8/15/25: Trump meeting Putin in Alaska, ICE camps expanding

Summary

Below is a detailed, long-form summary of the episode “8/15/25: Trump meeting Putin in Alaska, ICE camps expanding” from The David Pakman Show, released on August 15, 2025. The episode covers a wide range of topics—from Trump’s planned summit with Putin to domestic issues such as ICE practices, redistricting battles, federal funding for community safety, USAID cuts, the role of AI in information control, and efforts to reshape how American history is presented. The show is rich in policy analysis, historical context, and pointed commentary on political events.

─────────────────────────────

1. Episode Overview
   ─────────────────────────────
   • The episode opens with a discussion on the significance of President Trump’s upcoming diplomatic meeting with Russian President Putin in Alaska.
   • The conversation contrasts Trump’s seemingly contradictory positions on Russia and Ukraine while questioning his overall mindset and approach.
   • Later in the program, the focus shifts to domestic issues: Governor Newsom’s responsive actions against redistricting moves in Texas, ICE’s controversial tactics and expansion plans, and concerns regarding defunding community programs that have effectively reduced crime.
   • In the latter part of the show, attention turns to cuts in USAID programs and the potential long-term consequences of reducing global health and diplomatic outreach.
   • The episode concludes with commentary on Trump’s attempts to control the tech landscape via AI measures and a proposed federal review of Smithsonian exhibits—seen as an effort to reshape or “rewrite” American history.

─────────────────────────────
2. Trump’s Meeting with Putin in Alaska
─────────────────────────────
• Opening Remarks & Trump’s Stance (00:07 – 01:21)
  – Dan Koh, filling in for David Pakman, begins by urging listeners to send good vibes to David Pakman and highlights the significance of the upcoming Ukraine summit in Alaska.
  – He cites Trump’s recent comments in the Oval Office—raising eyebrow-raising questions such as whether he’d offer Putin rare earth minerals or reduce NATO troops to secure peace—thereby illustrating Trump’s ambiguous and concerning approach to Russian leadership.
  – Notable Quote [01:21]: “Trump says we're going to see what happens” (on the question of offering Putin minerals) emphasizes Trump’s noncommittal attitude.

• Contextualizing NATO’s Role (02:11 – 03:04)
  – A clip from Senator Chris Coons explains the fundamentals of NATO, its wartime solidarity (especially under Article 5), and its historical record in defending U.S. interests, notably after 9/11.
  – Pakman stresses that weakening NATO (e.g., reducing troop numbers in Europe) would be reckless given that Poland and other nations depend on the alliance against potential Russian aggression.

• Analysis with John Finer, Former Principal Deputy National Security Advisor (04:22 – 10:46)
  – John Finer provides an overview of the conflict’s history—from Russia’s covert actions starting in 2013/2014 to its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
  – He outlines two interpretations of Trump’s motivations for summiting Putin in Anchorage:    • One theory: Trump, intending to pressure Ukraine into a ceasefire, may try to leverage concessions from Russia.    • Second theory: Trump’s long-standing personal affinity for Putin might lead him to prioritize a closer U.S.–Russia relationship over Ukrainian interests.   – Finer also notes the carefully chosen venue of Alaska—a territory once part of Russia—which symbolizes Putin’s desire for a show of strength.   – He warns that any conciliatory deals (such as reduced sanctions or withdrawal of NATO forces) would be disastrous for Ukraine, Europe, and ultimately U.S. security.   – Notable Quote [09:23]: “For him, as long as this doesn't end up in a total meltdown … [a successful face‐to‐face meeting] will be a huge win for Putin.”

─────────────────────────────
3. Governor Newsom’s Press Conference and ICE Controversies
─────────────────────────────
• Setting the Stage with Redistricting Battles
  – Against a backdrop of impending Republican-favored redistricting in Texas, Gov. Newsom’s response highlights a fight for fair representation and the protection of democracy.   – The discussion explains that California’s independent redistricting commission is now being challenged by proposals from Governor Newsom and other Democratic leaders to temporarily secure additional seats favorable to Democrats through the so-called “Election Rigging Response Act.”   – Visual cues from the event (diverse backdrops, labor union presence, and patriotic symbols) reinforce the message of unity against political manipulation.

• ICE and Community Impact (15:46 – 31:09)
  – The program shifts focus to domestic security and trust issues. Pakman criticizes the appearance of ICE agents wearing masks and operating in unmarked vehicles at the press conference—a tactic seen as intimidating rather than protective.
  – He argues that such methods do nothing to build community trust, which is crucial when law enforcement works closely with local institutions during disasters or crises.
  – Notable Quote [30:23] from a speaker (E): “People are scared. People are fearful...” emphasizing the climate of fear that these tactics are designed to instill.
  – Pakman warns that with plans to hire an additional 10,000 ICE agents and to double detention capacity, the current approach could further erode public trust and harm community relations.

• Broader Implications
  – The commentary extends to how extreme immigration enforcement tactics might undermine successful programs such as community violence intervention strategies (which drastically reduced crime in cities like Boston and Oakland).
  – The analysis draws parallels between symbolic acts in Washington D.C.—such as the National Guard’s presence in upscale neighborhoods like Georgetown—and real resource needs in high-crime areas.

─────────────────────────────
4. USAID Cuts, DOGE Claims, and Global Consequences
─────────────────────────────
• Interview with John Finer on USAID (52:22 – 56:52)
  – Finer explains that the severe budget cuts to USAID and related programs not only risk diminishing life-saving interventions (like disease outbreak responses) overseas but also weaken U.S. global partnerships.
  – Such programs have helped to mitigate myriads of public health crises abroad that could eventually affect the United States.
  – He warns that as USAID retreats, geopolitical rivals (e.g., China and Russia) may move in to fill the void, extracting both political favors and resource concessions from vulnerable nations.   – Notable Quote [55:15]: Finer outlines how “countries…are going to see … [other nations] rush in to fill the gap,” thereby weakening the U.S. diplomatic influence.

• Impact of DOGE and Budgetary Misrepresentations
  – The discussion touches briefly on a Politico article about the inflated savings claims by the DOGE project, illustrating how misleading numbers (and policy narratives) can have a demoralizing effect on career government employees and disrupt longstanding federal operations.

─────────────────────────────
5. DC Policing and the Federal Takeover
─────────────────────────────
• Defunding and Deploying the National Guard (62:17 – 65:05)
  – Pakman recounts his remarks on MSNBC regarding how Trump’s policies have resulted in historic cuts to essential policing programs.
  – Citing his experience from Boston, he contrasts the successes of community violence intervention efforts—backed by bipartisan funding—with the current administration’s approach of defunding critical programs.
  – He criticizes the decision to deploy National Guard or other federal forces in highly visible, low-crime areas like Georgetown, arguing that it is mere “show” rather than a solution to genuine public safety needs.   – Notable Quote [62:17]: “If Donald Trump really wanted to address crime, he literally is defunding the police more than any president in modern history.”

• Consequences for Local-Federal Collaboration
  – The argument is made that such symbolic moves not only misdirect resources but also strain the collaboration essential during emergencies—whether natural disasters or security crises.

─────────────────────────────
6. The Trump Administration, AI, and the Rewriting of History
─────────────────────────────
• AI and Media Control (Around 77:14 – 77:15)
  – In a thought-provoking discussion, Pakman explains that Trump’s administration is moving to influence tech companies’ development of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT.
  – An executive order titled “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government” mandates that federal agencies only procure AI models that adhere to “ideological neutrality” and “truthfulness.”
  – Concerns are raised that tying billions of dollars in federal contracts to these terms could lead companies to tailor algorithms and data inputs to favor a conservative, pro-Trump narrative.
  – Pakman warns that if fact-checking and unbiased information exchange are compromised, the public’s perception and ability to access balanced opinions could be radically altered.

• Smithsonian Reforms and Historical Narrative (Around 86:58 – 89:46)
  – The episode concludes with a focus on attempts by the Trump administration to “audit” and potentially rewrite Smithsonian exhibits.
  – A letter from senior Officials (e.g., from the Domestic Policy Council and OMB) signals a federal initiative to review public-facing content, with language such as “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.”
  – Pakman cautions that such interventions may lead to a sanitized, partisan version of history—erasing important lessons from the past and undermining the educational mission of the nation’s cultural institutions.   – He emphasizes that an objective account of history is essential for democracy, warning that manipulating historical narratives can have long-term adverse effects on collective memory and national identity.

─────────────────────────────
7. Concluding Thoughts
─────────────────────────────
• Throughout the episode, Pakman’s analysis centers on the dangers of policy decisions that prioritize political optics over sustainable solutions—whether that’s in international diplomacy or domestic governance.
• He underscores the critical importance of safeguarding democratic institutions, maintaining the integrity of alliances like NATO, and preserving the unbiased dissemination of information through both public programs (like USAID and community policing) and private technological platforms.
• Pakman’s final call-to-action is for vigilance from citizens, elected officials, and the media alike, to hold leaders accountable for measures that risk both public safety and the historical record.

─────────────────────────────
Key Notable Quotes by Timestamp
─────────────────────────────
• [01:21] “Trump says we're going to see what happens.” – Highlighting Trump’s vague, noncommittal approach during Oval Office questions.
• [02:11] Senator Chris Coons: “The North Atlantic Treaty Organization... is the most successful military alliance or treaty organization in history.”
• [09:23] John Finer: “For him… as long as this doesn't end up in a total meltdown… will be a huge win for Putin.”
• [30:23] Speaker E: “I don't need to belabor this except I want to level set. People are scared. People are fearful.”
• [62:17] “If Donald Trump really wanted to address crime, he literally is defunding the police more than any president in modern history.”

This episode weaves together international diplomacy, domestic policy, and future threats in technology and cultural heritage, presenting a layered analysis that challenges viewers to think critically about how leadership actions today can shape tomorrow’s society.

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to the David Pakman Show. My name is Dan Koh, filling in for David Pakman. Please send some vibes his way with a new baby to his family, and please subscribe to his channel, please. If you also like what you hear today, subscribe to the People's Cabinet. I'm a former White House official who does analysis of the news as well as interviews with leaders shaping America's future. So I want to start with the Ukraine summit today in Alaska. A lot has been made about this, a lot of questions. I think the main question to ask, though is that what evidence do we have that Trump knows how to outfox Putin? I would say there's not a lot. There's been a lot of admiration that Trump has thrown Putin's way. He has sided with Putin over US Intelligence about election interference. He has sent Putin Covid tests in the middle of COVID when Americans were dying. And more importantly, he seems to have this reverence for powerful dictators that obviously he views Putin in that same breath. There were two questions yesterday in the Oval that were particularly concerning that showed kind of where Trump's mindset. And I just want to read both of them. First, one of the questions, are you prepared to offer Vladimir Putin access to rare earth minimals to incentivize him to win the war?

[B]

War?

[A]

Trump says we're going to see what happens. The second question is, would you support or agree to reducing NATO troops in Europe and countries like Poland in order to get Russia to agree to a peace deal? Trump's response was, that hasn't been put before me. I'll think about that for later. Okay. So first and foremost, as we all know, Putin unprovoked invaded Ukraine. So the notion that we are going to try to bribe him and give him rare earth minerals that Putin would want in exchange for not trying to take over a country is puzzling at its face, but shows you Trump's mindset. More importantly, though, NATO is an alliance. And I want to play this clip from Senator Chris Coons for all of you who may not know the details of NATO that I think summarizes this most effectively.

[C]

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO, which just celebrated 75 years, is the most successful military alliance or treaty organization in history. And its core is Article 5, which says an attack on one is an attack on all. And it's only ever been invoked once, and that was when the United States was attacked on 9, 11 and NATO troops served and fought alongside American troops in Afghanistan for 20 years and took casualties and sacrificed at about the same level as the United States on a, on a per capita basis. They showed up early, they fought bravely, they stood alongside us. They could easily have thrown up their hands and said, this is not our fight. Mainland US Was not invaded. It was a simple terrorist attack. But they didn't. They came when called and helped defend the United States and our interests.

[A]

So NATO stood with us after 9, 11, and obviously we are far away from Ukraine and Russia. Geographically, Poland is not. And NATO is standing with Poland to help make sure and dissuade any movement from Putin into Poland. That is the big concern internationally. The fact that Trump would even imply that he would question that alliance, reduce troops, put potentially Poland more in harm's way, is a warning bell for the world. And once again is a reminder that this is not a president who honors the treaties that this country agrees upon that makes us all unsafe. And so what is the ideal outcome of what's going to happen at the summit? For that answer, I brought on John Finer. John Finer is the principal deputy national Security Advisor to President Biden. His job was to oversee the entire national security apparatus for the White House. And he joined us to talk about this summit, best and worst case scenarios and things we need to keep in mind. So without further ado, Jon Finer. John Finer, FORMER Principal DEPUTY NATIONAL Security Advisor, thank you for joining us.

[B]

Great to be here.

[A]

So there's a lot of talk about this summit, about, you know, who's calling the shots and what's going to happen in it. I'm not asking you to go through the entire history of Ukraine in one minute, but if you could just give us a quick, quick overview of how we got here.

[B]

Yeah. So as I think most people watching and listening know, Russia has been at war with Ukraine against Ukraine since 2013, 2014, but really expanded its war in February of 2022. And interestingly, just because there's about to be this presidential summit, President Biden and President Putin met, the only time they met during the Biden administration, in the summer of 2021, to talk principally, primarily about the Russian buildup, military buildup that looked like it was going to be threatening Ukraine. The United States had identified that this was a problem, was going around the world telling countries, we need to be ready for this. Many countries were skeptical that it would actually happen because it seemed like such an outrageous thing for Russia to essentially try to swallow all of Ukraine militarily. But a few months later, that's exactly what they tried to do.

[A]

So what do you think is the goal of this. It seems like Putin was somewhat of the instigator of having this meeting. It's obviously happening in Anchorage, but there's some history there with Russia and Alaska in general. What do you think is the goal of this conversation from both sides?

[B]

So, from the US Side, there's two theories, and I have my own sense of which one I think is right, but I'll just lay them out so people understand what could be going on. One is that President Trump, having come into office, very angry at Ukraine, believing that Ukraine was actually the country that was preventing peace in this conflict, and wanting, I think, understandably and admirably to try to end the war, believed that the way to do that was put a lot of pressure on Ukraine, get Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire, and then, of course, Russia, Vladimir Putin, who Trump has this affinity for, would make peace and the war would be over. So he did that. He put a ton of pressure on Ukraine. And we saw that when President Zelensky came to the Oval Office and they had that famously awkward encounter where Trump was basically scolding him. But it turned out the Ukrainians then called his bluff. They basically said yes to everything that Trump administration was asking for. Yes to a ceasefire, yes to terms that probably they don't actually want. But they did this like. Like what?

[A]

Like what? In a vacuum. I know.

[B]

It's like being willing to talk about, at least talk about ceding some of their territory to Russia. They hadn't actually agreed to do that, but they agreed to put those issues on the table. And then Russia became the party that said no to the ceasefire. And that sort of scrambled. That was, by the way, what many people who've worked on this issue and followed it would have expected. But it sort of scrambled Trump's thinking. And so a month or two ago, he started to really hard, his language, at least about Vladimir Putin and about Russia, started to threaten new sanctions against Russia and started to resume what he had stopped for many months, which is arms shipments from the US To Ukraine to help them fight the war. So one theory of this meeting is that Trump is going to go in, take a very hard message to Putin, try to extract some concessions from Russia to try to generate a ceasefire, that Ukraine can live with an end of the war. But I think the other theory, which is every bit as plausible, and in my view, probably the more likely theory, is that Trump has wanted for a very long time, since his first term in office and probably since well before that, to have this better, cozier relationship with Russia and with Vladimir Putin, who he clearly admires on a personal level. When they met in the first Trump administration, they had this very friendly conversation in which Trump came out publicly and said, my intelligence community thinks a lot of bad things about Russia. But to be honest, President Putin made a very compelling case, and I know I kind of give him a lot of credit for that, which really horrified people in the government and in the intelligence community and around the country. So I think there is every bit as likely a chance that he's going to use this meeting to try to put US Russia relationship on a better path. And one signal of that is who's actually going to this meeting from the US Side. It is not a delegation of military people from the State Department, which has been historically very tough on Russia. It is a delegation made up primarily of political and economic advisers to the President, the Treasury Secretary, the Commerce Secretary, the kinds of people you would bring if you wanted to talk about deepening economic relations between the United States and Russia. We've had sanctions on Russia going back to 2014 and really intensified after 2022. The President has talked about the possibility of Ukraine easing those sanctions, not increasing them, if. If he and Putin can come to some sort of understanding. So I think what a lot of people are worried about, actually, is that this goes the other direction. They have a very positive meeting. The US Agrees to a bunch of things that take some of the pressure off of Russia, and Trump then shifts his focus back to trying to make Ukraine make concessions. That's from the US Side.

[A]

And what do you think Putin's angle is? And can you also just give a brief overview of the significance of Alaska being the venue for this?

[B]

Sure. So Alaska used to be a part of Russia until mid to late 19th century, when it became part of the United States. And obviously geographically very proximate to Russia. And no Russian president has ever visited there. This will be the first time a Russian president, a sitting Russian president, has visited Alaska. And I think that is something symbolically that President Putin wanted. I'm not one of these people who believes when you meet with adversaries diplomatically, it's necessarily a concession. I think diplomacy should be used to advance American interests, even against. Against people we don't like. That said, President Putin has been quite isolated globally since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. And for him to get this big meeting for the first time face to face with an American president, high profile, also high stakes, is actually itself a pretty big victory for Putin. The fact that this meeting is happening at all and for him, as long as this doesn't end up in a total meltdown with Trump kind of walking out and saying a bunch of nasty things and imposing a bunch of new sanctions, which as I said, a month or two he was threatening. And it looks like the US And Russia are more on the same page. That will be a huge win for Putin. He doesn't need necessarily tangible outcomes to have a win. Just the appearance of two big leaders on the big stage deciding the future of the world with Ukraine, by the way, excluded obviously from this conversation.

[A]

And what do you make of some of the comments that President Trump made in the Oval yesterday? Both potential openness to, you know, minerals or other things that Putin may have asked for in the past, as well as potential reduction of NATO troops.

[B]

Yeah. So Russia has a lot of things that it wants from the United States. They have been deeply uncomfortable with NATO's presence, increasing the physical presence, the number of troops along their border. By the way, it's worth reminding people that in the Biden administration we added two new countries to NATO after Russia invaded Ukraine, Finland and Sweden, which historically had been so called neutral countries in Europe. Not on the side of Russia, not on the side of NATO, but after Russia did what it did, they came into the alliance and added hundreds of miles to NATO's border with Russia, which was deeply unsettling for Russia. So, yes, I do think President Putin will say to President Trump, look, all of these NATO troops on my border are very uncomfortable for me. They make Russian, the Russian people feel insecure, like we are going to be attacked by NATO. And if you want a more peaceful environment, you should pull some of those forces back or reduce their number. He will probably also say, look, all of this pressure that you're putting on Russia, it's hurting my country, it's hurting my people as they go about their daily lives. It's turning them against the United States. And if you want a better relationship, if Russia and if the United States wants a better relationship with Russia, you should turn down some of that sanctions pressure. Stop hurting my people. One other thing, Dan, that's just worth mentioning is that a lot of times when leaders get together, it's a big news event in the moment and then sort of fades in the aftermath. In US Russia relations, there has often been quite consequential actions that took place either in these meetings or just after them. When President Obama met President Putin In 2015, it was in New York at the UN General Assembly. I was there working for, for John Kerry. That happened two days later. The Main topics of that conversation were Ukraine and Syria, which Russia was also helping the Assad regime, which has since fallen. Two days after that meeting, Russia for the first time sent significant numbers of troops and aircraft into Syria just after President Putin met with President Obama. You know, as I mentioned, when President Biden met with Putin several months later, Russia invaded Ukraine. And in the Trump Putin famous meeting in Helsinki, President Trump seemed to side with Putin and against his intelligence community. So unlike a lot of other diplomatic conversations, which are mostly about the photos and the optics, there often is consequential action that takes place either in these conversations or afterwards.

[A]

And how do you feel with Ukraine not being in this meeting? Obviously, there's an incremental step. Even if Putin and Trump come to an agreement. What. How unusual is that? And what is the typical process afterwards?

[B]

Yeah, so I think the conversations that the Ukrainians and the Europeans have been having with their American counterparts in the buildup to this meeting have been along the lines of, don't agree to something that's bad for Ukraine and expect us to go along with it. Expect yourself to be able to impose that agreement on Ukraine because Europe will stand with Ukraine. And you've seen President Zelensky come out and say, look, we are not about to make a bunch of concessions to Russia just because President Trump is going to meet with President Putin. Do not expect that. And I think the Europeans will back him on this. So whatever President Trump and President Putin agreed to, if they want to actually be implemented in the world, it will have to be something that is consistent with Ukraine's interests and with how Europe sees the conflict, which sometimes is very different from how President Trump sees the conflict.

[A]

And finally, just from an American interest perspective, what is the best case scenario of this summit and what is the worst case?

[B]

I mean, honestly, for me, the best case scenario is that not all that much happens, because I'm worried very much about the United States making major concessions to Russia, either in the meeting privately, or even publicly when they talk to the press afterwards. And that President Trump sends what has been the stronger message he's been using publicly about Russia's responsibility and Russia's essentially guilt in continuing to prosecute this conflict against Ukraine. That's the best possible scenario, even if there are no real outcomes. The worst case scenario is that President Trump is charmed by President Putin, as he has seemed to be in the past, that he comes out of the meeting afterwards and says, we had this big, beautiful. You know, he's got a lot of good adjectives, often fantastic conversation and that I think we and the Russians are on a much closer path as countries and the two of us as leaders going forward. And that could mean things like reducing NATO presence in Europe and reducing sanctions pressure on Russia. I think those things would be disastrous for the United States, certainly also principally for Europe and for Ukraine, which is clinging to a sort of stalemate in this conflict. But it is fragile and day by day and the US And Europe are keeping Ukraine in the fight.

[A]

John Finer, thank you for joining us.

[B]

Thanks for having me.

[D]

I don't have a cat myself, but many friends and family do, and lately they have all been talking about Smalls. So when Smalls came on as a sponsor, I wanted to learn more. Smalls is a fresh take on cat food because their recipes are protein packed, made with ingredients you would actually recognize from your own fridge. No preservatives, nothing artificial. Real food made for cats. That's why cats.com and Forbes both named it best overall cat Food. Friend of mine recently mentioned their cat seems excited when the Smalls boxes show up. They tried putting it side by side with the old food. The cat went straight for Smalls, which is a pretty good sign. If you've got a cat, give Smalls a try. Smalls is offering my audience 35% off, plus an extra 50% off your first order with free shipping. Just go to smalls.com use the code PACMAN. The link is in the description 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. 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 News, slash Pacman or enter the code Pacman in the app to get started. The link is in the description.

[A]

Welcome back to the David Pakman Show. My name is Dan Koh, filling in for David Pakman. Please subscribe to his channel and if you can, please subscribe to the People's Cabinet if you like what you hear. I'm a former White House official who does news analysis as well as interviews with the leaders shaping America's future. So I want to talk about Governor Newsom's speech yesterday and why it was so significant. But I think it's important to start with some of the context here. Texas is all but assured to now redistrict in favor of five more, excuse me, Republican seats. And that is inevitable almost at this point. And Governor Newsom has taken the lead in the fight against this. The larger picture here is that Democratic approval rating is at 28%. The top issue is that people don't think that we are fighting hard enough. And so, and the other, by the way, picture is that you have the 2028 election and you're seeing some of these presidential candidates being having their mettle tested of what they're going to do in this critical moment in our democracy. And so, for example, with the Texas redistricting, you saw Governor Pritzker inviting a lot of these state representatives to Illinois and offering them a place to be to protect them. Governor Newsom has really stepped up as well in terms of showing the fight. So he calls a press conference to announce what he is planning to do. And I should note that California has an independent commission that determines how the districts are apportioned and the favorability based on the demographics for those seats. The process now is that in both the state and the House of California, there needs to be a 2/3 vote to then get on the ballot. A question whether that commission should be essentially overturned or superseded to Governor Newsom's map that he has proposed that will add many more seats from California that would favor Democrats and that would be a temporary measure until 2030. That's basically the way this is going to go. Obviously controversial, but as, as you'll see, Governor Newsom feels very strongly about this, given the situation at the, at the federal level with President Trump. So on this backdrop of this press conference, ICE shows up, many of them wearing masks. It is absurd on its face that this was done for a practical reason. If you are a violent undocumented immigrant, why would you show up to a press conference with extensive security and elected officials? That would be the Dumbest move of all time. And so this is done for one reason and one reason only. Just to intimidate. Apparently they arrested a strawberry vendor as part of this process. But it is symbolic of the antagonistic view this administration takes on, on local officials, which, as somebody who used to work with local officials, you need all the help you can get. Because when incidents happen like the wildfires, you need collaboration at the federal and local level. So that's the backdrop in which this was happening. To start a little bit about the way this whole ICE thing has proceeded. If the goal is to take violent undocumented immigrants and deport them, which I am fully in support of, if you have committed a felony and you are violent, you should be deported. I think all of us should. They are proceeding in the exact opposite way. That builds trust for the community. That will help in the long term. Your goal, if your goal is to deport violent undocumented immigrants, committed felonies in this country, this whole thing about masks and everything is not the way to go about it. Because in order to do that, in order to create that. That opportunity to get as many as possible, you need to build trust with your community. This is the opposite of that. Now, a lot of people are saying. A lot of people are saying, well, you know, protesters wear masks and they're getting doxed and stuff. First of all, nobody should get doxxed, Okay? I think we should agree with that. No one should get doxxed. But there's very big difference between protesters exercising their right of free speech and wearing masks and doing whatever they do to cover their identities or for Covid reasons or what have you, and ICE agents who have the ability to arrest, who bring the force of the government, who can use lethal force if necessary, covering their faces, showing up unmarked and doing the things that they are doing. When people see unidentified individuals pulling up in unmarked cars and pulling people into the cars, what the hell you think they're supposed to feel or think? Even if you are fully supportive of what ICE is doing across the board, if someone pulled up and tried to take you into a car. Unidentified how would you feel about that? Would you, would you go along with it? Like, there's this whole thing about, you know, people say, oh, you know, if I got pulled over, I would obey everything. And, and I don't understand why people get so scared or whatever. Well, if that's one thing, if a police officer shows up fully identified, but if someone pulls up in a van and tries to take you away, you bet people are going to Resist. They don't know what the hell's going on or who the hell that person is. The fact that these people are walking around like Gestapo should concern all of us and candidly, just erodes the trust that you want to show. If you want to do. If you want cooperation with the community, if you want people to help root out those violent criminals, you build that trust. And we've come a way since George Floyd, we've come ways with body cameras and otherwise, but the reality is this is not normal. This is not what. What has always happened. This is something that is new in the. In the Trump administration. And so Gregory Bovino, a Border Patrol chief who's leading the administration's investigation, was out there saying, we're here making Los Angeles a safer place. Since we don't have politicians who can do that, we do that ourselves. I bet you if you asked Gavin Newsom or any of the other people there how they felt about violent undocumented people, he would tell you that we should deport them. We should have them have due process, and we should deport them. So there's this whole narrative that Democrats don't care about undocumented immigration. That is not true. It is not true in the least bit. Of course, we want. By and large, I'm sure there are some people you could probably find on TikTok who wouldn't say this right? But of course we want violent criminals off our streets. If you are undocumented and you've committed a violent felony, you should absolutely be deported and you should have due process. But this notion that all of a sudden we should then be okay with masked men with lethal force going around, rounding up people, arresting strawberry vendors, terrorizing neighborhoods, making people afraid to go outside, American or not, should concern all of us. And there is a reason why Governor Newsom did this press conference as a symbol at the Japanese American National Museum. You know, in the 1940s, over 120,000 Japanese Americans, many of them US citizens, were put in internment camps, not necessarily because they had displayed some kind of loyalty to Japan over the United States, but because of suspicion and other things. Many of them were there for years, American citizens. So if you think that there is no precedent in history for, you know, a proxy for loyalty to the US and terrorizing people for political gain or for. For situations of loyalty or what have you, or taking advantage of certain uncertainty and people's fear, that is one example that has happened in the last 80 or so years. History repeats itself, ladies and gentlemen, and we need to be very vigilant that we do not go back to those times. And right now, there are communities of color, there are communities as a whole who are petrified of what's going on. And every minute ICE continues to do this is a minute in which trust is just eroded at a larger level. Some of the progress that we have made to improve police and community relations just continue to be affected by this. It's not just about undocumented. It's about our trust with law enforcement and our government and our people. It is exacerbated by all of the other things that we are seeing, which I'll get to later in the segment. But we should all be concerned about what we're seeing in this antagonistic view, that somehow Trump administration knows everything. They're going to show up with armed people and masks outside of the governor of California's press conference. We should all think that that is fundamentally absurd on its face. So let's get to the press conference, because I think that's the main part of this. So, as I mentioned, the governor is proposing this bill. It is clearly in response to what is happening in Texas, and this was his big speech around it. There's a couple things that I think is maybe interesting to talk about at its face that people who may have not worked in politics may not know. And so for every elected official, by and large, there is what's called an advanced team. The advanced team is responsible for things like putting on events. And when you put on events, a good advance team is very mindful of how it all looks and how it all fits together. So here is a picture of Governor Newsom speaking at this event. I want to just explain how thoughtful the advance team was here. So there's a couple of subtle things that are important. So if you look at the governor, obviously he looks presidential standing in front of a big crowd, and you look at the people behind him, it is a constellation of people, a diverse crowd, men, women, people of color. To express this unity, a lot of labor unions were there, all the leading elected officials were there. And symbolically standing behind Governor Newsom to say that this is not what we stand for as United States citizens and as Californians. And we're going to stand up to this. A couple of other things to point out the podium and the name of this, the Election Rigging Response Act. First of all, he's making it very clear in the name of the act that this is about election rigging. And it being read symbolic of this is Republican election rigging.

[B]

Right.

[A]

That's. That's not, that's not unintentional. It may be easy to miss. But as someone who's worked closely with advanced people in the past, that's probably a very intentional act. Just showing very clearly through the language what this is all about. The defending democracy signs blue obviously evoking that Democrats are trying to fight for democracy. And obviously you have the American flag. So all of these things are kind of helping to inform people about where we're going with this and why it's so important to, to fight back. The other thing, this was a ten minute speech, right, for Governor Newsom. There was a lot of other people who spoke. I think that was really important too because in the era of social media and the era of people running around and having a short attention span, the days of the half hour stem winder or whatever should be over. And I think this is really important that Governor Newsom recognized that, to do that. And so I want to play a couple pieces of the speech just to give some color and to say why I thought it was so important that he, that he positioned it in this way. So first, let's start with this clip.

[E]

I don't need to belabor this except I want to level set. People are scared. People are fearful. You had a United States senator that was thrown down to the ground in a federal building. Alex Padilla.

[A]

J.D.

[E]

Vance'S name is Alex Padilla, not Jose Padilla. That's the Vice President of the United States. There's another museum not so far away from us. Talks about those 53 days. Some of you know what I'm referring to. Wake up America. This is serious moment. Wake up to what's going on.

[A]

So I think it's really important that he points out that people are scared, that people need to wake up. I think it's important to acknowledge the fact that with all of what's happened in what's only six or seven months, people are incredibly intimidated by what is what the President is doing. They're incredibly concerned about it. I think it's also important to remind people to wake up because this is a President who has literally psychologically conditioned the United States with all the things that he is doing. And so people are not necessarily as sensitive to every single incremental step. But again, let's talk about how important it is that we fight back here because of these actions. And so let me play another clip here from a little bit longer in a speech.

[E]

We're here with our state of mind, with the clarity of our purpose and conviction to recognize that we need to reconcile the world we're living in. We do have agency. We're not bystanders in this world. We can shape the future, and that's what we intend to, to do today. We're here because Donald Trump on January 6th tried to light democracy on fire, tried to wreck this country, tried to steal an election, as Alex just said, by trying to dial in for 11, almost 12,000 votes. And here we are, an open in plain sight before one vote is cast in the 2026 midterm election. And here he is once again trying to rig the system. He doesn't play by a different set of rules, and he doesn't believe in the rules. And as a consequence, we need to disabuse ourselves of the way things have been done. It's not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil, and talk about the way the world should be. We have got to recognize the cards that have been dealt, and we have got to meet fire with fire.

[A]

So he says we are not bystanders. And essentially, it's not just enough to have a candlelight vigil. We got to fight. Fight fire with fire. Let's play this out a little bit, because I think it's important. The Democrats right now have no power in the House, in the Senate, and obviously in the White House in terms of fighting back Republican legislation. The co equal branch of government for Republicans has not done its job. That is just an objective fact. They have not stood up to Donald Trump. And so in order for us to have any way to push back against Trump, we have to win the midterms. We just have to win the midterms in 2026. And this is a fleecing of that chance by Texas and by the Republicans to redistrict to prevent that from happening. If we sit back and say, oh, you know, we don't want to, we don't want to play this game, we will lose the House. And Donald Trump's, you know, reign over the country with all of what he's doing will just continue unchecked. I think it's really important to point out, especially as you're talking to people, you know, the alternative here is we lose the House and Trump continues to have unchecked power for, for his entire term and potentially more. And we just can't let that happen. So then he goes on to say this.

[E]

It's not complicated. We're doing this in reaction to a President United States that called a sitting governor of the state of Texas and said, find me Five seats. We're doing it in reaction to that act. We're doing it mindful of our higher angels and better angels. We're doing it mindful that we want to model better behavior, as we've been doing for 15 years in the state of California with our independent redistricting commission. But we cannot unilaterally disarm.

[A]

So I think it's really important how he ends it as well, talking about independent redistricting, how we have to model better behavior. There was a national bill proposed to essentially create independent commissions across the country to remove politics from this. This was by Democrats. Not a single Republican supported this. Okay. So the notion that this is the, you know, politicians are all the same, parties are all the same, just really doesn't hold water when you actually look at the proof. And so I think this is really important that Governor Newsom has reminded people of this, reminds people that in 2030 this returns to the normal process because people need to be reminded that this is not the same thing happening on both sides. It is very intentional that the governor put response in the act name that he put in there. And it is a sign that this is not something that Democrats want to do. But we are not going to sit back and just let us be ramroded by this administration and let our democracy slip away because we want to play kumbaya and patty cake, right? We can't do that. Our democracy is at stake. We need to use every arrow in our quiver to stop that from happening. And so Governor Newsom should be applauded for the work that he is doing. He is taking a leadership role. Governor Pritzker is taking a leadership role. And all of our leading Democrats in this country need to do the same thing. Now, what else is on the horizon that we could potentially push back on? On September 30th is the deadline for budget and. And whether the budget can get approved by Republicans. A budget that is proposing extensive cuts, including cuts to law enforcement, et cetera. We need to use that as well as leverage. We need to push Republicans to stop gutting the very things that make us American, that make us safe, that provide funding for our kids and for our kids future. All this stuff is trying to be swept under the rug. And you will hear Speaker Johnson saying that Democrats are being obstructionist. I guarantee you that every time this happens in an opposite scenario, this happened with Democrats, that Republicans do the same thing. We would be fools as Democrats not to try to use the leverage of a government shutdown to try to get what we want and for people, for communities of color, for all of us, okay? Our most vulnerable, all of us, okay? So we should be fighting for that. We should be demanding from our elected officials, what is next? How are you going to make sure that we get what we want in the budget? That is the next fight after this one. By the way, Governor Newsom's bill is not a fait accompli. It is going polling is shown, is going to be a very, very tight race. I understand the concern. I understand the reticence from some people to say we shouldn't do what Republicans are doing. But again, I want to remind people that if we let Texas go through, and by the way, they're not stopping with Texas, they're going to go to Indiana, they're going to Missouri, they're going to a bunch of places, we will lose the House. And whatever Donald Trump is doing now that's just getting warmed up will get even worse. And so we have to fight fire with fire. We have to fight back. And I challenge all elected Democratic officials and all of us who care about our country to stay in the fight with Governor Newsom, Governor Pritzker and all of the other people that we see who are actually fighting out there. I want to talk about another issue around ICE that's much broader than just what we saw at Governor Newsom's press conference. The high level here is that this is an administration that thrives off of fear and intimidation. We've seen that over and over again. We've seen it with, as I mentioned, mass men showing up in unmarked cars, in taking video of the work that they're doing and putting it out on social media, of having images of alligators with ice hats on, intimidating immigrants, etc. They thrive off that and they want to see as much of that as possible. In the big beautiful bill, there is money for 10,000 more ICE agents. Remember that they froze 800 million worth of contracts. Sorry, 800 million worth of grants for law enforcement related activity. But 10,000 ICE agents they're going to be hiring for. First and foremost, it is incredibly hard. As someone who worked in federal government, it is incredibly hard to find, train and hire anybody in the federal government. There's a process that is typically led by career officials. I don't know what the Trump administration will do, but it's an incredibly extensive process of vetting, of applying and getting people hired. That 10,000 is going to be an incredibly difficult situation on its face, which is why you're seeing Tom Homan expand the age eligibility for It. So there's an article that just got published in the Washington Post this morning that says ICE documents reveal plan to double immigrant detention space this year. Billions will be spent to reach more than 107,000 beds, including in mega facilities, tents and at least two new family detention centers, according to an interagency roadmap. So the article says when President Donald Trump took office this year, the United States already commanded the largest immigrant detention system in the world with a capacity of close to 50,000 migrants. Right away, his administration is setting a goal of doubling it. And so there's a very extensive map and an extensive plan to do this. It says the document outlines the strategy behind ISIS breakneck expansion, a chaotic effort that has already triggered lawsuits and accusations of cruelty. The roadmap, last updated July 30, shows that ICE intends to expand immigrant detention to two new parts to new parts of the country, nearly doubling the number of large scale mega detention centers and relying increasingly on makeshift, soft sided structures that can be built in weeks. The government is also planning to dramatically expand its capacity for detaining parents and children in what would amount to the nation's largest family detention program in decades. Okay, so I think it's really important to point out that Democrats lose if we say, and I do not believe this to be very clear, the Democrats lose when they just protest any kind of deportation in general. That is a losing argument. But this is not that, right? The Republicans do not want to just deport violent criminals who are here illegally. They are looking to do just this, like widespread operation that should concern everybody. What is most concerning about this is if you think it is bad right now with ICE on the streets, masked men showing up with people being deported without due process, what is it going to be like with 10,000 more ICE agents with the doubling of capacity? If you have a hammer, everything is going to look like a nail. And so it is also concerning that you see a lot of conversation from Stephen Miller, from Tom Holman, et cetera, about quotas, right? They're setting quotas. Thousands of deportations or arrests, I'm not sure the exact metric a day. Regardless, it is about incentivizing and setting goals for these agents. If you have a quota. We all know this from, from anything that we do in the private sector. If you have a quota, you're going to do everything you can to hit it and you're going to make a ton of mistakes if you're not careful. You're talking about training up 10,000 ICE agents when it's already Hard to recruit again, by the fact that they have expanded their age consideration shows that it's hard to recruit. That that in its face is concerning. You're setting quotas, you're going to have people out there desperately trying to hit their quota. It's understandable if that's the goal and that's how you're measured on the terror in the streets and the concern that people will have in terms of terror, I mean, that people feel is only going to get that much worse. The tension between federal and local is going to get that much worse. And it should concern all of us, families, children, expanding children detention centers. This is what this administration is doing, okay? Children have absolutely no agency about whether they cross the border or not. And so we're going to have big children detention centers all across this country. And I want to say one other thing which is again, the times in which the federal government and the local government where that relationship is most important is when there is some kind of unexpected disaster, okay? God forbid, and I work, this is my job in the White House, was to work with local officials. God forbid there is some terrorist act or candidly, more likely some kind of weather related incident. The minute that is happening. The collaboration and the relationship between the local officials and the federal government, in this case the White House, is literally the matter of life and death. Why? Because we would call the mayor of Tampa, okay, Mayor Castor, during one of the hurricanes, she said, we need this, we need funding there, we need some FEMA resources here and we'd be able to send that immediately to people in need that literally minutes are going by the difference between life and death. That collaboration is so important. And so if there is some kind of natural disaster that could happen in a matter of months, there's already a new hurricane on the horizon, for example, and there isn't that trust. And you know, if it were in LA and Mayor Bass is trying to reach President Trump and he's not returning her calls. It is literally the matter of life and death. It is the thing that makes people most cynical about politics is that people just can't get along, can't get out of their own frigging way to help people. That is what this is setting up. It is setting up an antagon, even more antagonism between local officials who say, listen, I know what I'm doing, let me do my thing, and Donald Trump who says he knows better. And he's basically saying that to everyone. So we need to gear up for this. We need to track very closely what they're doing. We need to see where they're setting up these detention centers, what quotas they're setting, and how we best fight back and be thoughtful about a strategy that is the positive, rational alternative that every undocumented person fear. Legally, who has committed a felony violent crime should be deported and we should root them out. But the amount of harm that this administration is doing with ICE and trust in communities is unacceptable and un American. We'll be right back.

[D]

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 simple 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 speech recognition technology to improve my pronunciation. Super helpful. Babel is designed by over 200 language experts and 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.

[A]

Welcome back to the David Pakman Show. My name is Dan Ko, filling in for David Pakman. Please send good vibes his way in the birth of his new baby and his whole family. I used to work in the White House and have a podcast called the People's Cabinet as well as a YouTube channel. Please subscribe. It's so helpful as someone new to the content world to have new subscribers and I deeply appreciate all of your comments and feedback. I want to start with an article in Politico about Doge. So Politico just published an article called Just How Much Has Doge Exaggerated Its Numbers? Now we have the receipts. A political analysis of Doge data reveals the organization saved less than 5% of its claim savings from nearly 10,100 contract terminations. And so there's a lot in this article, but I just want to read one passage through July, Doge said it saved taxpayers 52.8 billion by canceling costs contracts. But of the 32.7 billion in actual claim contract savings that Politico could verify, Doge's savings over that period were closer to 1.4 billion. Despite the administration's claims, not a single One of those $1.4 billion will lower the federal deficit until, unless Congress steps in. Instead, the money has been returned to agencies mandated by law to spend it. Okay, so remember the big Madison Square Garden rally with Trump and Musk, where Trump asked Musk how much you think you can save from the government? His answer was 2 trillion. Now, anyone who spent any time in government knew that was complete horseshit, because there is so much that goes into the budget, and there's only so much that you can do with what is called the non mandatory part of the budget. So wiping out defense spending, all of that, which I'm not advocating to do, even if you were to do that, there would still be, you know, something like a $6.3 trillion budget that you would have to figure out where to get the money from that that only accounts for, you know, 700 billion or so. So how do we think about this going forward and the lessons that we could learn from Doge? There's a lot in here. But to start, the amount of morale impact this has on career employees. There are 3 million employees in the United States who work for the federal government. It is so hard to recruit those people because the salaries are nowhere as good as the private sector. The top talent is always being drawn away. And so the way you do it is to provide good benefits and job security and the idea of patriotism to your country. With Elon Musk marching in on day one and asking people to resign. Demoralized. And I heard it all the time from people I knew in the career government. Demoralized career public officials. That was the first thing. The second thing is Elon Musk had this reputation of this businessman coming in and being able to change things. He turned Tesla around, et cetera. It is this larger thought process of these business people who have no experience in government. And candidly, Donald Trump is another example of this, that they can just march in to the White House and to the administration, and they're going to have just as much success in an industry they know nothing about. Right. Many of these elected officials would not do well at Tesla or any private sector organization like that, but they know how to operate in government. Elon Musk had no idea what he was doing. And it became very clear at the outset that that was the case. So as we look at this and as we think about it, I think the lesson is government is a craft. It's an industry, just like every other place. And I don't say industry in a disparaging way. I say it in a way that this is a complex organizational structure, that if you have no experience, it's going to be very difficult for you to be effective. And he made a ton of mistakes. As you know. He has alienated Trump and Trump has alienated him. Far more is being added to the deficit now than what would ever be saved at Doge at this point. Elon has said so. He is he has lamented that fact. But here's the thing that a lot of people don't quite understand. The movement of foreign aid and the celebration that Elon Musk had around USAID and our role in the world and what he claimed was waste and fraud will have generational impact for all of us. So I brought on the principal deputy national security advisor to President Biden. His name is John Finer. He was in charge of basically running the day to day of the national security apparatus. Everything from October 7 response to how we think of ourselves in the world, in the United States. Talk a little bit about the impact of USAID and how we move forward as a federal government post. DOGE so here's my interview with John Feiner. JOHN feiner, Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to President Biden My question to you is about doge. There's a lot of articles that have kind of autopsy aftermath of Elon and the Doge Project that basically is saying that there's a lot of inflated numbers in terms of savings. One area that is obviously well documented is the gutting of usaid. I think a lot of Americans don't quite understand what USAID did. I'm not asking you to explain all of that, but what I am asking you to explain is with some of the extensive cuts to usaid, what, what international interest does that affect for us and what should we be keeping in mind as we proceed going forward?

[B]

Sure, Dan, I'll give one somewhat concrete example because I think it's easier sometimes to understand specific illustrations than it is the big numbers. By the way, the big numbers are horrifying. Not the dollar values, which I think are not the right way to think about this, but more how those dollars translate into lives saved in the countries where the United States is focusing its aid. And you've seen these studies that show tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of of lives saved in a relatively Short period of time and all of that being reversed with the cuts. But the way I like to understand the impact is pick an area like global health. The United States goes around the world and has a range of programs, many of them through USAID or other partner agencies, to try to address or even eradicate deadly diseases in countries far from the United States. But diseases that, if left to get out of control, could end up very easily in the United States. The way people travel back and forth these days, when I was in office, many times a month, I would have public health experts come into my office and say, look, some of our USAID people in the field or our CDC center for Disease Control people in the field just called and said there's this outbreak in a faraway place, maybe the Democratic Republic of Congo, which many people couldn't find on a map, but is, you know, a major country in Central Africa. And it looks like this disease may be the kind of fever that once we test it, we will determine could be the Ebola virus. It's killing a small number of people in a faraway village. So we now have to ramp up our operation to try to stamp out that outbreak in the DRC and also take measures to prevent that disease from spreading to other countries and ultimately to the United States at the end of the day, and this is important, the primary goal here is to prevent these deadly pathogens, these deadly biological threats from coming here to the United States. This is not just about charity to countries far away. So we would do things like check on the supply of our vaccines if we didn't have enough vaccines, ramp up the production of those vaccines, decide how many of those vaccines to send to the field, try to stop it there, and how many to keep in the United States? For the worst case scenario where this disease is arrives here, we would look at travel restrictions for people who had been in those countries. Should we limit their ability to come to the United States? Should we test them on arrival? All of this is informed by public health analysis and expertise. But it starts with having people in the field to identify the problem early enough that you can get your arms around it. I worry now that almost none of that is happening because of the cuts we've made. The people who are doing this work, who have gone out the door, and we have put not just people far away at risk, but people here at risk as a result.

[A]

Can you also talk about how foreign adversaries or allies even may fill in the gaps of the aid that we were giving and how that could be concerning To Americans.

[B]

Yeah, it's not the purpose of our foreign assistance, but it's a very important ancillary benefit of it, that it helps us deepen our connection, our relations, improve our ties to other countries in ways that benefit us, you know, all over the world. And pulling back those programs creates this vacuum in those relations that other countries can fill. And I think in places like Africa and even in South America, in our own hemisphere, in Southeast Asia, you are going to see countries like China and Russia rush in to fill the gap. Not in altruistic ways, the way the United States sometimes does, but basically by going to these countries and saying, look, you thought the United States was a dependable partner. They're not. Obviously. They just pulled all of this support from you, so you should move in the direction of us. And they will try to extract things from those countries, whether it's access to minerals that the United States also needs to fuel our future economy, whether it's votes in international institutions like the United nations that go against our interests, whether it's siding with Russia or China as they try to coerce their neighbors, Taiwan in the case of China, or Ukraine in the case of Russia. But they will try to use this to boost their support and their standing in the international community by basically saying, the United States is not as good a partner as you thought. We're better, and you should move into our camp.

[A]

And that means what? That in the case of an eventual conflict, where allies are needed globally, they're now more inclined to want to collaborate with those. Those countries instead of ours. Is that right?

[B]

It means countries less willing to speak out against coercion by Russia and China against other countries, which is a huge problem in the world. It sometimes will mean those countries standing up and supporting Russia and China, even though they know that what they are doing is wrong. It means those countries giving Russia and China access to their mineral wealth. I mean, these mineral inputs in places like Africa are really the fuel for the global economy, for things like clean energy revolution, modern battery technology. All of this relies on a supply chain that ties back into these countries that Russia and China will try to use their relations with these places to extract more and to dominate these. These areas that the United States needs access to as well. So there are more political benefits, there are more material benefits. And again, none of this is why we do foreign assistance, but it has been a very helpful byproduct of the fact that we had good relations with countries around the world. They know that we are willing to step up when they are in A time of need and a time of crisis. And if there is some giant health crisis, natural disaster in these places, the U.S. i think inclination and ability to help countries address it will be much less than it was before. And that will mean the value of a partnership with us is much less than it used to be.

[A]

And finally, you've seen the entire apparatus at a very high level. Our national security apparatus, our foreign aid apparatus. I know, speaking from the Department of Labor, where I used to be chief of staff, seeing what they've done and what they're proposing to the staff for things like inspectors at the work site, wage and hour disputes, et cetera. I know that it will take decades at a minimum to rebuild what they've already done if they were to stop today. I'm curious in your perspective, quickly, how you've seen it, the stories you've heard about the different parts of State Department, for example, that are being affected even if today it stopped, how long it would take to rebuild what you think is necessary in this modern era?

[B]

Well, look, I hate to end on a pessimistic note, but I really worry about whether it is possible to rebuild a lot of what has been lost for two main reasons. Think about why people who have a lot of expertise, a lot of education, a lot of talent go into these jobs. If you are a PhD epidemiologist, why do you want to work in, in the government as opposed to a research institution out somewhere in the world? I think two basic reasons. One, you feel good about your public service, and two, you have job security. But unfortunately, given what has happened with doge, the disparaging of people's public service means it is harder for them to feel good about working in the government than they used to. A lot of the country, it seems like, has turned against government as a, as a, as a career and as an institution. Second, they don't have the job security they once had. Used to be think once you got into these places, you were set for the next 20, 25 years if you decided you wanted to stay. That's no longer the case. So people are not going to settle for lower salaries, less flexibility, and freedom to pursue other aspects of their professional life by coming back to the government now that those things have been robbed from them. And so I worry about efforts to rebuild. We're going to have to be creative about it. We're going to have to, I think, be realistic also about some of the things that Doge identified that probably the US Government and USAID and these institutions should not have been doing and not try to rebuild and reconstitute everything. I think that's going to be very important for Democrats if and when we ever get back into power, to be sensible about what to try to put back into place and what actually should be done differently. But I think the challenge of getting people to come back into these roles who have other options is going to be really hard.

[A]

John Finer, thank you for joining us.

[B]

Thanks, Dan.

[D]

When it was time for a new mattress, I didn't want to gamble on something generic. I had heard about Helix. I like that they customize the mattress based on how you sleep. I'm mostly a stomach sleeper, so I took the quiz and ended up with a model that felt tailored to me. I've had it for years. What I notice is I don't wake up with back stiffness. I don't wake up with shoulder pain. I don't toss and turn looking for a comfortable position. It's just better than my old mattress. It's more supportive, but it's still comfortable. Another thing I like about Helix is that there's no one size fits all approach. It's really tailored to you in terms of firmness as well. It's made a difference for me and I'm thrilled to be partnering with them. And right now, Helix is running a huge sale, 27% off site wide, plus a free bedding bundle. That's a sheet set and a mattress protector with any luxe or elite mattress order. Go to helix sleep.com/pacman to check it out. The link is in the description.

[A]

Okay. Welcome back to the David Pakman Show. My name is Dan Koh, filling in for David Pakman. He is has a new addition to his family. Please congratulate him and his family. And please subscribe to the People's Cabinet. I'm a former White House official who does analysis of the news as well as interviews with people shaping America's future. Your subscriptions are incredibly helpful for me as I'm starting out, so I appreciate it. I'm going to start with the DC takeover because it continues to get more and more absurd on its face. First of all, I want to start with something that is definitive that I believe to be objectively true. I was on Stephanie Rule the 11th hour, Stephanie Rule on MSNBC. And I summed up the fact that there is no president in modern history who has defunded the police more than Donald Trump. Let me play the clip.

[F]

Daniel, I want to get your take on this federal takeover basically of the DC Police force. You once Worked in for the mayor of Boston. The president seems like he is creating a template like this could happen in other cities. What's your take thus far?

[A]

Here's the disturbing part. If Donald Trump really wanted to address crime, he literally is defunding the police more than any president in modern history.

[F]

Slow it down and walk us through this, because I think this is the most important thing.

[A]

So I come from the city of Boston, as you mentioned. The way you measure homicides typically is per hundred thousand people. So Jackson, Mississippi is 72. Memphis is 48, D.C. is 27. Boston is 3.5. How did we do that? We did it through community violence intervention. The clergy, the community, and the government all working together. And so the bipartisan Safe for Communities act, for example, put 250 million towards these kind of programs. Donald Trump froze 800 million Department of Justice grants, 550 programs across the 48 states dedicated to things like community violence intervention. That's one of the biggest cuts in history. He also froze 700 FBI jobs, 100 million from the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, another 100 from domestic violence programs, and violence against women at the doj. So if you actually want to address the problem of crime, you invest in these kind of programs. He's doing the exact opposite. And by the way, marching around Georgetown is not the way to reduce crime in D.C. okay? Marching DEA agents around the mall where there were zero drug incidents last year is not the way to reduce crime. This is all about show and this is all about control. It is true. And I want to elaborate on two specific cases. Okay? One is Meridian, Connecticut. Any police department you talk to will tell you that overtime and paying for overtime is incredibly challenging. The budgets for police are not robust. And so having that having extra budget is really important. Meridian, Connecticut had a line item for over $100,000 worth of police overtime that was funded through federal grants that has now been frozen. That is a very tangible example of how Donald Trump is literally defunding the police. Okay. Secondly, there's a program called Youth Alive in California, Oakland, which is actually one of the places that Donald Trump claimed was a disaster. Okay? They work with youth who have been involved in violence and are in the hospital. So these are people who have been in, you know, gang involved things, shootings, what have you. They go to their bedside and they work closely with them to reduce the chances that they get into violence. Again, as I mentioned in the, in the clip with, with Stephanie, this is what has been proven to work.

[B]

Right?

[A]

Community violence intervention has been proven to work. They had 2 million from the, from the federal government that just got frozen. Two million gone, right? And again, 113 youth, one committed violence. Again, just one out of 113. These are proven strategies that work and there's examples. Everybody in every community can find a nonprofit that is doing valuable work like this in the bipartisan Safer Communities Act. As I mentioned, we funded this because we funded what works. This is not about funding what works for President Trump. This is about funding his whole administration of control. That is what this is. So let me elaborate on that for what we're seeing in the DC takeover, right? If you really cared about reducing crime in D.C. and by the way, I think Democrats lose if we say, well, crime is low, so we shouldn't be bringing in more resources. I think everybody wants a safer city. Nobody wants to walk around in their communities during the day, at night and feel scared. So even though it is true that DC is at a 30 year low, I don't think that our argument should just be that. That's why I talk about how he's defunding the police and he's defunding what works, because I think that is incredibly important and people don't talk about that enough. But even so, if you want to reduce crime in a place like DC, I think it is logical to say, okay, if I want to reduce crime, I'm going to deploy the National Guard and my resources to places where there is crime and address it. But that is not what this administration is doing. Billy Binion, a reporter, put out this map. Now, first, let me take a step back. This image is of agents walking around Georgetown. Okay? For those of you who are not, who have not been to dc, Georgetown is not an area that one would consider to be overly unsafe. It is an area near Georgetown University. It has very fancy shops. It is, it is objectively a fancy place with a four seasons. Okay? That does not mean that crime never happens, but it means that that is not the place where all of the violence is happening. In fact, Billy Binion, as I mentioned here, here's what he tweeted. This is a map of D.C. violent crime. Since January, Georgetown has reported one one criminal offense. Thus far, the majority of the neighborhood has seen no violent crime at all. Many other neighborhoods can't say the same. Taxpayer funded solutions need to be based in reality. Now, he's absolutely right. As you look at this map, there are areas that do have higher rates of crime. If you look in some of the areas of Columbia Heights, in some of Southeast D.C. where I'm sure, if you talk to the police force, they would tell you they need valuable resources and that Donald Trump could actually help. But that's not what this is about. This is not about addressing those problems. It's about showing intimidation and flexing force. It's the same way that before you saw him with DEA agents on an area of the National Mall near the Lincoln Memorial that had zero drug incidents. Okay? It is not. It is because these are high visibility areas for the public. Most Americans know what Georgetown and Georgetown University is. And so if you send troops marching around there, people, people pick that up. Okay? Same with the National Mall. When you come to D.C. and you come as a tourist or what have you, you go to the National Mall and you see and so you recognize it. This is all about, you know, Donald Trump's a reality TV star, right? And so he knows that he, if he puts those images out there, people are going to recognize it and it will, quote, unquote, resonate with them about the kind of, the kind of things that are happening in D.C. that's what this is about. It's once again a reminder of Donald Trump's mentality, which is he is going to, you know, almost like a matador with his, with his cape say, here, here's what I'm actually doing when behind the scenes, he's doing something completely different. We, we see that, as I point out with him, defunding programs that actually help, that have proven to be effective. We see that in his work with standing up with miners and saying that he's fighting for miners, with miners behind him. When he guts a program at HHS that combats black lung disease, which miners get when they go into the mines. We see him when he says that he stands for unions, when he has a member of the Teamsters, the president at the Republican National Convention, but then he strips 400,000 people at the VA of their collective bargaining rights. We see this over and over again. The show of Donald Trump and the reality. This is yet another example that we see in D.C. with this entire thing that is, quote, unquote, anti violence, but as a matter of fact, makes us all less safe. One last thing. The National Guard is a finite resource. Okay? I know I talk a lot about natural disasters, but it's what I'm most concerned about right now in the short term, because there's going to be national disasters where the National Guard will need to be deployed. And every minute we are spending thinking about how we deploy the National Guard to D.C. or other cities that Donald Trump is Planning is a minute we're not spent on preparing for that national disaster that is coming. Those. That is what we should be using the National Guard for. And we certainly shouldn't be using them for symbolic marches around Georgetown. In a time where people are already concerned about their futures, where trust between law enforcement and people are. Are becoming more and more strained, this is not the way forward. So that's what's happening in D.C. and we're going to keep an eye on that. Another issue that I want, another thing that I want to talk about that may have not gotten as much attention is around AI and how Donald Trump is controlling our entire tech apparatus and the tech CEOs. That will make us unsafe, but more importantly will control the information that we're consuming. I know I sound dramatic when I say this, but bear with me, because I think after I'm done with this, you will understand why I'm so concerned. So I think most of us know what ChatGPT is. We've all used it. And again, it's based on what's called a large language model. What does that mean? LLM. You'll hear LLM a lot. And so here's a very layman's terms example of it. It's basically like an advanced autocomplete. So you feed it tons of information, articles, what have you, and it begins to recognize patterns in the language and in the words. And it's so good at a certain point that it can predict the next word that that language that the language will produce. So it's a very fancy way of saying it's an advanced autocomplete. Okay. So if you ask a question, it will scour all of the data, use its pattern recognition to give you what they think is the best response. That is only. That is only helpful if you have the right inputs and right content that you fed it to train it. That's why you're seeing people saying, we're training the model. That's the whole thing. And obviously, every single major technology company in this country, as well as many across the world, see dollar signs here, and trillions of dollars of their value is based on whether they can get AI, Right? And a lot of these companies, you are, you may not fully realize it, are getting and training their models based on the things that you are doing right. So in the case of X Grok, all of the training that is a large part of the training that's coming is from all the tweets and all the interactions that are happening on Twitter, Facebook and Meta are doing the same thing with all of the posts that you do on Facebook and you can see it over and over again. It is really important to also point out that in the same way that when there are court cases, what have you, and the text messages that you send could be subpoenaed as part of court proceedings, that ChatGPT, the things that you input into ChatGPT GPT, personal things, I am sure, are not protected. You know, if you go to a therapist, for example, and you talk about something, there are certain protections that exist so that you can be open and you don't have to worry about it hurting you. That does not exist with chat GPT and, and AI models writ large. And so that is very concerning for a lot of people because I think people, a lot of people are very personal about their feelings on there, but it just shows you. I'm just illustrating that because it's just an example of the, the lack of protection in this new world, that, that these, these platforms don't have right. Lack of protection that they don't. That they have right. So why is this all relevant? And, and what is Trump doing? Because as, as, as you all know, there is nothing that Trump likes better than to regulate power and to control power. So I'll read this this quote. On July 23, 2025, President Trump signed the executive order titled Preventing Woke AI in the federal Government. This mandates that federal agencies only procure models that adhere to quote, unbiased AI principles, namely ideological neutrality and truthfulness, effectively banning models that embrace DEI frameworks or similar concepts. Importantly, the Office of Management and Budget has instructed to issue further guidance within 120 days of the order that places a key deadline around November 20, by which companies should expect clarity on implementation. So why is this relevant and why is this important for all of us to be concerned about? Because the definition of woke AI is not coming from objective people. This is coming from the federal government. And what are they doing? What does an executive order do? Essentially, it allows the President to interpret the law and dictate in this case how federal contracts are how people call, how the government qualifies the decisions in which they give out money. So that happens all the time in the federal government. They have a need. There's obviously trillions of dollars in play. They will put out a need, often called a request for proposal, rfp. You hear that being thrown around and people respond to it. But what the government can do is they can say, you are not qualified, even as a candidate to receive a certain contract because of XYZ parameters you did not hit. So that happens a lot in government and the administration has the ability to influence that decision. Why do I say I'm concerned? There was an article in Mashable that was just published a few days ago. Meta hires far right influencer to help end woke AI. Okay, it's a guy named Robby Starbuck and they hired him to be an advisor at Meta. Again. This is Facebook, Instagram, the platforms that many of you use every single day to ensure its AI tools are free of ideological bias, quote, unquote. This should concern all of us. It is one thing if Meta had announced that they're going to try to create neutrality in its AI models, that would be a panel of three left leaning, three right leaning people and trying to make sure that the information that is being fed into these models are not biased by data. They're not even hiding it. Right. They're hiring a conservative individual to help regulate what is being fed into their models. And by the way, this is exactly what Donald Trump is hoping for because he can control. He has a massive apparatus, as I've talked about in previous shows, to get information out there that is favorable to him.

[B]

Right.

[A]

The entire right wing apparatus basically has just swallowed, with the exception of like Andrew Schultz and Joe Rogan, swallowed the BS about Epstein files and stopped talking about it. And you know, it is absurd given how much they did talk about it and now they're literally covering for, for this entire thing that's happening. But he knows that, at least as of now, you and I can go on ChatGPT or what have you and ask some questions. And he doesn't have as much control over what comes in and what comes out. But putting what could be billions of dollars at stake for these tech companies gives the tech companies an incentive to make sure that the models are to the liking of President Trump and his administration. So you bet you're going to read more from different tech companies about how they and it's probably going to be sources unnamed about how they're going to be feeding it more information that is favorable to Donald Trump. What does that mean in practice? It means that the amount of information that people receive is going to be now more biased towards the right, more biased to Donald Trump. One of the things that I think is like a tangible example of that is, and this is Meta, as you know, Mark Zuckerberg announced that he was getting rid of human fact checkers. By and large, that was his big announcement, obviously in response to Donald Trump not liking that one of the things that I think has actually been interesting is how GROK on X has played a role of fact checking. Now, I'm not suggesting that GROK is perfect, it has shown sympathy to Nazism in the past, obviously unacceptable, but for a lot of the fact checking, it has now been replaced by grok. Right. And I've actually, I've actually, if I do say so myself, been relieved by the fact that there have been times where I've gone on tv, talked about a clear fact, talked about the defunding of the police by Donald Trump and individuals who have sought to, to discredit me by going on GROK and asking GROK have given a fact based answer that I gave that basically backs me up. But if Donald Trump is now the arbiter of good AI, what does it mean? If all of the things that people are trying to do to establish a neutral factual base goes out the window, that's what we need to watch out for. And the problem is we're not going to be able to track any of this overly closely from the, from the back end because a lot of these companies will try to develop these things. It's all black box anyway. Very few people understand how LLMs are put together. This is something that we need to harp on because if all of a sudden all of our AI platforms are all feeding us conservative information that, that is, that is favorable to Donald Trump at all times, our entire country could be radically transformed by it. And I don't believe I'm being dramatic by that. So we need to continue to monitor closely how this is proceeding. We need to monitor closely the deadline of November 20th. And we need to hold our journalists and we need to hold our public accountable to what could come next. The last thing I want to talk about is the Smithsonian. Okay, so the Smithsonian, of course, is a treasured institution. If you come to D.C. you see all these different history museums, American History Museum, African American History Museum, National Portrait Gallery, all of these places that present our history, good and bad, and it's free for the public. Right. So the problem is Donald Trump has now targeted the Smithsonian and targeted in a way that, given my experience in the federal government, I'm particularly concerned about. So, you know, let me just read the headline from the New York Times. Historians alarmed by White House plan to oversee Smithsonian exhibits. The administration's plan to in effect, audit the content of the Smithsonian museums drew criticisms from groups that represent scholars and promote free speech. So I think we should all agree that we should. Our American history should not be, you know, filtered through any lens, that we should be honest with ourselves about the things that we did well as a country and the things that we didn't do well as a country. That's the way we learn, right? But that is not an administration. This is not an administration that seems to care about that. Let me give an example. Let me, let me, let me first read the letter that was sent. Dear this is Secretary Bunch. Okay. Lonnie Bunch. She's the secretary of Smithsonian Institution. We wish to begin by expressing our appreciation for the brief tour that you gave us. We are grateful that the board has expressed your commitment to a nonpartisan, nonpartisan educational mission of this great institution. Now, I read that because this is ironic. As we celebrate our 250th anniversary of our nation's founding, it's more important than ever that our national museums reflect the unity, progress and enduring values that define the American story. We will be and to go on. In accordance with Executive Order 14253, Restoring Truth and sanity to American history, we will be leading a comprehensive internal review of selected Smithsonian museums and exhibitions. This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our cultural institutions. I won't read all of this, but if you just look at all the things they're going to look at, public facing content. So the things that if you come to visit D.C. you will see likely as well, things that you read online, how it is curated, how are you planning exhibitions, the use of collection and narrative standards. Donald Trump is literally trying to rewrite our history. I'll say it again. Donald Trump is literally trying to rewrite our history in the image that he and his team will seek. I want to go down and just show you the extent of the materials that they are looking to review. I should also take a step back. As someone who worked in the White House, every minute that is being spent on on one thing, on X is not a minute being spent on why the most valuable resource in the White House House is not money, although that is obviously a concern and resource. It's time. This is what frustrates me so much about this President because it's whether it is the, the ballroom, whether it is the South Lawn, whether it's the Kennedy center, it's that for every minute he's spending on, whether it's Kiss or what have you or Sylvester Stallone as the honoree is a minute he's not spending on how we're going to bring inflation down, how we're going to have peace and all of that. So look at the different things that they are planning on, reviewing the 250th anniversary, planning, the current exhibition content, the traveling and upcoming exhibitions, the internal guidelines, index of the permanent collection, educational materials, digital. I mean, it goes on and on and on. This is going to be a huge, huge lift for the the Smithsonian at a time in which they're trying to plan for historical, historical celebration of our country, which should include the things that we're less proud of. It is signed by Vince Haley, who is the assistant president and Domestic Policy Council and Russ Vaught, Lindsey Halligan as well. Let me talk a little bit about Domestic Policy Council and Office of Management and Budget. Okay. Office of Start with the Office of Management and Budget. The Office of Management and Budget is responsible for overseeing the $7 trillion of our budget in the United States. It is the most powerful position in the federal government. SHALONDA Young, outside of the president. Shalonda Young was the OMB director under President Biden. And Rus Vaught is one of the authors of Project 2025. Is for the president, incredibly important job, spending his time on this. VINCE haley, Domestic Policy Council the Domestic Policy Council oversees initiatives that the president would like to do from a policy perspective on things like health, education, key parts of our country. Okay, the fact that they are so involved in curation of the Smithsonian, there's two things. One is just absurd. That's what they're spending their time on. Okay, objectively absurd. But two means that they're serious about how they're going to try to rewrite our history in the image of Donald Trump. Right. We already saw and there's some reporting about whether this was reversed, that they removed Donald Trump from impeachment, from impeachment exhibits. And again, I want to be fair. There's been reporting that's been reversed. But imagine what they could do, what they could do to our history. And again, as I point out before, if they are effective in essentially whitewashing parts of history, and I say that in a way of revising history to make it look not as bad. The generations that consume the Smithsonian content, that view that as objective about history, that goes away. And like, what are we left with and what are the implications of future administrations who want to do this kind of thing? You know, time and time again in history, we have seen what happens when these leaders who are power hungry take away information from people. We're seeing it in the LLMs with AI and we're seeing it in the very historical institutions that we hold so dear. I want to give an example of why this is concerning. Jillian Michaels on CNN Newsnight, a show that I am, that I am on, you know, had a different lens of history about slavery. Let me play that clip.

[F]

Have you looked at some of the things.

[B]

Yeah.

[F]

Slavery was a bad thing to talk about. Okay. Like, he forgave. He's not whitewashing slavery. So he's not. He's not. No, he's not. And you cannot tie imperialism and racism and slavery to just one race, which is pretty much what every single exhibit does. But let's talk about the fact that when you talk about the fact slavery in America was Only less than 2% of white Americans own slaves, but it was a system of white supremacy. You know, slavery is thousands of years old. White people and America first race to end.

[A]

This is an extraordinary exercise in historical.

[F]

I'm really surprised. Do you realize, Jillian, I'm surprised that you're trying to litigate who was the beneficiary of slavery. I'm not. What I'm trying to tell you is that context of American history.

[B]

Okay, in the context of American history, what are you saying is incorrect by saying that it was white people oppressing.

[F]

Every single thing is like, oh, no, no, no. This is all because white people bad. And that's just not the truth. Like, for example, every single exhibit, I have a list of every single one. Like, people migrated from Cuba because white people bad, not because of past. Yes. No, it's in there. That's what I'm saying. You don't actually know what's in there. Do you know that when you walk.

[A]

In the front door, the first thing trying to justify. First of all, there's a lot of debate about percentages, etc, and, and, and families and, and what have you. But trying to justify slavery in this country, because let's even take her stat as. As it is, only 2% of all individuals own slaves is by definition minimizing the horrors of slavery and the generational effects that it has had on our country. But if you don't have objective thought about our history, if you're not honest about what the impacts of slavery has been on our country over the long term, you get misinformation out there that attempts to lessen it. So we all need to be vigilant about this. We all need to see how they are proceeding here, and we should all be concerned about these actions of this administration. That's it for the David Pakman show today. Thank you so much for tuning in. If you like what you heard, please subscribe. And please subscribe to the People's cabinet. It's my YouTube channel again. We do analysis of the news, we take you behind the scenes as someone who worked in government, and we also interview leaders who are shaping our country's future. So please, it's so helpful as a small creator to grow the channel with your support. I'm so grateful for all the comments, encouragement, discouragement, good feedback, and I look forward to seeing you again soon.

[G]

Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn ads, go to Libsynads.com that's L I B S Y N ads.com today.