right, listen, the fake David Pakman have to stop. And I don't know legally what I can do about this, but I'm going to show you something wacky. Absolutely wacky. There is an AI version of this show. Okay? The background is digital, but it looks just like this background. The bookshelf has an element on it that looks just so. You've got this sort of vase that I have on my bookshelf here. And you can see a very similar vase. Not only that, the digital Pacman has a book on his shelf called Echo Machine, just like my book, the Echo Machine. And it looks, if you look closely, like this book was written not by David Pakman, but by Lanvio Pramha or something like that. I'm going to play a little bit of this for you. This is clearly AI generated. Why somebody would pick an AI Generated character with a really bad combo over. That's not something I have going on. Okay, but listen, this is AI copy, I guess, of this show.

[Peter]

Just when you thought the impeachment circus had folded its tent, Colorado's firebrand returns not with popcorn, but with Hres503 in hand. From open borders to foreign cartels, this spectacle isn't about oversight.

[David Pakman]

It's about optics.

[Peter]

And once again, the Constitution gets name dropped harder than a campaign donor on speed dial.

[David Pakman]

Okay, so I, first of all, I hope I'm a little bit more engaging than that. Couple of questions on this. Number one, at some point, could this be as engaging as watching a real person and there won't even be a need for real life hosts. That's question number one. I want to hear from you. Number two, who would actually watch this crap right now? Fascinatingly, this video has fake 500 views and this channel has 13,000 subscribers. So question number two is, who would even watch this right now given that it is, it is not particularly engaging. And then number three, is this legal? I mean, I, I guess it probably is, right? Like, even though the set looks just like mine and the book has the same name, and I'm guessing that this is legal to do. So listen, this not only might we be up against Trump coming for independent progressive media, we might also be up against this guy with the bad comb over and the shirt. I would never wear this shirt. Please. In a virtual version of my studio. I don't know. Let me know what you think. We've got a great bonus show for you today. We will talk about polling around the big beautiful bill. Americans hate it. Just absolutely hate it. We will also talk about polling around the threat against democracy. Most Americans believe it is threatened. And then finally, we are going to talk about Alligator Alcatraz and the dark echoes that it is stirring. Get the bonus show. Sign up@join pacman.com and remember to also subscribe to my substack newsletter@david pakman.substack.com.