7/31/25: Trump admin launches health spying system, Kamala setting up ‘28 run

Summary

Podcast Summary: The David Pakman Show – July 31, 2025

Title: Trump Administration Launches Health Spying System, Kamala Setting Up ‘28 Run
Host: David Pakman
Release Date: July 31, 2025

---

1. Kamala Harris Declines California Gubernatorial Run and Implications for 2028

David Pakman opens the episode discussing Kamala Harris's decision not to run for Governor of California, a move that has significant ramifications for the 2028 Democratic presidential primary.

• Strategic Implications:
  It was widely expected that Harris would run for governor, especially with Gavin Newsom being term-limited. Her decision shifts the potential trajectory towards a presidential run in 2028.

• Analysis of Harris’s Candidacy:
  Pakman contends that while Harris is highly competent and qualified—"extraordinarily sharp, extraordinarily competent" [00:07]—her previous 2024 campaign was hindered by outdated strategies and an inability to distinguish herself from President Biden. He asserts, "I just don't think Harris can win a general election in 2028" [12:45].

• Alternative Democratic Candidates:
  Pakman suggests stronger candidates like Wes Moore, Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, Andy Beshear, and Pete Buddha Judge, arguing they possess better strategies and broader appeal compared to Harris.

• Democratic Party’s Future:
  He expresses pessimism about the Democratic Party’s current state, questioning whether the party's leadership is ready to innovate beyond established figures like Harris [14:07].

2. Trump Administration’s Health Surveillance Initiative

Pakman shifts focus to a new nationwide health tracking system launched by the Trump administration, partnering with major tech companies such as Google, Apple, Amazon, CVS, and UnitedHealth.

• System Overview:
  The program aims to digitize and share personal medical records, including data on diabetes, weight, medications, and mental health. It is presented as an opt-in wellness initiative but raises significant privacy concerns.

• Leadership and Intent:
  Dr. Oz, now head of Medicare and Medicaid, oversees the system. Trump proclaimed, "We are finally making the dream of easily transportable electronic medical records a reality" [16:30].

• Privacy and Surveillance Concerns:
  Pakman critiques the initiative as a “surveillance scheme disguised as a wellness program,” highlighting risks such as data misuse, lack of privacy, potential for government abuse, and exposure to hackers [17:10].

• Political Irony:
  He points out the irony of former MAGA critics like RFK Jr. and Dr. Oz now supporting similar surveillance measures that they previously opposed, undermining conspiracy theories about government overreach [19:17].

3. Donald Trump’s Performance at Health Surveillance Announcement

Pakman discusses Trump's participation in the event announcing the health surveillance system, highlighting his erratic behavior.

• Behavior Analysis:
  Trump struggled to comprehend questions, delivering incoherent responses filled with random numbers:
  “We have a deal with Japan where they're going to pay us $550 billion." [24:07]
  Pakman describes Trump’s performance as a "number salad," emphasizing his inability to articulate coherent information during critical announcements [25:25].

• Dr. Oz’s Presentation:
  Dr. Oz advocates for the system, touting its benefits and experimenting with consumer health advancements, but Pakman remains skeptical of its motives and implications [28:52].

4. Social Security Privatization Efforts by the Trump Administration

The discussion transitions to the Trump administration’s plans to privatize Social Security, with revelations from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant.

• Privatization Plans:
  Bessant admits that the administration aims to transfer Social Security funds to for-profit financial companies through Trump Savings Accounts [19:17].

• Expert Critique:
  Pakman critiques this move as “unconscionable,” emphasizing that privatizing Social Security exposes millions to market risks, management fees, and potential loss of a crucial safety net [20:01]. He underscores the importance of Social Security's predictability and protection against financial instability.

• Long-Term Consequences:
  Highlighting the structural issues, Pakman warns that without major strategic changes, the privatization effort could repeat the same failures seen in Harris’s 2024 campaign [12:45].

5. Interview with California Senator Lina Gonzalez on ICE Raids and Immigration Policy

In an exclusive interview, Senator Lina Gonzalez, California’s Senate Majority Leader, discusses the recent surge in ICE raids and the impact on her constituency.

• Current Situation in Southeast LA:
  Gonzalez describes intense ICE activity in her district, including violent raids and detentions, affecting both immigrants and U.S. citizens [35:11].

• Legal Protections and Advocacy:
  She outlines legislative efforts to protect residents’ rights during such raids, including requiring identification and judicial warrants [37:39]. Gonzalez emphasizes that most detainees are non-criminals, contrary to claims that the policy targets criminals [43:20].

• Impact on Latino Community:
  Gonzalez addresses the rising anti-Latino sentiment and the misconception that immigration policy equates to defending criminals. She stresses that the majority of affected individuals are law-abiding [45:53].

• Political Shifts:
  She provides insights into the unexpected support for Trump among Latino voters in 2024, attributing it to effective populist and targeted economic messaging orchestrated through sophisticated social media strategies [48:33].

• Democratic Messaging:
  Gonzalez calls for improved Democratic communication strategies to better resonate with working-class voters and counteract Trump's populist narratives [51:25].

6. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s Stand Against Trump’s Pressure

Pakman highlights Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s efforts to maintain the Fed’s independence amidst Trump’s demands to lower interest rates.

• Powell’s Independence:
  Powell reiterates the importance of an independent central bank, stating, "We are not going to be bullied by the president" [53:34]. He emphasizes that interest rate decisions are based on data and economic indicators, not political pressures [54:49].

• Trump’s Response:
  Trump publicly criticized Powell, calling him “too angry, too stupid and too political” [55:53], and accused him of sabotaging the economy.

• Implications for Monetary Policy:
  Pakman explains the critical role of the Fed’s independence in ensuring sound monetary policy, protecting against political manipulation that could destabilize the economy [55:53].

7. FDA Commissioner Martin Makary’s Controversial Remarks on COVID Vaccines

The episode covers FDA Commissioner Martin Makary’s statements regarding COVID-19 vaccine safety.

• Makary’s Claims:
  Makary acknowledged knowing of cases where individuals died following vaccination, claiming, "I know of one friend who lost a parent from the COVID 19 vaccine" [58:36].

• Pakman’s Critique:
  Pakman criticizes Makary for spreading misinformation, arguing that extensive studies have demonstrated vaccine safety and efficacy. He points out the contradiction between Makary’s firsthand anecdotes and scientific data [59:26].

• Impact on Public Trust:
  The host expresses concern over Makary’s credibility, emphasizing the potential harm caused by officials endorsing unfounded claims [59:43].

8. Upcoming Bonus Show Highlights

Pakman teases the upcoming bonus show, which will cover:

• Public Perceptions of the Economy:
  New polling data on Americans' beliefs about the current economic state.

• Caroline Levitt’s Campaign Debt:
  Discussion on why former Trump press secretary Caroline Levitt remains in debt after her 2022 congressional campaign.

• Josh Hawley’s Rebate Proposal:
  Examination of Senator Josh Hawley’s attempt to restrict $600 tariff rebate checks to non-Biden voters, questioning its legality.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Kamala Harris’s Decision:
  “For now, my leadership and public service will not be in elected office for now.” [00:07]

• On Harris’s Competence:
  “Kamala Harris, when I met her, was extraordinarily sharp, extraordinarily competent.” [12:45]

• On Trump’s Scrutiny of Fed:
  “Jerome Powell fact checked Trump about buildings and construction.” [53:34]

• On Social Security Privatization:
  “To take Social Security retirement Security and make it depend on stock market performance, minus fees, by the way, for these for-profit financial companies, you're just exposing people to losses.” [20:01]

• On ICE Raids Impact:
  “There were US Citizens being rammed with a car by what we believe are federal agents.” [44:00]

---

Conclusion:

In this episode, David Pakman delves deep into the strategic moves within the Democratic Party, highlighting Kamala Harris’s political trajectory and the potential pitfalls for the 2028 presidential race. He critically examines the Trump administration’s invasive health surveillance initiatives, emphasizing the privacy risks and political motivations behind such measures. The interview with Senator Lina Gonzalez provides a grassroots perspective on the real-world impact of federal immigration policies, underscoring the human cost of aggressive ICE raids.

Additionally, Pakman underscores the significance of institutional independence through the Federal Reserve’s resistance to presidential pressure, while also addressing the troubling statements from FDA officials that undermine public trust in vaccination programs. The episode concludes with a preview of the bonus show, promising further exploration of pressing political and economic issues.

Stay Informed: For those interested in the detailed discussions and analyses presented in this episode, tuning into The David Pakman Show offers invaluable insights into the evolving political landscape and its implications for the future.

Transcript

[David Pakman]

Welcome to the show. We start today with news about Kamala Harris's political future. This is a big deal. This could essentially set the stage for what will happen in 2028 with the Democratic primary and ultimately for who becomes the next President of the United States. So here's what's going on. Former Vice President Kamala Harris said she's not running for governor of California. And this is hugely important and consequential. It was assumed Harris is running for California Governor. Gavin Newsom is term limited out. Harris was set to do it. There was reporting that it was a done deal. Every understanding was that if Harris ran that she had an unobstructed path, certainly to the Democratic nomination. It's sort of a different kind of primary setup in California, but the idea being that she had an unobstructed path to the final ballot for governor of California. Now, by not doing it, the natural question is whether this is a setup to run in 2028 for president in the forthcoming Democratic presidential primary. Now, I'm going to tell you up front, I'm then going to back it up. But I'm going to tell you up front, I think that if this is her plan, it's a bad idea. And I don't think it's a bad idea because Harris couldn't do the job. I met her in March of last year. She's formidable, she's intelligent. She could do the job. I don't think that it's a bad idea because she's not competent. She is highly competent. That that's not the issue. The context here is one where what is the natural next step for Harris becomes a question. And it seems that to some degree she might feel as though going from VP to governor is a step down. And so that her only even potential future for going further up would be to run for president in 2028. She put out a carefully worded statement where she said, for now, my leadership and public service will not be in elected office for now. And then she adds that she's going to work on helping to elect Democrats in the midterms and in the forthcoming months. She's going to tell us more about her plan. So if you just say, take the names, take the history, take everything we know about Harris Biden in the last four years, take it out of there. Just look at what she's saying. You would say, oh, that's a pre campaign positioning. That's someone setting up to open the door to say, I am entering the Democratic primary. So, so let me say again, Kamala Harris, when I met her, was extraordinarily sharp, extraordinarily competent, able to talk about AI, immigration, foreign policy in an unscripted way, in a way that Trump can't do and Biden can't do. This is really not about qualifications. This is based on what we saw in 2024. I just don't think Harris can win a general election in 2028. What she is doing is intelligent in a sense. She's avoiding a messy state level race in California, which ultimately might be a political downgrade from VP to governor. Not everybody would agree, but in some sense she stays on the national stage, she's going to go to the fundraisers, she can go to the Met gala, she can do overseas speaking events. She keeps her name in the mix, but she doesn't get tied down to being the administrator of California. And my critique here is really not about anything Harris is doing, per say. This is the whole political operation around her. If you look at her 2024 campaign, it was this campaign style really rooted in the old guard of Democratic politics. The first couple of weeks were good, but you all have heard me say it a bunch of times now. Then it got heavy on consultants, it got away from the instinct of what was working. Safe messaging, slow reaction time, not engaging with the media ecosystem in a modern and contemporary manner. And she ultimately struggled to define herself and build a clear coalition. Her hesitation to distinguish herself from Biden in any way, because it would be seen as an implicit criticism of the president that she's serving under, certainly made it more complicated for her. But even despite some of the unique circumstances of 2024, I struggle to see her campaign as a fluke. I think that that's the campaign that she would run, even if she weren't already VP and taking over for Biden. In these sort of unusual circumstances, there's like a structural weakness, not in Harris as a candidate necessarily, but in the broader Democratic playbook that I think would certainly be applied again. If you apply that playbook in 2028, it's a major problem. Now, on the other hand, you've got Gavin Newsom clearly testing the waters. He launched his podcast, he's showing up in early primary states, he's staying very, very visible, and he has his own liabilities, which we'll talk about in a moment. But he does seem to understand that the political terrain has changed. I'm not saying you have to like Gavin Newsom better than Harris on policy or personality, but just looking at how they're operating, he seems to Understand that the political terrain has changed. And the fact that Kamala Harris is stepping back from a governor's race that would be on her home turf, that she almost certainly would win, to me, shows she sees a better, more prestigious option. And it's hard to imagine what that is other than running for president in 2028. But unless there's like some kind of major strategic overhaul around her, completely different type of team, completely different type of messaging, different media strategy, I think Kamala 28 is a replay of Kamala 24. Now the risk, of course, for Democrats is making the same sort of miscalculation more than once and assuming that experience which she has, and on paper, electability, which she of course has, is going to win you a campaign. And we already saw that that simply doesn't work. So I think the really the bigger question for the Democratic Party, which I know you all know, I am very pessimistic about this Democratic Party right now. The question for the Democratic Party is, is the party, the party control cadre. I don't even know what to call it. The politburo, for lack of a better term, is it really ready for something different? Now, I am not ready today to pick anybody or to tell you who I think should run or make an endorsement or anything like that. But I do think that among those who are rumored to be thinking about it, there are a lot of better options than Kamala Harris. I mean, if you say, David, would you rather Wes Moore, governor of Maryland, who I saw speak in person recently, and he was excellent, would I want Wes Moore or Kamala Harris as the nominee? I'd say I think Wes Moore has a better shot at this. Generationally, he has a different perspective on how to run campaigns. Rhodes scholar, veteran. I think Moore is a better candidate than Harris in the abstract. I would choose Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, over Kamala Harris appeals to suburban women and independence in a way that I don't think Harris does. I would choose Josh Shapiro over Kamala Shapiro. With the rampant anti Semitism, there's no doubt that Shapiro has liabilities. There's no question. But he's not flashy, but he's widely respected. He probably appeals to moderates in a way that Harris doesn't. What about Newsom versus Kamala Harris? I think I choose Newsom over Harris. Confident, communicator, very aggressive with right wing media. The risk is he's almost too slick for his own good. He's so good at performing that I think it can sometimes come off as a little too scripted or disingenuous. I would take Andy Beshear over Kamala Harris, red state governor in Kentucky. We had him on the show recently. We know he can win in red states. He's good on kitchen table issues. He hasn't been distracted by culture war stuff. So the point and Pete Buddha Judge I think is interesting. There are a lot of people who I think strategically are more interesting than Kamala Harris. So is this a setup to run in 2028? I don't know. Certainly is opening that door. Personally, I think we simply lose. It's not. I think Harris is awesome, but I think we lose. Let me know what you think. Leave a comment Send an email info@david pakman.com if you were convinced by MAGA that it is the left that wants to track your every move, you've got to think again. I told you this was coming and it's happening. The Trump administration is launching a nationwide health tracking system and they are partnering with the very big tech companies that MAGA has been warning us about for a long time. It's Google, Apple, Amazon, CVS, UnitedHealth. There's over 60 companies that are teaming up with the federal government to create a database of your private medical history. Diabetes, weight medications, mental health record records. It's all digitized, it's shareable. It's all opt in, of course. And who is running it? It's Dr. Oz, now head of Medicare and Medicaid. We're going to look later at some of the video, but Trump stood at the White House and he said that we are finally making the dream of easily transportable electronic, electronic medical records a reality. So pause there for a second. Do you remember when it was the maga, right, screaming about vaccine passports? What about hipaa? What about my medical records and privacy government health databases? They're going to microchip or they're going to track whether you're vaccinated. And we need to be skeptical about anything like this. Glenn Beck practically fainted when someone said we've got a contact trace. During COVID RFK Jr. Said the government should never, ever, ever under any circumstances be collecting personal health Data. And now RFK Jr. Is Secretary of Health and Human Services. He's pushing wearables to monitor vitals. He's pushing this massive medical dragnet to study vaccines and autism. He wants the records and Dr. Oz wants the records. So my question is, where are the don't tread on me people now? Where is the outrage from the government overreach people that say government shouldn't have any of our records. They are silent because it's now Trump doing the surveillance. So there's no conspiracy theory here. This is official federal policy. The center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is going to maintain this system. And earlier this month they agreed to give deportation officials access to the database, including addresses. And now they want to put your full medical history on top of it. Health tech startups, the weight loss app Noom is going to be able to pull your lab tests and give you AI driven weight loss suggestions. And it's going to be based on even things that you've told your doctor. Potentially you use Apple Health Noom gets the data center. CMS will soon start recommending government approved health apps on Medicare.gov this, this is what they warned us about. Digital privacy experts are concerned. Small, genuine small government people are concerned and this is really a surveillance scheme that they've dressed up as a wellness program. And maybe the most hypocritical part of it is that the very people who were warning us about government tracking have built this system and are saying, look at how awesome this is. So you've got Trump and RFK and Dr. Oz doing what they said Foushee and Gates are going to do this. And of course Foushee and Gates didn't do it, but they are the ones doing it. And the conspiracy theorists who were warning us about Gates are now applauding and saying, this is so awesome. It's Maha make America healthy again. So listen, we were told to question authority, so here are some questions. When government joins forces with Big Tech and mines your personal health data, who do you think actually benefits? Because the government can track your private health info. They could monitor, they could profile, they could target people based on a condition or a behavior. Immigration officials already got access to the health databases and they could lead deportation efforts potentially based on these databases. Of course, with no due process, Big tech can then use the data to sell you products and ads. They can turn your health information really into a commodity. I may be given access to this stuff and say, this isn't someone that should be getting health insurance or should be charged more or shouldn't get this job because of algorithmic discrimination based on weight and mental health or whatever the case may be be. Of course, once you put this in a database, hackers can steal the information. That's always a threat. And then you could even have a future president or maybe the current one who uses the system against you and enables government abuse, enforcing mandates, denying services based on the health data. So if you were concerned when we were told it's Bill Gates doing it with vaccine microchips, which it wasn't, why aren't you concerned right now?

[Lina Gonzalez]

So.

[David Pakman]

So I want to hear from the magazine explain to me why this is okay or. Or do you have the testicular fortitude or the ovarian fortitude to say, you know what, I was against this when they told me it was Gates and Foushee. It wasn't. I have to be against it now as well. Are there any of you in my audience? Let me know. Make sure you're subscribed on YouTube. YouTube.com fault/the David Pakman Show One of the easiest ways to make a good night even better is a great bottle of wine. Not something random off the shelf like I would pick because I'm clueless, but something that feels a little more thoughtful worth opening. And that's why I've consistently gotten wines from Naked Wines, our sponsor. Naked Wines works directly with over 90 independent winemakers around the world, so you get access to boutique bottles that would be way more money in stores. The prices are great. The quality is impressive. I like that. I can customize the boxes. Do I want reds or whites or a mix? The last one I opened was a white from a winemaker I hadn't tried before. One of the best bottles I've had this year. Crisp. I love crisp. Made with care. Check out Naked Wines. You can get six bottles for just 3999 including shipping. Go to naked wines.com/pacman Click enter voucher Use code Pacman for both the code and the password. The link is in the description. I've talked before about how I have allocated a portion of my assets to individual stocks. And when it comes to individual stocks, how do you get the information that is going to help you meaningfully decide what makes sense for you? And and that's exactly why I've been testing out Investing Pro. This is the new flagship platform from Investing Dotcom and the whole idea here is it's a tool to find stocks others may be missing. And the feature I've been using is called Warren AI. It's kind of like Chat GPT trained on up to the minute market data. So you can ask it what happened to Nvidia yesterday? What might be moving Tesla stock? Or if I have X to invest, how might I allocate it? And the answers are fast, precise and actually helpful, which is different than a lot of finance content. It's all powered by Investing Dotcom Data Engine. It's designed to give retail investors tools more like the ones that the pros use. Take advantage of their huge summer sale, giving you 50% off plus you'll get an additional 15% off when you sign up at David pakman.com/invest. The link is in the description as an independent progressive media show, we are trying to build more than just a podcast and some videos here. We're really trying to build a bulwark in favor of democracy against the authoritarianism of MAGA and of the current administration. We're doing it in partnership with you because you are our primary funding source. We exist because of folks like you who get a membership@join pacman.com and we're also trying to lift up other creators, grow the ecosystem and really try to make ourselves as robust and strong as can be, particularly in the face of more opposition to the fact that we exist than we've ever encountered before. So if you've got a few bucks a month, I would love it for you to sign up@join pacman.com if you've got a few extra bucks a month, you can gift memberships to people on our waiting list by checking the this is a gift box when you sign up. And finally, if you'd like a free membership, go to David pakman.com/free membership. Enter your email address and you'll be put in line for free memberships that will be gifted as they come in. We have for the first time clear and direct admissions from high placed, highly placed members of the Trump administration that they want to privatize Social Security. This is not a headline that's going to get a lot of attention. These videos rarely go viral. They don't generate that much interest. But the truth is that this is an absolute blockbuster. Donald Trump's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant admits to the quiet part out loud, coming clean about what we've all suspected for a long time. The Trump administration does want to privatize Social Security. They want to turn it over to the for profit financial companies. And maybe most importantly, they have a plan to do it. These Trump savings accounts that they pitched as just the nice goodie that Trump's offering people. Well, here is Bessant himself admitting that this is a backdoor to the privatization of Social Security.

[Marty Makary]

If you have these accounts, why are you investing it this way? How are you doing it? How can you understand the power of compound interest? And also at the end of the day that, you know, I'm not sure when the distribution level date should be, whether should it be 30 and you can buy a house, should it be 60, but in a way, it is a backdoor for privatizing Social Security. Social Security is a defined benefit plan paid out that you know to the extent that if all of a sudden these accounts grow and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement, then that that's a game changer.

[David Pakman]

If you have ever paid into Social Security, if you get Social Security benefits now, if you know someone who gets Social Security benefits, if you plan to get Social Security benefits in the future, meaning just about every person in this country, this is something you need to know about. And it's up to you to decide whether you think that this is in your best interests, whether this is something you want. My view is that this is unconscionable. And I have no problem with for profit mutual funds, index funds, stock trading. I've got all of that stuff myself. But to take Social Security retirement Security and make it depend on stock market performance, minus fees, by the way, for these for profit financial companies, you're just exposing people to losses and potentially hindering their ability to ever retire. Private accounts come with management fees. Management fees reduce overall returns. Social Security's current system is giving predictable inflation adjusted benefits. When you privatize, you weaken the safety net. Now, does the system need some tweaks? Listen, we spoke about it with Martin o', Malley, Biden's Social Security administrator. He said the truth of it is in 2033, you will start to see the trust fund rather than have a surplus, meaning it's going up, it will start to go down. But that doesn't mean there's an immediate emergency. And in the seven and a half years that we have until that happens, we now have to dismantle our privatized Social Security. It means we make some tweaks. We look at, well, what should the cap be in terms of the contributions or we talk about those things. But the, the. One of the great reasons for the existence of Social Security, all of that aside, is that a lot of people just lack the financial literacy to manage retirement investments effectively. And Social Security solves for that program. Social Security protects families if a worker dies or becomes disabled. Private accounts don't, or at least there's no guarantee that they will. We would have to push these people to do that. And I don't know that they will. You're making retirement sort of a gamble rather than a guarantee. And not that it's a guarantee solely on the basis of Social Security either, increasingly. And then the other aspect of this that's important to consider is that if your system is privatized, it's always easier to either dismantle it or to exploit it for profit or other personal gain. And so part of the reason that these people don't like the way Social Security is set up now is that it is actually surrounded by a number of moats and firewalls that prevent people like George W. Bush was thinking about whether it's something he wants to do, privatization. Trump wants to do it. This is the whole point, to make it robust and protected against these people who want to raid the system. So listen, to a degree, we've known that this has been a back pocket goal for Republicans for decades, and they're now making it clear. We believe we have an entry point. We believe the entry point for a backdoor, de facto privatization of Social Security is these Trump savings accounts. And to go from there, Will. Will they get away with it? I certainly hope that the answer is, of course not, but I don't know that to be the case. A confused Donald Trump continued to struggle to understand questions. It's not just struggling to hear the questions, it's struggling to understand the questions, to parse the syntax and meaning into language that he can then respond to with words constructed into sentences and paragraphs. And that's what he is struggling to do. Here is Trump spitting out random numbers. You've heard of a word salad. This is a number salad. And as the tariff deadline is now just hours away, Trump just starts regurgitating what seem to be random numbers.

[Donald Trump]

I think we're going to have the richest economy you've ever seen. We have money coming in that we've never even thought about at numbers that nobody's ever seen before. We have a deal with Japan where they're going to pay us $550 billion. We have a deal with Europe where they're doing 750 billion plus 400 billion plus 300 billion. And what many other countries. It's likewise, you know, relatively. Those are two big ones, but it's.

[David Pakman]

Likewise relatively in other countries to those numbers. He has no idea what he's talking about. We have no idea what he's talking about. About. Nobody has any idea what he's talking about. But some people are pretending that he's making really good points. The next question was about Cash Patel, Donald Trump's FBI director, reportedly finding burn bags of Russiagate materials. And Trump's just completely confused. He just doesn't know what's going on.

[Lina Gonzalez]

Cash Patel reportedly found burn bags of Russia Materials and we'd love to get your thoughts on that.

[Donald Trump]

He said what?

[Lina Gonzalez]

Burn bags of Russia gate materials?

[Donald Trump]

I don't know. That. I don't know. I don't know what you mean by that statement.

[David Pakman]

This is what Trump says. He doesn't understand what he's being asked.

[Lina Gonzalez]

Bags full of Russia burn bag.

[Donald Trump]

I thought you said appointed a man named burn bag. Go ahead. You got to speak up.

[Lina Gonzalez]

Thousands of documents in these bags. Supposedly burn bags at the FBI.

[David Pakman]

He doesn't know anything about it. He doesn't understand anything about it. He's not being kept informed. I can assure you that we no longer need any reruns of if Joe Biden had done this. There's a new episode every day. You don't, you don't need to just run the old hits of if Joe Biden had ever reacted this way. Every single damn day, we have a new example of it. Donald Trump also insisting, you've got to stop talking about the Epstein files. You've got to. You just have to stop talking about it. He doesn't like the topic and he really wishes reporters would never bring it up to him again.

[Lina Gonzalez]

Thousands of documents and these bags. Supposedly burn bags at the FBI and secret room.

[Donald Trump]

Well, I want everything to be shown, you know, as long as it's fair and reasonable. I think it will be shown and it should be shown. And I think he feels that way, and I think Pam feels that way. But it's got to be, you know, it's got to be stuff that really doesn't hurt people unfairly because you have so many people involved. And if they can do that in a fair way, I think it's great. I think it's really great. It's. The whole thing is a scam. It's a scam set up by the Democrats and they love talking about it. But I would like to see people exposed that might be bad, and we'll see how that all works out. But it's getting to be very old news. You know, if they had anything, they would have done it the week before the election because they were losing by a lot. If they had anything, they would have done it. They control the file the Democrats controlled at Comey and all this, you know, sleazebags, every one of them that you read about all the time. And I guess they've got some problems now having to do with yet a different scandal, very big one.

[David Pakman]

But I guess he's alluding to the fake Tulsi scandal.

[Donald Trump]

Control that file. So I would think that if they would have had something in the file. They would have released it about a week before the election, maybe two weeks.

[David Pakman]

Right, Brian, you know, one of the things that's happening here is that Trump is getting frustrated that the people who just have a history of accepting what he says and going, trump said it and that's it. They're not accepting some of what's Trump, what Trump is saying. And it's not because all of a sudden they found a new level of intelligence and incisive analysis of what Trump says. But what they've been arguing at its face doesn't make any sense. There is no list, and I'm not on the list. And Comey put me on the list. Take your pick. And we've seen versions of that before, but it's almost too much even for some magazines. And Trump's getting extraordinarily frustrated by the entire thing. However, he was able to stay awake during this event in the White House Roosevelt Room, which is more than can be said about his appearance with Dr. Ross. Donald Trump, who is, of course, not at all sleepy, like sleepy. Joe Biden, was visibly struggling to stay awake during an event yesterday with Dr. Oz and with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. We were told it was Biden who couldn't stay awake. And you know what? There's widespread reporting of Biden needing a lot of naps during the day. But Trump can't stay awake either. And here he is. Just watch him as Dr. Oz is boring him to death. The eyes are going, and they're going, and they're going, a fraud war room.

[Dr. Oz]

Using this kind of technology, because we'll know who you are and who your doctor is. We can block this. We're going to have remarkable advances in how consumers can use their own records. We'll have beneficiaries be able to get MAHA advice and prevention tips and even be able to nudge them and reward them perhaps for that. And all this comes back to one fundamental issue, Mr. President, which is leadership. I think 60 people, the biggest, the best, the willing, came forward because of your leadership, because you weren't going to take no for an answer. And they know it. We are building a robust and safe, I emphasize that safe system. It's going to protect the data better than we could have imagined. We're going to be able to accomplish goals that all of us wished from day one that would be in place. These pledges are now confirmed. They're signed in public.

[David Pakman]

Dear God. I mean, he just can't stay awake. He can't stay. He is fighting for his life to stay awake during this thing. Is there reporting on it? Breathless reporting in right wing media that Trump fell asleep again. Now it's guys, if it's not Biden, they don't care. And to be clear, the criticisms of Biden are legitimate. He's not the president. Trump is the president and he's falling asleep. Trump's energy swings massive and he's either hyper and yelling, interrupting people, or it's this kind of subdued, barely awake guy almost nodding off. At another moment during this very strange roundtable, during which, of course, they announced official government surveillance of your health data. That's what they did. Don't forget that. Trump says to someone off camera that they look really healthy, I guess.

[Donald Trump]

Thank you very much. That was good, right? Hello. You look very, very healthy to me. You look really great. So just I want to thank all of the companies that are here. These are.

[David Pakman]

There you go. All right. And then finally, at the end of this thing, Dr. Oz asks Trump, Can I call you about MFN? MFN being most favored nations sort of idea for related to drug pricing.

[Donald Trump]

Thank you.

[Dr. Oz]

Can I call you about mfn?

[David Pakman]

Yeah. Can we start? Can I call you about mfn? Yeah. You think Trump knows what that is? You think he has any idea what that is? So listen, this gets us back to the whole medical surveillance story. We talked about it at the top of the show. They've launched this medical surveillance program that is reminiscent of what they told us Foushee and Bill Gates wanted to do. Foushee and Gates didn't really want to do it. These guys are now doing it. NRFK is supportive. Dr. Oz is supportive. Trump is supportive. And interesting also that even Dr. Oz seems to need to ask to get Trump's ear. And this relates to sort of the internal dynamics of these administrations and how people are kept isolated for strategic and other reasons. So Trump sleeping through. Think, just think of the totality Trump sleeping through an event at which they proudly announced they are going to do that, which they warned us it was actually Democrats and Bill Gates and Foushee were going to do. That's where we stand right now. And the MAGA people just applaud and say concern about this sort of thing. I don't remember being worried about it. 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. The link is in the description you say you'll learn a new language every year, but few of us actually follow through. That's why I always recommend Babel. It's the app that finally made language learning stick for me this year. I've got a trip to France planned. I've already started brushing up using Babel's 10 Minute Lessons. The app is built around real life conversations, not games or gimmicks. So I'm learning exactly what I actually need to know when I land. I've even been using Babel's speech recognition technology to improve my pronunciation. Super helpful. Babble is designed by over 200 language experts and probably proven studies from places like Yale and Michigan State. There's a study that found that using babble just 15 hours is like a full college semester of a language. They offer 14 languages and more than 16 million people have used it. They've got a 20 day money back guarantee so it is risk free to try. Here's a special limited time deal for my audience right now. Get up to 60% off your babel subscription, but only for my audience at babel.com/pacman rules and restrictions may apply. The link is in the description it is great to welcome to the program today. California Senator Lina Gonzalez, who serves as Senate Majority Leader and also Chair of the California Latino legislative caucus, representing 1 million residents in California's 33rd Senate district. This includes southeastern Los Angeles and Long Beach. It's so great to have you on today. Thank you.

[Lina Gonzalez]

Thanks for having me. David.

[David Pakman]

I appreciate the time so we could start in a few different places, but I do want to talk maybe first about what's happening right now in your district and in Los Angeles more broadly. We had this period of militarization. We had troops sent in over the objections of the mayor and Governor Gavin Newsom, who spoke to us about it on the show. And right now, in the midst of a number of other stories, including a guy named Epstein, a lot of this has sort of been knocked off of the news. But what's happening right now?

[Lina Gonzalez]

Right now things seem to be pretty calm based on the latest sort of restraining order that was put forward. I just talked with Sheriff Luna of L A County yesterday, and things seem to be pretty calm. But June 6th is when it really ramped up in southeast Los Angeles. A number of cities in my district in the southeast area had been hit pretty hard. Paramount on June 7th of the morning hours, you know, there was an assembly member, one of my colleagues pepper sprayed, one of the council members pepper sprayed, and along with many of my residents. And then on June 8, a lot of our Southeast LA elected officials and I got together on a zoom to figure out what next steps to take. And then on June 20th is when another ramp up came, where we saw trucks and, you know, coming through Bell and Bell Gardens and Cudahay and people being rammed in the street, a flashbang being thrown in the city of Maywood at a playground, just arbitrarily. It was just complete chaos. And we just don't know what's going to happen next. That's the scary part.

[David Pakman]

There are a lot of different bits and pieces of advice that sort of float around to different folks about how to handle circumstances if such a raid, for lack of a better term, kind of comes to your neighborhood. And there's advice given to potential targets of these raids. There's advice given to business owners where maybe agents aren't welcome, but the business owners themselves aren't the target. It might be their customers or it might be their employees, all of these different scenarios. What is the sort of primary basic set of principles that people should be aware of if they are to come face to face with such a scenario? What are the basic rights that everybody has? Is there some, some few bullet points that we can just make sure everybody knows and understands?

[Lina Gonzalez]

Absolutely. And it's really. It sort of just depends on where you're at. I mean, even as a state Senate office, we've had to change our policies. If folks come in here, if an agent comes in here, what is reasonably private and what is a public space. And we've had to distinguish between those two areas just for my constituents that come in to keep them safe as well, or anyone that works for me as well. But just generally, I mean, you don't have to answer any questions and you should be asking for identification. And this is where we have a few pieces of legislation being put forward by some of my colleagues in the Latino Caucus to require identification. That would be SB805 by Senator Perez, and to also see if we can ask for a demasking of these law enforcement agents, which is SB627 by Senator Weiner and Araquin. But generally, I would say you don't have to answer any questions. You do. You know, law enforcement shouldn't be. Local law enforcement also should not be asking you about your immigration status, even if you are arrested. And you do have the legal right to defend yourself, to basically have a legal representation. And if you're going through the process, which we've noticed too, folks are going through what is, quote, unquote, the right way, they're still getting detained. So I feel like a lot of this, what I'm saying right now seems to be out of the window. And so we are putting protections forward and legal, you know, protections for, for many of our residents, again, asking for identification through legislation, demasking through legislation. Judicial warrants need to be provided if you want to be. You know, some law enforcement agents have come to schools and hospitals. We have bills for that as well that require judicial warrants and statute. But even that is being completely superseded by this overreach by the federal administration, by the Trump administration, which is really unfortunate.

[David Pakman]

What about situations where ICE agents show up at a private business, but one that's open to the public? In those scenarios, is it cut and dry, whether the business owners or managers can simply say, like they would to any customer, we would like you to leave, or what are, what are people's rights in that scenario?

[Lina Gonzalez]

I know this is where it gets really tricky. I think where there is a reasonable expectation of the public being around, you can't deny, even as a private business owner, a federal agent from coming in. However, if you have a back of house, like a kitchen, where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy and that the public generally doesn't go to, then yes, I think you can keep folks back there and tell federal agents they cannot come to your back of house or your kitchen. But again, a lot of folks don't know that this is actually a right that they have. They don't know the rules. And a lot of them are being superseded right now. Regardless if it's private or public, there are federal agents coming onto private property regardless of what the business owner says. But we do have which is nice. Just yesterday the Long Beach Restaurant association just had a huge know your rights workshop. And I'm hoping that more businesses will wake up to these these types of practices and start educating themselves and their workforce.

[David Pakman]

What do you know about the what seems to be like a conflict between, on the one hand, California sanctuary policies, but on the other hand the widespread reporting that state prisons have worked with ICE to transfer people into their custody. Do those laws simply not apply to state prisons or what can you tell us about that?

[Lina Gonzalez]

Yeah, well, any law enforcement, whether you are local or state, should not be working with federal agents for solely just immigration purposes. There is a number of egregious crimes that are included in SB54, sanctuary policy that would be allowable and excusable for local law enforcement and for state law enforcement to be able to work with ICE or any federal agent. That is very crystal clear in SB54. This is not a free for all and this is protected communities. And that's what we want to do is protect immigration, immigrant communities that are just here to be able to make themselves and their families have a better life here. But we have heard that obviously there's been I've talked to Sheriff Looney yesterday just at the local level that they have allowed ICE agents into the jails with the expectation that they are looking for, of course, the most egregious criminals and with a federal warrant. Now if that occurs, that coordination can happen. But if they have anything less than that, that is not allowable under the law. So a lot of confusion there. But I think, I mean I would hope that this would lessen the overreach in our streets and just the picking up of day laborers and that just picking up of street food vendors just arbitrarily and what oftentimes is US Citizens too. I mean, we haven't talked enough about that. Is there are US citizens being picked up in the midst of Speaker 1.

[David Pakman]

Let'S talk a little bit about the US citizen aspect of it. The story that has been reported by some right wing media is that sometimes there are cases of mistaken identity or an issue identifying someone correctly, I guess you would say, and the brief detention of US Citizens. I'm not saying even if that were true that that would make it ok, but let's imagine for a second that that is the extent of it. Is your understanding that that's the extent of it or are you hearing other things about what's going on with American American citizens?

[Lina Gonzalez]

That is absolutely incorrect. I would say what I have seen on the streets, what I have heard, and what we actually put forward in an amicus brief, which was done by my district team and a few other district teams in the state senate and the state assembly, is we have been putting together and aggregating data and the information and the stories and testimonies of many of our residents. And some of them, many of them are being picked up just because they are. Because of the color of their skin. And, you know, I mean, we saw it in Bell Bell Gardens. There were US Citizens being rammed with a car by what we believe are federal agents. We don't know, because they didn't identify themselves.

[David Pakman]

Right.

[Lina Gonzalez]

And later the US Citizen mother went home, the father was picked up, and then they rammed her front door while she had two small children in the house in Huntington park with a. With a. I don't even know what you call it. One of those big ram things, like you would come after a horrendous criminal. And she was just completely shocked and scared and afraid. And they are U.S. citizens. So we know this is absolutely happening. And we are. What's nice is we are actually documenting every single thing. And that's what we have to do. That's what we're asking our constituents to do as well.

[David Pakman]

If we zoom out a little bit, one of the generalities that is thrown by those who support this immigration policy, if you can call it that, at those of us who say, hey, this doesn't make sense. There's 10, 15 different ways in which it doesn't make sense. One of the things that said is you all are protecting criminals, you're protecting predators, you're protecting violent people, etc. I want to hear from you. You know my view. As someone who immigrated to the United States legally and who simply, I'm against violence, I'm against crime, I'm for due process. My view is if anyone has committed any kind of crime, regardless of immigration status. I'm not trying to defend criminals. Let's give everybody due process. Let's adjudicate these claims. And of course, if after a crime has been adjudicated, you then are subject to deportation. That's the law. I'm not going around trying to defend people who have been convicted of crimes. Are you seeing something different now? Of course, the people I just mentioned, it's not the majority the way we've been told. In fact, it's an extraordinary minority. But I don't see anybody dying on the Hill of defending, quote, criminals.

[Lina Gonzalez]

Absolutely not. No one is going to Defend criminals whether you are a citizen or not. And in fact, there are 70, nearly 70% of those that have been detained, we know, do not have any criminal history. Absolutely nothing, no criminal history. And even those that do have a criminal history of very low level offenses. I'm not defending that whatsoever. What I am saying right now, and you know this, and my mother knows this as well too, she was able to get, go through her immigration status, become naturalized and then get a green card, go through that whole process, which takes years, takes years to do, and then become a citizen in 1987 after the Reagan immigration reform. There is no such thing right now. In fact, we tried this last year through a bipartisan effort. Trump did not want that to go through under the Biden administration. So we have to be very clear here. Now we're in a new day. Thankfully, Senator Alex Badia is putting forward some sort of, you know, immigration reform idea. We don't know if that will pass at all, given that we don't have the numbers as a Democratic Party. But nonetheless, no one, this is not about public safety whatsoever. We've known this, the Latino community knows this very well. You know, we were deported under Hoover. Many US citizens were deported in the 1930s, in the 1950s, under Operation Wetback with President Eisenhower and then even with Pete Wilson being, you know, trying to utilize this, this whole, you know, immigrants are taking away your, your job sort of idea. This is the same thing coming back in, in the Trump form. And now I'm hope, hopeful that people will realize that this is not going to work. We can be deported. But you know what? You're not going to take away our resilience. We are not going to, um, we're not going to acquiesce.

[David Pakman]

Last thing I want to ask you about, sort of to zoom out a little bit. You know, there was, there was a time when the American Latino community overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, certainly my fellow Argentinians, 80, 85%. And you had Cuban Americans and some Venezuelan Americans who sort of, as a reaction to what they often escaped in Cuba and Venezuela, tended to vote more for Republicans than Democrats. I'm not saying it made sense to me, but there was at least some internal logic to it. In 2024, we saw Trump get a larger share of the Latino vote than any Republican president has. And it included Mexican Americans, it included folks from other countries in South America that you would not normally expect. What's your diagnosis, explanation, assessment of why that happened?

[Lina Gonzalez]

I think that the, you know, Latino culture, and we're not A monolith. I always say this, you know, as you'd mentioned, you're Argentinian, I'm Mexican, I have friends who are Puerto Rican. And we all think differently. We come from very different backgrounds.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Lina Gonzalez]

Latinas, I will say, in an aggregate, did not support Trump. So I want to make be very clear there on the gender dynamics as well. But overall, I would say there it was a very populist and very smart and marketed, well marketed agenda. And it was very targeted towards Latinos. And we've seen this even in the state of California. We've seen more Latino Republicans gain seats in the legislature. And so there is a very populous economic message that was put forward that I will agree was very, very good. And then when you've got friends in the social media area that can boost like crazy, like Elon Musk and ensure that they're targeting and the algorithms are just right for Latinos, we can't. It's hard to beat that. I will be honest with you. I hope again that people are waking up under these deep, egregious deportations and that, you know, now it's not just about Mexicans being deported. Cuban Americans are being deported, Venezuelans are being deported. And it used to just be, well, it was just the Mexican thing. Right. And now we're seeing, unfortunately, all of us. And what I, what I have often said at town halls is what we all have in common is that he hates us all, it seems, and I hate to say that, but it's true. And so we will obviously, in the legislature at least work on issues of affordability like we always have. We will continue fighting against the administration in the amicus brief. We've got 25 lawsuits through the Department of Justice with Attorney General Banta, and we've got a slew of pieces of legislation that will meet the moment on this immigration side and hopefully be a leader in the state of California for the rest of the nation to follow suit.

[David Pakman]

I think that that's all accurate as an analysis, but I do also think, you know, folks like Bernie Sanders were right that to a degree, voters felt that it was less credible that Democrats were really standing up for working class people. I'm not saying they were or they weren't, but I'm saying the perception certainly was that that that wasn't really coming through. And I think that applied to the general population explaining why Trump won, you know, essentially all of the swing states. And I think also with Latino voters, it's also probably some of that same dynamic. I would like to see better and more credible messaging from the Democratic Party. I don't know about you, I would.

[Lina Gonzalez]

Absolutely like to do that. I am a Democrat and I would. I'm every single day trying to figure out ways to talk to my constituents just like this, in a different manner. But I agree, I think we need to do better in terms of messaging and get back to what why we started in the first place is for working people.

[David Pakman]

We've been speaking with California Senator Lena Gonzalez, who is the Senate Majority Leader. Thank you so much for your time today. We're going to keep following what's happening there very closely.

[Lina Gonzalez]

Thanks, David. Appreciate you.

[David Pakman]

Donald Trump has already packed his second term cabinet with loyalists. He's threatened deportation as political punishment. He's expanded executive authority in ways we have not seen in modern history. These are real changes that are happening right now. And what's even more alarming is that a lot of the media is either glossing over the worst of it or they're reframing it. So it all sounds a little more palatable. And that is why I use Ground News. This is a news comparison tool. It doesn't just feed you headlines. It shows you, here's how different outlets, left, right, center, are covering the same story. And this is one of the few tools I know of that can really help you detect the political spin, the bias catch stories that your usual sources might downplay or not cover at all on everything from immigration policy to economic shifts. If you want to get a bigger picture, a broader picture of what's being reported, Ground News is an invaluable source to keep you informed. And Ground News is offering my audience 40% off their top tier Vantage plan. You'll only pay five bucks a month. Go to ground dot news, slash pacman or enter the code pacman in the app to get started. The link is in the description. One of the things that Donald Trump and bullies hate is when they find someone who will not be bullied by them. And right now, that person is Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. Last week there was this sort of awkward moment as Fed Chair Jerome Powell fact checked Trump about buildings and construction. But Trump tried to push him once again to lower interest rates. Donald Trump believes that his economy would benefit from Jerome Powell lowering interest rates. Jerome Powell has made it clear we are independent. We're not going to be bullied by the president. We will lower interest rates if and when they determine that that makes sense. So this sets the stage. This was last week.

[Donald Trump]

It's got a long way to go, sir.

[Jerome Powell]

So are there things the chairman can.

[David Pakman]

Say to you today that would make.

[Jerome Powell]

You back off some of the earlier criticism.

[Donald Trump]

Well, I'd love him to lower interest rates. Other than that, what can I tell you?

[David Pakman]

There you go. Trump would really like him to lower interest rates. And then we had Donald Trump post to truth social quote, second quarter GDP just out 3%, way better than expected. Too late, must now lower the rate to he refers to him as too late. Powell too late, must now lower the rate. No inflation, let people buy and refinance their homes. And Jerome Powell said no, Jerome Powell simply said, we are not going to be doing that. We will lower rates if and only if they determine that that's what they are going to do. Let's take a listen to Jerome Powell explaining this during an announcement yesterday. And Jay o', Brien, ABC News President Trump has obviously invoked your name a lot.

[Jerome Powell]

He has personally pressured you.

[David Pakman]

Are you concerned the way that concept.

[Jerome Powell]

Conduct might impact the Fed's independence going forward?

[G]

I'll just say that so I think that having an independent central bank has been an institutional arrangement that has served the public well. And as long as it serves the public well, it should continue and be respected. If it didn't serve the public well, then, then it wouldn't be something that we should just automatically defend. But what it gives us and other central banks, what it gives you is the ability to make these very challenging decisions in ways that are focused on the data and the evolving outlook, the balance of risks and all the things we talk about and not political factors. And so governments all over the advanced economy world have chosen to put a little bit of distance between direct political control of those decisions and the decision makers. So if you, if you were, if you weren't, if you were not to have that, there would be a great temptation, of course, to, to use interest rates to affect elections, for example. And that's something that, that we, we don't want to do. So I think that's pretty widely understood. Certainly it is in Congress.

[David Pakman]

Yeah. Not clear that Donald Trump understands it. And Donald Trump didn't like this. He wants the Fed to lower rates. The Fed didn't do it. Trump back on Truth Social this morning, quote, Jerome, too late. Powell has done it again. He is too late and actually too angry, too stupid and too political to have the job of Fed chair. He is costing our country trillions of dollars in addition to one of the most incompetent sorry, in addition to one of the most incompetent or corrupt renovations of a building in the history of Construction, put another way, too late is a total loser and our country is paying the price. It's, it's really important to understand that the Fed's independence, which is what Jerome Powell is reinforcing by pushing back against the bullying efforts of Trump. The Fed's independence is the most important part of it. It was established to insulate the monetary policy of the country from the short term pressures that come from presidents. Presidents who might see approval polling and say I need something, or presidents who might be up for reelection, or presidents who might be at risk of lose of their party, losing control of the House and or Senate in a forthcoming midterm election. The whole point of the Fed being independent, the chairman or chairwomen having 10 year terms, it's all designed specifically to beat back the attempted bullying that Donald Trump is doing right now. And so when the Magaz or whoever starts saying, oh, we've got a problem with Jay Powell, Jay Powell is doing what he is supposed to do and what the Fed is supposed to do and they just don't care. Even though they say they care about the intent of how these institutions were created, as soon as it's inconvenient, they don't care about it. Good for Jay Powell. He's made it clear he's not going to be bullied. And what bullies hate. Bullies hate it when they find somebody that they can't bully. Donald Trump's FBI FDA commissioner Marty Makary went on CNBC and said the COVID vaccine killed his friend's parent. Now this is extraordinarily irresponsible for the FDA commissioner to go on CNBC and say I'm going to explain to you why, but understand first what he is saying. So let's listen to what he said.

[Jerome Powell]

What you would describe as reasonable studies with reasonable or that you would accept vaccine damage reports. You know, you just described this idea of vaccine damage. Vaccine injury. Vaccine injury, yeah. And I guess my question is, is anybody doing any meaningful studies that you've seen on that actual topic? Yeah. So the HHS and the NIH are starting to look at that because hundreds of thousands, thousands of Americans have.

[David Pakman]

So first part, he's asked a good question by Andrew Ross Sorkin. Are there good studies on this? For now he just says we are starting to look at it. Interesting, because so many claims have been made. But then he's going to make one of those claims even though he just acknowledged the studies are only starting describe vaccine injury.

[Jerome Powell]

I personally know of some cases. I know of one friend who Lost a parent from the COVID 19 vaccine. I'm not saying that's a contraindication. I'm just saying there are, there were some complications and when you, when you blow them off entirely and say look it's 100% safe and effective, you alienate.

[Dr. Oz]

But you can rule out certain things. I mean spike proteins don't last forever. Messenger RNA doesn't. I mean I can we say definitively it isn't reverse transcribed into your genome.

[Donald Trump]

It doesn't last.

[Dr. Oz]

The half life is very quick. It's not around for a long time time do spike proteins. Can we do a study to rule out some of the conspiracy theories about it?

[Jerome Powell]

And I think the bigger question is what is the clinical outcome? You can find trace amounts of things of almost anything newborn today will have almost to listen.

[David Pakman]

First and foremost he first when asked for data about the claims that are floating around about COVID vaccines, he goes well it's only starting to be studied. First of all that's not true. We actually have extensive studies about that vaccine data. But if it were true that it's just starting to be studied, then why is he saying as the FDA commissioner on national TV in a conversation about population wide vaccine efficacy and safety, that one person told him my parent died because of the COVID vaccine. That's not science, that's really anti science. And it's especially dangerous because of who it's coming from. The head of the fda. Now I want to play out another aspect of this. When he's asked about studies and data, he says he knows of one person who supposedly died from the vaccine. He's the head of the fda. Think about how many people got vaccinated. If the FDA commissioner can only cite one case, it's a testimonial to how safe these vaccines are. We're talking about hundreds of millions or billions of people vaccinated Vaccines that kept millions out of the hospital, reduced severe illness. Of course we now know that other than that first version of it years ago, they don't prevent transmission but they reduce death and serious Covid. We have that on the one side of the ledger and he knows of as FDA commissioner one supposed incident, the vaccines prevented hospital overload. And his best counterpoint is I have a friend who said that their parent died. McCarry should really know better. And the sad thing of it is he does know better. This is the saddest part. Marty McCary was a pretty good critic of areas of the medical system that weren't really best serving patients. I read his book Several years ago. And I'll give you two examples. He wrote in his book how we treat appendicitis in this country. It's not awesome. Like, the go to has just been appendectomy. Just do surgery. That's it. And the studies now show that in something like 80 or 85% of appendicitis cases, giving antibiotics is fine. You give antibiotics, those folks aren't at greater risk of eventually needing an appendectomy. The antibiotics work well for something like 80 or 85% of people with appendicitis. I experienced this. I went to the hospital, I had appendicitis. They just said, listen, we could give you antibiotics, but, like, it rarely really works. So I said, all right, well, remove my appendix. But it turns out that there was really no reason why the antibiotics wouldn't work. So he writes about that in his book. That's really important. Makary also writes in his book about C sections in the United States. And he says, you know, C section rates vary wildly between hospitals, which suggests that it's not really about, oh, just some hospitals have way more pregnant women that are in a situation to need a C section. It seems as though we have overuse of C section in the United States. In some, some areas, the recovery is longer, there's higher complication rates and rates. It costs more, and it's often not totally necessary. That's a great thing to be writing about. And now he's going on national TV as FDA commissioner. I was told by one person, their parent died of the COVID vaccine. Do we have studies? Well, we're only starting to do the studies. Not even true. We actually have the studies. Tragic. Tragic that this is who has been elevated by Donald Trump into this high of a position. But maybe more importantly, I don't think this is the stuff that McCarry used to say and used to believe. I don't even know if he believes it now. So to some degree, it's even more tragic if he's saying it despite not believing it because it's what Donald Trump wants him to be doing. Terrifying, terrifying stuff. We've got a great bonus show for you today. We have new polling from Americans. What do you believe about the state of the economy? It's interesting. Secondly, Caroline Levitt, Donald Trump's press secretary, ran for Congress in 2022. She lost. She still has over $300,000 in debt to vendors from that campaign. Why isn't she paying it? We will talk about it. And finally, Senator Josh Hawley wants to exclude biden voters from six hundred dollar trump tariff rebate checks. Is that even legal? We'll talk about all of those stories and more on today's bonus show.

[Jerome Powell]

The bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad.

[David Pakman]

Every time you sign up for membership, Alex Jones sheds one very toxic pH imbalanced tear. No, I'm kidding about that part. Sign up@join pacman.com I will see you on the bonus show.