Carl (3:11)

Is that, well, these are, these are kind of weeks away for the Japan and Korea model. But the other models are set. I mean, you already have. Vietnam has agreed to open its market. These countries have agreed to open their market. They bring down their tariffs. It's not that you're not going to find a big, long, you know, 250 page trading agreement. It's very simple. Bring down your tariffs to zero. Open the market to American exporters so that we can finally sell, sell our agriculture overseas. Finally sell our seafood overseas. Finally sell our beef overseas. I mean, we are. Producers have Stockholm syndrome.

David Pakman (3:52)

Yeah. So if you're looking for the other countries to confirm and explain these deals in detail, that hasn't happened. If you're looking for documentation of these deals that has been signed by both parties to the deal, you're not going to get that. But listen, we reported that they're lowering tariffs. What more do you want? Carl on cnbc? I know that there are some who are going to hear this and sort of say, you know, maybe Lutnick is right. I mean, like, why do we need paperwork? Why do we need signatures? If they've agreed to do X, then that's it. It's as simple as that. And the reality is trade deals are very complicated trade. The reason that trade deals run hundreds, if not thousands of pages isn't because it's just burying people in paperwork. Right? There's a reason that the terms and conditions you get when you get some app are 50 pages long and you're just trying to install, you know, your phone, flashlight app or whatever the case may be. And part of it is let's just bury people in minutia so that they don't even look at it. With trade deals, you need all of those details that explain how particular industries are going to be treated. What are the enforcement mechanisms for such a trade deal? What are the punishments or what do tariffs revert to if elements aren't agreed to? These are complicated things. And so the idea of a verbal agreement is hilariously terrifying. But it is the Trump White House, after all. So as we zoom out and we ask the question, are these deals real? Some of these deals aren't deals. And so when pressed, White House officials have said, yeah, you know, the UK deal, it's not a deal, it's a framework. It's a, it's a framework of understanding what we're going to do. The Canada deal is not really a deal. It's just a framework. Indonesia did sign something, but it's a joint statement of framework. It is not actually a trade deal with enforcement mechanisms and delineation of how particular industries are going to be treated. And as we dig deeper and deeper, it does increasingly seem that even though if we give them credit for what they say they've signed, it's still not very good. Right. Like, if we are as charitable as possible and we say everything you're calling a deal, even when we know it's not really a deal, it's a framework or it's an idea, we'll give you credit for all of them. 90 deals in 90 days came and went. We got to 100 days, 120 days. Where are we even now? I'm trying to the April 2nd to August 2nd, that'd be 120 and then add another 18 days. So we're at like 140 days. If you said to me today, August 20th, how many deals do we have in 140 days? I think we probably have a few, but I can't honestly tell you which those are. This is the way that this administration operates and reporting from inside the Trump White House, is that this sort of incompetence, this sort of just, I don't know, we, we said this Isn't that good enough, that that is apparently widespread and rampant. There are unqualified people, dangerously unqualified people in control of the country, and that should scare every single one of us. Donald Trump now says he's worried about getting into heaven, which aside from being a really kind of wacky thing to hear from president, it is sparking new health fears, making people wonder, is he talking about that because of something that's going on from the standpoint of health? Now, as far as we're going to play the clip here in a moment, you know, Trump has spent, Trump has spent decades. If you believe in a religious framework, which I don't think Trump does, but he claims to, Trump claims to be a Christian. If you believe in a religious framework, then he's really been accumulating sins like they are, you know, Pokemon cards or something. And now all of a sudden, he's worried about getting into heaven. He's worried about negotiating peace with Ukraine and Russia, and seemingly not because it's just the right thing to do. It's because he thinks he needs help with his odds of getting into heaven. This is Trump on Fox News straight up saying, I'm hearing I'm not doing that well on the path to heaven. And I hope that this deal maybe helps.

Donald Trump (8:24)

Just want to end it. I want to end it. You know, we're not losing American lives. We're not losing American soldiers. We're losing Russian and Ukrainian, mostly soldiers. Some people as missiles hit wrong spots or get lobbed into. Yeah, more than some cities like Kiev and towns. But, you know, if I can save 7,000 people a week from being killed, I think that's a pretty. I want to try and get to heaven if possible. I'm hearing I'm not doing well. I'm really at the bottom of the totem pole. If I can get to heaven, this will be one of the reasons. Well, I think I saved a lot of lives with India, Pakistan. They were going at it. The planes were being shot down. That was going to be maybe a nuclear war if I let that go. And I did that through trade.

David Pakman (9:07)

I was so instantly, instantly. This lit up social media with extraordinary speculation. Is Trump suddenly suffering a bout of panic about politics? Is that really what this is? Is he worried he's not accomplishing enough and the reference to getting into heaven is a euphemism, or does Donald Trump know something about his health that isn't being made public? The answer to that question is almost certainly. But is it something serious? And remember that this is the same Donald Trump that we've seen with the swollen ankles, with the bruises on his hands, and subsequently with increasingly large makeup patches on his hands to very obviously cover up the bruises. The White House ultimately was sort of given no choice but to come clean with some information. They said, oh, he's got a completely benign chronic venous insufficiency, and that is completely it. But all of a sudden, you know, Trump walking unsteadily. We saw him during the red carpet walk with Vladimir Putin, unable to walk a straight line, sort of swerving far to the left and far to the right. And he's got the afterlife anxiety all of a sudden. So this is a track record that is starting to. First of all, Trump's life, if you believe in this stuff, doesn't exactly scream heaven bound. I don't know that Trump has a ticket that's been punched. Exactly. If the framework you subscribe to and you believe in is one where heaven exists and the Christian Bible is indicative of what it takes to get in. But if you put that aside for a moment here, all of a sudden, Trump talking about this is definitely raising some questions. Now, as far as the trade deal goes. I'm sorry, as far as the peace deal goes, With Russia and Ukraine. Trump is, is clearly trying to leverage his negotiating position like this were a real estate deal. And even the hot mic Trump was caught on at the White House earlier this week where he says, I think, I think Putin wants to make a deal with me. Trump's entire public life is sort of a checklist through which the prism is, this is like a business deal. Can I speak to the decision making parties? Is there a financial impediment? What do we need to do to get it done? And this gets us back to the broader speculation that we've heard for so long by mostly Republicans that we need a businessman as a president. We heard it during the 2012 campaign between Barack Obama for reelection and Mitt Romney for president. And you would often hear, Mitt Romney is a businessperson and that's who we need running the country. And at the time, I would ask a really simple, almost a quaint question. What evidence do we have that business people make good presidents? And the couple of examples that we had from history weren't particularly good. We then got to Trump and started hearing a lot of the same thing. Trump's a business person, he's a negotiator, he makes deals. Naturally, they said that would make him a good president. And many of us on the left were saying, what evidence do we, first of all, do we accept that Trump is a good business person? Sort of a question mark. Because if Trump had simply invested his inheritance in the stock market, doing nothing other than allowing 40 years to go by or 50 years to go by, he would have more money than he has now. In other words, Trump's business ventures have done worse than putting all the money in an index fund. So maybe Trump's not even a good business person. But if we grant he's a good businessperson, what evidence do we have that that translates well to global diplomacy? And so far, the case is it really kind of doesn't. Trump is applying his experience as a businessperson, a good business person, a mediocre business person. You be the judge. Trump is applying his experience and the tactics he uses as a businessperson to the presidency. And what we've learned is that's not really a great experiment. What I would like to see, and I know that now we are really kind of zooming out, I'd be curious why. What would it be like to have a scientist president? What would it be like to have an educator president? Are there other areas of work and life that better lend themselves to being a good president? The businessman experiment hasn't gone particularly well. Now back to Trump. It's not super common that you call in for a live interview and have an existential crisis unless something's going on behind the scenes. And it might be Trump's health, but it might be his legacy. It might be kind of a rare moment of conscience all of a sudden, but very odd to hear Trump all of a sudden saying, I'm a little worried that I'm not on track to get into heaven. What do you make of it? Let me know info@david pakman.com after the break, Caroline Levitt was asked a question that she didn't really like being asked. I'll tell you what it is and what her answer was. There was a time when public education meant learning math, science, history. But now we are seeing Bible verses in biology class, we're seeing 10 commandments on the wall, religious chaplains taking the place of trained counselors. And it's all funded by taxpayer money through voucher programs that are sending public dollars to to private religious schools. This is part of a broader effort to inject religion into public education. I'm against that and it often is coming at the expense of real academic standards and the well being of the students. Now our sponsor, the Freedom From Religion foundation, is fighting back. FFRF defends constitutional principles, takes legal action when schools cross the line, and protects students from religious coercion in public classrooms. If you believe in facts in protecting education and keeping religion out of public schools, I can tell you this is an organization very much worth supporting. To get involved, go to ffrf.org school or text David to 511-511- Message and Data Rates may apply. The link is in the description. People in my audience know I am a bit of a pastry connoisseur. Our sponsor, Wild Grain is the first bake from frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, pastries and pastas. Wild Grains boxes are customizable depending on what you like and prefer. They've got their classic variety box. They've launched the new gluten free box. They have a plant based box that's 100% vegan and it just takes the hassle out of baking because all items bake from frozen in 25 minutes or less. Nothing to clean up. My experience has been awesome. I love the croissants. I was having people over last week half an hour before preheat and throw them in the oven and people love it. Definitely the croissants are my favorite. The quality and the freshness of the items is extraordinary and it is just so convenient. Go to wildgrain.com/pacman to start your subscription and get $30 off your first box plus free croissants in every box every month. The link is in the description. Caroline Levitt seems to be seeing the energy drain out of her as the weight of having to defend completely indefensible lies from Donald Trump every single day are starting to weigh on her now. She's still a Christian, remember, even though she lies regularly, she's still a Christian. She still wears her big cross necklace most days during the press briefings. Cross necklaces of varying sizes. It not not causing a problem for her morality that she lies uncontrollably every single day. But but she doesn't like a lot of the questions that she's been getting. And one of the things that she started talking about is why aren't we getting more praise from Donald Trump for Donald Trump? Rather look at everything he's done just in the last 48 hours. You should be praising him.

Caroline Levitt (17:27)

All of these European leaders at the White House 48 hours after sitting down with President Putin on American soil. In fact, there was many. So, so much progress in the readout that was given to these European leaders immediately following his meeting with President Putin that every single one of them got on a plane 48 hours later and flew to the United States of America. And if I could just read for all of you some of the statements from those European leaders. Yesterday you had President Zelensky himself saying it was a very good conversation. It was really good. We spoke about very sensitive points. The secretary General, Mark Mark Ruda, it was the president. Only because of the president that this deadlock was broken with President Putin by starting a dialogue. So these leaders who this war is in their backyard are very grateful that the president took that call and that he was there to provide them with a readout of Russia's thinking on this, something that was not done by the previous administration at all.

David Pakman (18:23)

Why aren't all of you reporting how perfectly this entire thing is going under Donald Trump? Now I want to focus in on Zelensky's comments. Caroline goes, listen, Zelensky said the meeting with Trump was great. It was a important things were discussed. It all went well. What's Zelensky going to say? It was a terrible meeting and we made no damn progress. Which of course would trigger Donald Trump and just rain down more hell on Ukraine. Zelensky clearly understands how you have to deal with Trump if you want anything. And the most tragic aspect of all of this is that both Zelensky and Putin are doing what they can to manipulate Trump. Putin's the guy Trump's enamored with, so Putin is much more able to manipulate Trump. But both of them understand Trump's ego and narcissism are the characteristic that we have to keep in mind as we figure out what to do. Putin came in and very smartly for Putin told Trump, if we believe it, and I think, I think it's totally believable, Putin told Trump, those mail in ballots, they really screwed you in 2020. You won in 2020. Do any of us think Putin really believes Trump won in 2020? Of course not. Putin understands that the way to manipulate Trump is by telling him he's right about some of his conspiracy theories. And that makes it so that when Putin says other things to Trump, Trump will go, I. I got to believe this guy. This guy's trustworthy. This guy realizes I won the 2020 election. So Putin doing a really great job. Zelensky, we already know Trump's picked his fighter in this thing, and it's not Zelensky. But Zelensky understands after coming to the White House, if he comes out and goes, terrible meeting, Trump left to call Putin. Total farce, no progress, laughable. That's going to trigger Trump. It's going to be bad for Zelensky, it's going to be bad for Ukraine. And so Zelensky smartly just goes, yeah, no, it was a good meeting. It was a good meeting. And Caroline Levitt then comes out and reports it. Now, a reporter asked Caroline a very reasonable question. Why didn't Trump take the call from Putin in front of the other world leaders? Wouldn't it have been convenient if there's this big conversation happening with Zelensky and with everybody, Get Putin on the phone in front of everybody, have the conversation, get a deal done, which is what Trump said they were trying to do. And Caroline Levitt lashes out at the reporter for asking the question and doesn't.

Caroline Levitt (20:52)

Actually answer both Russia and Ukraine to make that bilateral happen as we speak.

Ambassador Greer (20:57)

Sean, if the point is to get everybody on the same page, why wouldn't Trump just take the call from Putin while the other leaders were in the room? He said it would be disrespectful to do that.

David Pakman (21:06)

But why is it disrespectful?

Caroline Levitt (21:08)

With all due respect, only a reporter from the New York Times would ask a question like that. Sean, the president met with all of these European leaders at the White House 48 hours after sitting down with President Putin on American soil. In fact, there was so much progress and the readout that was given to these European leaders immediately following his meeting with President Putin that every single one of them got on a plane 48 hours.

David Pakman (21:32)

All right, and then now we get to the other part here only. But so, first of all, she starts with, with all due respect, when you hear with all due respect, the next thing out of the person's mouth is often extraordinarily disrespectful. And Caroline Levitt loves to turn things around on reporters. Now, later in the week, I'm going to kind of sum up where I believe we are in terms of the Trump administration's antagonism and opposition to a free press. We'll get to that a little bit later. But it has to be acknowledged that Caroline Levitt's instincts are to attack reporters. Here's another instance where yesterday a reporter started asking a question, and Caroline Levitt wanted the reporter's opinion. But the reporter is just a reporter. What, what does it matter whether the reporter believes that Putin would or wouldn't have started the war if Trump versus Biden had been in office? But this is. This is where we are today, Jackie. Thanks, Caroline.

Caroline Levitt (22:32)

Since the president often says that this war would not have started if he were in office, and Putin confirmed that. How true. How do you accept that as true? The European leaders do well. And President Putin himself said that. He didn't say that.

David Pakman (22:46)

Notice that that is completely irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. Jackie Heinrich just says, since the press is contextualizing, since the president says this war wouldn't have started if he had won in 2020, and Putin says that the war wouldn't have started if he had won in 2020. And Caroline Levitt finds it necessary to interrupt and go, Jackie, do you accept that doesn't matter? Doesn't matter. Jackie is saying, this is what they say. Given that, I have a question for you. Caroline Levitt doesn't like it. This is how you express bottomless hostility to a free press. And then finally, finally the question is asked of Caroline Levitt, why would Putin be motivated to do something for Trump? This relates to the hot mic Trump was caught on, where Trump said to European leaders, I think Putin wants to do a deal for me. He wants to do it. Why would Putin be motivated to do that? Here is Caroline Levitt's answer, maybe the most dangerously naive moment of this entire thing.

Caroline Levitt (23:47)

Specifically for President Trump, though, what, what do you think Putin's motivation is to try to do something for President Trump as opposed to just resolving the conflict I think, as I just spoke to in my opening remarks, Kelly, Russia and all countries around this world actually respect the United States again. And the President is using the might of American strength to demand that respect from our allies, our friends, our adversaries all around the world. And we've seen that not just lead to progress with Russia and Ukraine, but also we've seen it in the closing of seven global conflicts around the world as well. We've seen it with the release of hostages in Gaza. You've seen it with the end of the conflict between India and Pakistan, which could have resulted in a nuclear war if we not had a president who believed in the strength and the leverage that comes with the job of being the President of the United States of America.

David Pakman (24:39)

Think about how naive this is. Caroline Levitt's argument is that thanks to Donald Trump being in the Oval Office instead of Joe Biden, the United States is finally respected again. Now you have to understand what that means to them. For people like Trump and Levitt, being respected means being feared. Their argument with the trade deals with Russia, Ukraine and in other areas has been because people will again respect Trump, meaning be afraid of Trump, want to keep Trump happy. They're going to very quickly do what we want him to do. Now, on trade deals, it simply hasn't happened. It was going to be 90 deals in 90 days. We got one in 100 days, and now we're at maybe three or four in 140 days. It's pathetic. Certainly no one is acting like they're afraid of Donald Trump or afraid of the United States. But look at the behavior of Putin and Zelensky. Is either of them afraid of Donald Trump? Because if they are, none of them are showing it, is either respectful of Donald Trump. Because if they are, neither one of them is showing it. Putin has continued endless bombing. Zelensky has tried in realizing that Donald Trump may not be the best partner for Ukraine, has done an end around and has gone directly to other countries and other allies to try to figure out what can we do, how can we get help and keep aid flowing. Putin, if he were afraid of Trump, wouldn't have escalated attacks and incursions and drone bombings over the last seven months that Donald Trump has been president. There is not a shred of evidence that Putin and Zelensky forget about respect. They don't seem afraid of Donald Trump in any way. And so Caroline's idea that finally we are respected. And that's part of if Trump were respected, feared, seen as having the cards to borrow a term that Trump used, then both parties would have come to the table sooner, and Putin would have done anything that goes in the direction of peace as opposed to doing very much the opposite. Caroline Levitt is running out of ideas. Caroline Levitt is running out of energy, and she is failing to defend even the most basic actions of this administration. Donald Trump has been on a crusade about Joe Biden's supposed gaffes for years. The sleepy Joe nickname. I'm sure you remember the constant insinuations about cognitive decline. It's been one of Donald Trump's favorite attacks. But once again, Donald Trump is walking right into the glass door himself. Donald Trump is on a new crusade against mail in voting. And he told a story about going to vote in person, and he confidently said that he was asked for his license plate. Trump said that when he went to vote, he was told, show us your license plate off of your car. Is this another senior moment? Is this cognitive decline? Is the hamster. No, sorry, hold on. Is the wheel spinning? But the hamster is dead. Dead. Listen to this.

Donald Trump (27:44)

When you go to a voting booth and you do it the right way and you go to a state that runs it properly, you go in. When they even asked me, they asked me for my license plate for identify, said, I don't know if I have it. They said, sir, you have to have it. I was very impressed, actually.

David Pakman (27:59)

Yeah. They said, sir, show us your license plate. And don't go around with one of those vanity plates. A license plate at a polling station. Now, of course, this never happens anywhere. This doesn't exist. Trump now votes in Florida. You need a photo ID and a matching signature. Trump used to vote in New York. Neither requires a license plate. You're not required to have a driver's license. You're not required to have a car you're not required to drive in order to vote. So unless Trump, you know, brought his car into the voting booth, I mean, just none of this makes any. Any sense whatsoever. Now, one of the questions here, of course, is Trump is describing a scenario that is impossible unless you vote at Jiffy Lube. So is this Trump not understanding the difference between a driver's license and a license plate wouldn't be totally shocking. I mean, Donald Trump seems not to understand the difference between seeking political asylum and an insane asylum. So it's possible Trump doesn't know the difference or appreciate the difference between a driver's license, meaning an id, and a license plate, which is the metal thing that goes on the back and in some states, also on the front of your car. If Joe Biden had said such a thing. If Joe Biden had said, when I vote, they asked me for my license plate, Fox News would have an impeachment countdown clock running, and every single interview for a week would be about this. Now, the funny part about this is Trump's defenders can't even fall back on their usual excuse, their usual excuses. Trump's joking or he's being Trump. Even accounting for Donald Trump's strange personality, this was delivered in a dead serious way. This is a guy who's been hammering Biden and others over their verbal slips for years, and he's inventing voting procedures that sound like they came, you know, from the fever dream of a DMV employee or something like that. So if you need a snapshot of Trump's mental state in 2025, it's obsessed with nonexistent voter fraud, can't keep the details straight, and telling stories that fall apart the second you apply basic logic. And it's all happening on live tv. Same Trump who said others are confused and incoherent. Same guy who retweeted artificially, digitally modified videos of Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and others. And here he is inventing a voting requirement that has never existed anywhere, ever, in the history of American elections. What's wild is how perfectly this slip up also captures Trump's authoritarian streak. Trump imagines voting not as a civil, or better said, as a civic process. He imagines it as something where officials can demand anything. Does it imagine that it were true? Imagine for a moment that Trump went to vote one day and they said, sir, give us your license plate. That is, of course, nowhere in the law. And so Trump likes it, because in Trump's mind, anybody just ask for more stuff, anybody can just do it. And no matter what, they might ask you for a piece of your car. Did you bring in your headlight, sir? You need your headlight here to vote, and you have to comply. Doesn't matter what the law says. If they ask you for documentation, you've got to provide it. It's like in Trump's mind, the right to vote is another transaction. Have you impressed the person who hands you your ballot enough, or are they going to ask you for more stuff? And so, for me, the most concerning aspect of this is not the gaffe itself. It's, number one, these gaffes keep happening. And number two, they are emblematic of an extraordinarily authoritarian worldview. So we've seen Trump forget names, we've seen him confuse world leaders and wander off into, you know, half finished thoughts mid sentence, what he calls the weave. But this is the guy who's controlling the Justice Department, commanding the military, pushing to weaken voting rights. And so there's nothing funny about these little moments. These moments are a warning sign. And what's deep down, whatever you believe is going on with Trump's brain, whatever you believe about Trump's cognition, everything is laced in authoritarianism. And that is horrifying. We'll have more about this on my substack. I hope that you're subscribed free to my substack newsletter. Substack.david pakman.com 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 refres framing 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 detect, downplay or not cover it 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. All right, we have devastating news for Trump and maga. This is not coming from a Democrat. This is coming from CNN's numbers guy, Harry Enton. And we have now learned that Donald Trump's big beautiful bill is the most unpopular piece of legislation passed by Congress in decades. Harry Enton went back through the archives and looked at every major piece of legislation since 1990. That's 35 years ago. And there is nothing even close to as unpopular as the tax bill passed by Trump and Republicans. You look at Obamacare. Obamacare was the prototypical terrible bill. Republicans framed it as being hellish and dystopian and it was just a punching bag. They voted 60 something times in the House to repeal it. And of course, they never were able to do that. And yet, and yet Obamacare was minus 8 in net approval when it passed. The George W. Bush bank bailout of 2008 was -14 net approval when it passed Bill Clinton's 1993 budget, which Republicans spent months saying it's going to tank the economy. It didn't. By the way, Bill Clinton's 93 budget had a minus 10 net approval. All were disliked at the time. Trump's big beautiful bill has net approval of minus 17. Now, that's the average. CNN, CBS, Fox News, some of them have it at minus 19 approval, some of them have it at -22. Pew has it at -14. The best poll for Trump on the bill, which is from the Wall Street Journal, still has it 10 points underwater. When your best number is minus 10, you've got a real problem. Now, it gets more interesting when you break it down and look at independents. Independents are often, you know, rightly or wrongly considered the group that can decide the outcome of elections. 30% of independents like the bill, 69% oppose the bill. That's minus 39among independents and in swing states. Those are the numbers that can lead to a blowout against you, possibly in the midterm elections of 14 and a half months from now. So we look at independence. It's a disaster. Democrats obviously hate it. And even among Republicans, the bill is less popular than Trump himself. Now, now, why does this matter is really the question when a president's own base isn't fired up about his one signature policy achievement. There's one bit of policy. You know, the tariffs are off and on. Trump's the peace guy, but he bombed Iran. And some of this stuff is a little bit amorphous. But in terms of, like, what's the biggest piece of legislation, if any, that Trump got passed? It's the big beautiful bill. And even many Republicans are sort of like, yeah, we don't really love it. Hard to defend it in conversations with friends, hard to defend it in social media, because it really isn't a good bill. It's very bad for a lot of people in the United States. This is how a political narrative can sour. And what we know from modern presidencies is that once a country sours on the president, it's very hard to get it back. Now what they're doing at the White House is sending out J.D. vance to try to sell it. It's sort of like trying to, you know, sell a crappy flip phone in 2025, very few people are going to be convinced that that's what they want and that that's what's best for them. But since last month, J.D. vance, in the middle of a bunch of vacations that he's taking, has been going out there and saying there are so many benefits in this bill for hardworking Americans. And then behind the scenes, the strategists are saying, how can we we got to change the name of this thing. We've got to figure out what to do because people hate it, absolutely hate it. Now, the problem for Republicans going into 2026 is, well, let me put it a different way. If Democrats are smart, they will weaponize disgust for this bill in House races and in Senate races. And it's up to Democrats to figure out the right way to do it. What's the language to do it. You know, I would say the Democratic strategists know how to do it. The 2024 election is at least some evidence that maybe Democratic strategists have no idea what to do. But if you are, for example, a Republican in a Biden Harris district or you're in a close Trump district and now you're tied to this bill, which polling shows is less popular than any major piece of legislation in 35 years, what do you do? Because if the election, if you're in the House and your reelection becomes a referendum on this bill, that's not going to be good for Republicans at all. And history backs it up. Obamacare is unpopularity, helped Republicans sweep the House in 2010. You look at Bush's handling of the 2008 bailout that was a disaster for Republican candidates in 2008. Even if you go back to 1993, then the 93 Clinton budget helped or let me, let me say it hurt. Democrats and Democrats had a disastrous 1994. Newt Republicans came to power. Newt Gingrich became speaker of the House. And by the way, that there's a big section about that in my book, the Echo Machine. And that is part of how we ended up with Trump decades later. So Trump and MAGA have a real problem here. They can rename the bill. I don't think it's going to make a difference. They can send J.D. vance to, you know, every diner at 5am on Fox News that they want to. The numbers are the numbers. Americans hate this bill. And it is an anchor that is tied to the ankles of these Republicans. And I don't know if they can cut it off in terms in time to save the midterms we will see. Let me know what you think. Donald Trump has officially lost it over museums. Yes. In a Truth Social post that reads sort of like Trump dictated it while pacing in a. In front of a wax figure of himself or something like that, Trump has declared that the Smithsonian is out of control because it talks too much about slavery being bad, which it was, right? Wasn't slavery bad? And the Smithsonian isn't talking enough about the bright side of American history. Here's what Donald Trump published to Truth Social, Quote, the museums throughout Washington, but all over the country are essentially the last remaining segment of. Of woke. The Smithsonian is out of control, where everything discussed is how horrible our country is, how bad slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been. Nothing about success, nothing about brightness, nothing about the future. We are not going to allow this to happen. And I have instructed my attorneys to go through the museums and start the exact same process that has been done with, with colleges and universities, where tremendous progress has been made. This country cannot be woke because woke is broke. And we have. We have the hottest country in the world, and we want people to talk about it, including our museums. There's Trump grunting to close it out. Why isn't the Smithsonian talking more about the benefits and upsides of slavery? They really should be, shouldn't they? And this is where it gets extra deranged, because Trump, as usual, his instincts are authoritarian. His instincts are autocratic. And so he's instructing his lawyers go through the museums the same way they've done with colleges and universities. And on the one hand, this claims to be. They claim to be the party of minimal government intervention, but on the other hand, they are saying, let's send our lawyers to go through museum exhibits. And Trump is talking, as he always does, about weaponizing political power. And he wants to control what museums say, just like he wants to control what colleges say and universities and schools. He wants to purge exhibits that acknowledge slavery was brutal and bad. Think about that for a second. Trump is upset that the Smithsonian doesn't talk more about the success of America and downplay the enslavement of millions of people. You can hear the subtext. Where are the positive elements of slavery? Why aren't they represented at the Smithsonian? This is more than just culture war nonsense. This is the authoritarian impulse in plain sight. The schools, the libraries, the colleges, the universities, the military. It's now going to museums. If history is being discussed, Trump and his allies want to rewrite it into propaganda. And the reality is, you can't have an honest museum about American history without talking about slavery. In Trump's world, honesty would be the past is woke, woke must be destroyed. And if you're terrified about where this leads, I am scared about it. It leads exactly where you think. The goal, and this is part of Project 2025. They're doing Project 2025. The goal is let's reshape every cultural institution and glorify Trump's version of America. Slavery. Unfortunate footnote. Unfortunate footnote. But the real problem is, why do we keep talking about slavery? That's really the issue that we are up against. Let's take a very quick break and we'll be back right after this. Let's be honest, when it is hot outside, the way it's been, bad underwear makes it really much worse. Our sponsor, Sheath Underwear, has completely rethought how men's underwear should function in the heat. Sheath's boxer briefs are designed with a dual pouch system, keeping everything in place, separate, ventilated. This means less sweat, less sticking, less of that awkward adjusting. And if you're not using the pouches, the fabric alone is a game changer. Soft, stretchy, moisture wicking, now available in cooling materials like bamboo and mesh. I wear these at the gym during long work days, especially when I know it's going to be hot outside. It just keeps you dry and comfortable. And they've really raised my expectations about how good, good underwear can be. Wearing sheath is like having built in climate control for the lower half of your body. Everything stays cool, dry, and where it should be. If you've never thought much about your underwear, this is the one brand that might make you start. Go to sheath underwear.com/pacman. Use the code PACMAN for 20% off. The link is in the description. Donald Trump, the man who dodged the draft, is now calling himself a war hero. This is the guy who compared avoiding STDs in the 1980s to serving in Vietnam. This is the guy who insulted John McCain for being captured, saying he prefers war heroes that were not captured. This is the same guy who said, I've always wanted a Purple Heart. Trump now says he is a war hero and this is peak malignant narcissism. This is a narcissistic collapse in Trump's mind. Bankrupting casinos, doing reality TV and hurling ketchup at the White House walls is like storming the beaches of Normandy and liberating European Jews from the Nazis. Listen to this. This was from the Mark Levin Show. It's just audio, but I got them.

Donald Trump (45:59)

Back worked with your friend Bibi. It's a good man. He's in there fighting. He's fighting. You know, they're trying to put him in jail on top of everything else. How about that? He's nuts. He's a war hero. Because we work together. He's a war hero. I guess I am, too. Nobody cares, but I am, too. I mean, I sent those planes, but.

David Pakman (46:17)

I. Trump is a war hero. And Mark Levin goes, yep, yep, Trump is a war hero because he sent planes. Sent planes, I guess, to bomb Iran is what he's talking about here. Now, of course, Trump is no war hero. He's a draft dodger. He got a note about his heels, very strong note from a doctor so that he didn't have to go to war. But the real insult is that on the one hand, you've got Donald Trump kind of playing pretend soldier. Actual veterans are paying the price for Donald Trump's political decisions every single day. Trump's cutting the va, and so actual war heroes are waiting months or years for care that they earned by putting their lives on the line for the country. And thanks to Trump's cuts, they're going to be waiting even longer. But Trump's the war hero. Trump's the guy who wanted the Purple Heart. This guy's disgusting. Now, some of these people are going to miss out on care altogether. There are some veterans who, statistically, there are some who will die before they are able to get care. And Trump is slowing down the service of the va. Men and women come home with injuries. Some of them are physical injuries that you see, some of them are injuries that you don't see. Mental health and other challenges. And they are suffering because Donald Trump's administration has decided tax cuts for billionaires matter more than getting treatment to people who have earned it. So Trump is not a war hero. He's not even in the same moral universe. There were people who were drafted and they went. There were people who were drafted and said, I'm a conscientious objector. But then there are people like Trump who got a letter about his heel so he didn't have to go, and now he's calling himself a war hero. The only battle Trump has ever really fought is with a McDonald's cheeseburger wrapper. And quite frankly, it didn't even go that well. These are the sorts of people that we're dealing with. And maybe, you know, there was a time. There was a time, and this is not me glorifying the Republican Party. It's just a Fact, there was a time where Republicans pre maga, Republicans would have heard a statement like this, I'm a war hero from someone like Trump. And they would have said, I don't care about the political party. I don't care whether he's got an R or a D next to his name. That's disgusting. That's disrespectful to our troops. There were many Republicans who once would have been morally consistent, but now we're dealing with these bottom feeders like Mark Levin. And so when Trump goes, I guess I'm a war hero too. Mark Levin goes, yep, yep, yep, yep. So it's not just that Trump at the head of this party is different. The sycophants and the suck ups are also a new sort of brand of Republicanism. Long before Donald Trump was president, long before Russia preferred Trump over Hillary in the 2016 election, long before all of it, Donald Trump was already fantasizing about being best friends with Vladimir Putin. We know this because Donald Trump tweeted back in 2013, quote, do you think Putin will be going to the Miss Universe pageant in November in Moscow? If so, will he become my new best friend? There is a theme here, and I know many of you are familiar with the theme. The theme is that Donald Trump is enamored and impressed with authoritarian strongmen. Putin, of course. Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping, Duterte. Previously. The more ruthless, the more repressive. The more they crush dissent and rule with an iron fist, the more Trump is impressed. That is Trump's currency, fear and people being afraid of you. And with Putin, it's not just admiration from a distance. He is completely smitten with the guy, as we learned after the summit of last week. Why is it that Trump exchanged love letters with Kim Jong Un and wants to be Putin's best friend? And all of it. He looks at their unchecked power and he looks at how they silence critics, and he wants to do the same thing. Trump hates that there is a free press. Trump hates that there are TV networks that, at least for now, can still mostly say whatever they want, although sometimes Trump sues them. He wants to just be able to crush dissent and say, you don't get to do it. So you know this best friend line about Putin from 2013, Trump was not running for president at the time. And you might say, oh, I don't know that it's relevant to what we're seeing today. I think it's highly relevant. I see this as a window into the mind of a guy who Measures, leaders, not by how much do they adhere to democracy, how have they built a country or have they supported or been stewards for a country where the people get to decide how they will be governed and in what ways. Trump values how much fear they command. And I think it's worth remembering that when Trump was in office, he did the first time, he did everything he could to please Putin. After the Helsinki summit, he sided with Putin over American intelligence. He weakened Naito, which is a priority of Russia and of Putin. He stalled aid to Ukraine. All of this while cozying up to a guy whose regime has murdered opponents, it has invaded neighbors, it has crushed and killed journalists. So I know that some are saying, well, it was just about a pageant, a beauty pageant. This is who Trump has always been. He looks at brutal dictators and he sees role models. He doesn't see threats. He sees role models. And if he was given the chance, he would gladly turn best friends with these partners in dismantling democracy. He would take advice from them, he would take direction from them. And it's absolutely disgusting and terrifying. And there are tens of millions of Americans that see it and they love it and they go, he's doing a great job. A lot of Republicans are being brutally booed when they show up in their districts and try to talk to constituents. This is really good stuff. MAGA star Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, supposedly a loyal foot soldier of Trump in Congress and had one of the most embarrassing moments of her political career. She did an event in her own district and she was booed off the stage not just once, but twice. You've got to see the clip. She walks up to the mic, tries to launch into these stale and vapid canned talking points, and the crowd isn't having it. They start jeering, they start booing, and she ends up having to cut it short. I love this. Our congresswoman from New York, 21, Elise Stefani.

Caroline Levitt (53:24)

There was a call for Stefanik to hold a town hall, echoing through the crowd.

David Pakman (53:57)

She cannot get her talking points out. I don't feel bad for her at all. And the crowd sends her packing. Wow. Now, part of the screaming that you hear is about her not having held a town hall for a very long time. She avoids town halls like the plague because when she has to face people she represents, it doesn't go particularly well. And we got a real taste of that. So the so called future of the Republican Party, according to some, not good. Not good. And she wanted to be Trump's. There were rumors she wanted to be Trump's VP pick. She can't even get through a speech at home. Now, here's a bonus clip. This also happened to Harriet Hageman. She was booed after a town hall. This was in Casper, Wyoming. And she said about Donald Trump wanting to get rid of mail in ballots. You know, mail in ballots aren't really like a foundational tool. We don't really need them. And the audience didn't like. My question to you was, how do.

Caroline Levitt (55:15)

You feel personally of stripping Americans of those foundational tools of mail tools?

David Pakman (55:20)

Mail in ballots. Mail in ballots are not foundational tools. Now.

Caroline Levitt (55:30)

You'Re fully capable of exercising your right to vote without a mail in ballot.

David Pakman (55:35)

You are absolutely fully capable of exercising your right to vote without. You know, these people, Harriet Hageman, Elise Stefanik in D.C. they sort of strut around as Trump's enforcers, they lead culture war hearings, they sometimes parrot election lies, they angle for power. And then they go back to their districts, the people they supposedly represent. And a lot of them are telling them, sit down, sit down. And if this were a Democrat getting booed in their own district, you know, that right wing media would be having a field day. But it's Elise Stefanik, she's a MAGA darling. The spin machine loves her. It's Harriet Hageman. At minimum, they like her because she was able to defeat Liz Cheney in a primary. And they'll say, oh, the people booing were outside agitators or they were paid protesters. Claims we've heard many times before, but never with any evidence. But these videos really speak for themselves. And Hageman less relevant to this analysis, but at least as far as Stefanik is concerned, Elise Stefanik thought she could ride MAGA loyalty into untouchable status. She can do whatever she wants. She can say whatever she wants. It seems as though she can't hide out forever. And she shows up, faces constituents, and she very quickly figures out my act is wearing thin, these people don't like me. And in upstate New York, it looks like it's not going particularly well for her. Now, overall, in an election, it's still a district that remains very winnable for her. But there is trouble in paradise for Elise Stefanik. And a lot of Republicans are being booed and shouted down by their own constituents. On the bonus show today, we will talk about MSNBC being renamed Ms. Now. I think it's a terrible name. Absolutely terrible. How did they even think of doing this? Did anybody think it through? We're also going to talk about Elon Musk. Just as we expected quietly stepping away from his plans for a new political party. Seems that things are going better for Ellen not being involved in politics. And there is an interesting change in the Mormon Church that there are new sacred undergarments that women are allowed to wear. And a lot of people are wondering why now? Why at this particular time we're going to talk about it. A lot of interesting things going on there. All of those stories on the bonus show when I am joined by producer Pat. You can get instant access to the bonus show by signing up@join pacman.com oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Sure. Sign up@join pacman.com you can use the coupon code. It will end soon. Less than three and a half years to go, folks. It will end soon as the code. You can also request a free membership by submitting your email address@davidpakman.com Freemembership I'll see you on the bonus show. I'll be back here tomorrow.