← The David Pakman Show
The David Pakman Show
9/23/25: Trump medical misinformation explodes as CEO’s admit the truth
01:16:49
-- On the Show: -- Nathan Taylor, Executive Director of Public Engagement for Election Truth Alliance, joins us to discuss discrepancies in the 2024 election and how to bolster election integrity -- Donald Trump spreads medical misinformation about...
Loading summary
Transcript79 lines
- [00:08]
David Pakman
Donald Trump yesterday delivered the most dangerous press conference, I would argue, of his entire presidency, of both presidential terms. He said, we've found that Tylenol taken by pregnant women causes autism. We should separate out the MM and R from the MMR vaccine seen. He said that the Amish and Cuba have no autism. And it was a disgusting, depraved, dilapidated press conference that in some sense, you know, when Trump talked about injecting bleach. Injecting bleach, if someone did it would be very dangerous. But doing it requires, like, what's the dose? Do I have the right kind of syringe? Like, the odds of a whole bunch of people going and injecting bleach is relatively low, although doing it would be very dangerous. What Trump is talking about here can be much more easily adopted by parents and individuals and has the potential to become extraordinarily widespread. Now, let's get right into the first clip. The big revelation. They said, we're going to have news about autism, as Trump sometimes says it, in September. And he says Tylenol, Tylenol, known generically as acetaminophen, is a culprit.
- [01:27]
Howard Lutnick
Commonly known as Tylenol during pregnancy can be associated with a very increased risk of autism. So taking Tylenol is not good. All right, I'll say it. It's not good. For this reason, they are strongly recommending that women limit Tylenol use during pregnancy unless medically necessary.
- [01:59]
David Pakman
Now, by the way, no medication should be taken unless medically necessary. Like, this is all bullshit. I would get a second opinion on the things that Donald Trump is saying here. Now, the main danger with Tylenol is overdose, which can cause severe liver damage. It can be life threatening. Now, we've long studied Tylenol. Again, generically, we're talking about the drug acetaminophen. The safe adult limit is 3 to 4,000 milligrams per day. Depends on health status, depends on guidance from a doctor. If you have liver disease, if you drink alcohol heavily, you're at greater risk. You should talk to a doctor about that. But the link to autism is not just, we don't know it's been debunked. In fact, we. Interestingly, when you look at countries with different average rates of Tylenol consumption or the equivalent, right. Some places call it paracetamol, etc. You see that there is not a correlation with autism diagnosis rates. Over the last 10 years in the United States, we've seen Tylenol use by pregnant women decline anyway, and autism diagnosis rates have gone up. Notice I'm saying diagnosis, not autism rates. Because we are also exploring how much is autism going up, if at all, versus what is the threshold for diagnosis or our skill at identifying cases. But this is all just nonsense based on everything we know right now. Now, Trump pulled another one out of his hat. He pulled another. He pulled another turd out of his hat, for lack of a better term. He says, you look at the Amish, they have no autism.
- [03:37]
Howard Lutnick
And by the way, I think I can say that there are certain groups of people that don't take vaccines and don't take any pills that have no autism. Autism that have no autism. Does that tell you something that's currently. Is that a correct statement, by the way?
- [03:55]
David Pakman
There are some studies that suggest. Yeah, with the Amish, for example.
- [03:59]
Howard Lutnick
The Amish, yeah, virtually, I hear no. I heard none. See, Bobby wants to be very careful with what he says, and he should, but I'm not so careful with what I say.
- [04:09]
David Pakman
We know if you are a community that distrusts and avoids the medical world, you can avoid diagnosis. It. If it were true that we believed the Amish had lower autism rates, it wouldn't necessarily mean that much. Now, multiple studies and clinical reports have documented autism in Amish communities. The perception of no autism comes from under diagnosis and underreporting. There's more limited access to health care. There's less of a focus on psychiatric evaluation. If you don't take a pregnancy test, you're not pregnant, Right? That's ridiculous. That's, to a degree what is happening with the Amish community. But then there's also another part which I want to be culturally sensitive about, which. Which we have to acknowledge, which is that because Amish are on average, sort of sheltered and not in Western modern society as. As we talk about it, there are many Amish who come off as autistic to people who live sort of like in society, but within the Amish communities, they sort of blend. And so one of the other things about Amish and autism, not that Trump knows about any of this stuff, but I'm just giving you the information, is that a lot of behavior is more common in Amish communities that is seen as neurotypical. And so distinguishing out the actual cases of autism can sort of be more difficult to do. Kids grow up with this sort of like, more tightly structured environment, sheltered, slower pace of life, less emphasis on technology and abstract academics and social media. And sometimes those things can highlight differences between neurotypical and neurotypical, neurodivergent folks. And so it's just not standing out in a way that ultimately leads to an evaluation and a diagnosis. So all of this to say Trump doesn't know what on earth he's talking about. And he went even further, and he said, you know, you look at Cuba, Cuba also, they've got no Tylenol. They've got no auto.
- [06:13]
Howard Lutnick
This country is going through what parts of the world are going through. And I will say there are parts of the world that don't take Tylenol. I mean, there's a rumor, and I don't know if it's so or not, that Cuba, they don't have Tylenol because they don't have the money to fight Tylenol, and they have virtually no autism. Okay, tell me about that one.
- [06:32]
David Pakman
Well, I will tell you about it. In fact, Cuba has an autism diagnosis rate of about 83 per 10,000 children. That's right. About what the United States is, 80 per 10,000 children. It's, in fact, what Trump is saying disproves his hypothesis that the Tylenol might lead to autism. Because if it's true that Cuba has no Tylenol, and they do have it, but under a different name, the rate of use may be different, but they have virtually the same rate of autism diagnosis as we do in the United States. Now, it did get to a point where, as is often the case, Donald Trump struggled with reading. And when he tried to say acetaminophen, sometimes pronounced acetaminophen, and it was difficult. Really, really difficult stuff.
- [07:16]
Howard Lutnick
Effective immediately, the FDA will be notifying physicians that the use of a said. Well, let's see how we say that. Acetaminophen. Acetaminophen. Is that okay? Which is basically commonly known as Tylenol.
- [07:38]
David Pakman
It's commonly known as Tylenol. All right, so Trump's struggling. And then finally, Trump also talking about the Hep B vaccine, which is given to infants within usually about an hour of birth. Trump doesn't like that one either.
- [07:51]
Howard Lutnick
And hepatitis B is sexually transmitted. There's no reason to give a baby that's almost just born hepatitis B. So I would say wait till the baby is 12 years old.
- [08:09]
David Pakman
Wait a second. Wait a second. It's sexually transmitted, so give it out.
- [08:16]
Howard Lutnick
At age 12 and formed and take hepatitis B. And I think if you do those things, it's going to be a whole different. It's going to be a revolution in a positive sense. And.
- [08:27]
David Pakman
Yeah, well, you know, Hep B can spread through sexual contact, but it can spread through blood, saliva, and Other fluids and babies are really vulnerable to it. Sometimes moms don't know they have it, and they pass it on. Now, mostly now, at least in the United States, we're testing pregnant women for that. But later, they can come into contact with an infected household member's blood, even through a tiny cut or someone visits. So the newborn Hep B vaccine is used to prevent lifelong infection. It's not because the baby's involved in sexual activity. It's because the risk is so serious and the vaccine works so well and the side effects are so minimal that the risk reward is extraordinarily favorable. That's why you do it. And then Trump's final word of wisdom. MMR separated. Take the measles vaccine, mumps vaccine, and rubella vaccine. Separate them out.
- [09:23]
Howard Lutnick
I also, and we've already done this, we want no mercury in the vaccine. We want no aluminum in the vaccine. The mmr, I think, should be taken separately. This is based on what I feel.
- [09:38]
David Pakman
The.
- [09:40]
Howard Lutnick
Mumps, measles, and. And the three should be taken separately.
- [09:46]
David Pakman
Trump doesn't know what the R is for.
- [09:48]
Howard Lutnick
And it seems to be that when you mix them, there could be a problem.
- [09:53]
David Pakman
Yeah, well, we have a bunch of studies that have looked at the MMR shot versus separate measles, mumps and rubella shots. No difference in safety. And in a sort of statistical sense, getting one shot is better than three because it's fewer times you're sticking a needle into someone so it's less trauma. Your arm hurts once instead of three times. Lower infection risk because there's one poke instead of three, and the kids are protected in a more timely way. So this all goes Back to this Dr. Andrew Wakefield guy who's no longer a doctor. He started the MMR autism stuff. It was based on like 12 kids that were brought to him. There was huge self selection bias. And he also had a financial stake in a measles only vaccine. The paper was later retracted. His medical license was revoked. So every single one of these ideas is a bad idea. And this is one of those situations where the blue states are really taking the lead on this. You know, you look at California, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, they are mostly saying, we're not changing our guidelines. We're going by what the medical science says, not what Bobby Kennedy or Donald Trump say. I would argue the most dangerous press conference that Donald Trump has ever done. White House press Secretary Caroline Levitt has resurfaced and delivered one of the most disgusting press briefings that I have ever seen. Her press briefing rate has slowed down. It's almost down. I was going to make an IQ joke. It's very low. We talked about how previous, prior to yesterday, she had only done one press briefing for all of the month of September. Why? Well, they don't have a lot of positive things to tout and they don't really want questions about a lot of the things that are going wrong. Well, Caroline Levitt resurfaced. She was asked, how is Trump bringing the temperature down for political violence in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's killing? When at the, in his usual eulogy, which is a term we're using very loosely, it was more of a political speech. But at the eulogy Trump delivered for Charlie Kirk, Trump said he hates his political opponents. How does that bring the temperature down? Here is how Caroline Levitt answered today.
- [12:10]
Caroline Levitt
So we heard from Erica Kirk. She said she forgives the man who shot and killed her husband. And then right after that, we heard from the President who said, I hate my opponent and I don't want the best for them. How does that square with bringing down the temperature of political violence in this country? And then, if I could, I had a follow up on Venezuela, too. Look, the president is authentically himself. I think that's why millions of Americans across the country love him and support him, including Erica Kirk, who you saw so beautifully was on stage with the president in an unthinkable moment in the midst of an unthinkable tragedy and was leaning on the president for support during that time. And he was there to give it her to her as well as the vice president and many other top ranking cabinet officials.
- [12:52]
David Pakman
Now, you may not have heard an answer there other than Trump is authentically himself. And that's true. Trump's authentic self is divisive. He's divisive by nature. That's why he said, I hate my political opponents. It's very simple. Now, yesterday I told you about how Donald Trump's deportations are. Tom Homan was caught accepting $50,000 in cash at a Cava restaurant. Between olives. He was handed 50 grand in cash. That investigation was ended by Trump. Clearly the swamp filling political cronyism that Donald Trump said he would eliminate. Caroline Levitt was asked about it. She goes, well, he just didn't take the cash.
- [13:33]
Caroline Levitt
That's Caroline. So to the home and investigation. I mean, can you just speak to, did the president ask the Justice Department to close the case and does Homer have to return the $50,000? Well, Mr. Homan never took the $50,000 that you're referring to. So you should get your facts straight, number one. Number two, this was another example of the weaponization of the Biden Department of Justice against one of President Trump's strongest and most vocal vocal supporters in the midst of a presidential campaign. You had FBI agents going undercover to try and entrap one of the President's top allies and supporters, someone who they knew very well would be taking a government position months later. Mr. Homan did absolutely nothing wrong. And even the President's Department of Justice, even Cash Patel's FBI looked into this just to make sure they had a number of different prosecutors and FBI agents.
- [14:25]
David Pakman
Yeah, listen. So she now is saying he never took the cash. There's a little problem with this. And Kendall Ainian from MSNBC explains it in a tweet. He said, quote, the White House is now saying Tom Homan didn't take the 50,000 in cash. That was not part of their statement when we first went to them on Saturday. Multiple people familiar with the case say he did accept the money, as does an internal government document reviewed by msnbc. So she's lying now. She just, she just lies. She lies. The big. It's almost like, you know, Pinocchio's nose gets bigger the more he lies. Caroline Levitt's cross hanging from her neck seems to get bigger the more she lies. And she's got a big one on yesterday. It's a big boy. And we have a government document that says he did accept the 50 grand in cash. And also the initial response from the White House did not deny that he accepted the $50,000 in cash. Caroline Levitt was asked about something economic related, and she claims Trump has secured $9 trillion in investment to the United States. As I've said before, this is also not true. It is lie after lie after lie.
- [15:30]
Caroline Levitt
Part of President Trump's mission to restore America as the manufacturing superpower of the world. He has secured nearly $9 trillion in U.S. investment, nearly nine times more than Biden attracted in his entire four year term. And we expect that number to be upwards of $15 trillion very soon.
- [15:47]
David Pakman
Now, as I've said before, Donald Trump has not secured any of that money. The just to pick one, the United Arab Emirates, for example, said we would consider $1.4 trillion in business with you over a 10 year period if there are deals and projects that we find to be suitable. Trump came back from the Middle east trip and said, I've got the money. Almost like they stuffed it into the wings of the plane. Right. But these are theoretical commitments over a 10 year period, the entire GDP of the United States is about 30 trillion dollars. The idea that Trump brought 9 trillion home is ridiculous. And then finally, finally, Caroline Levitt says we need to look into transgender violence, even though statistically trans shooters. By the way, remember that the Charlie Kirk shooting, we were first told the shooter is trans. We were then told the bull, the bullets are trans, and then we were told the roommate slash love interest is trans. That third thing may or may not be true. We still don't know. But trans shooters are underrepresented relative to their proportion of the population. But Caroline Levitt says, oh, no, we've got to look into transgender violence. Really, what we need to look into is trans, is violence against trans people.
- [17:06]
Caroline Levitt
As the president last night on Air Force One about this pattern of transgender violence we're seeing, you know, Charlie, Charlie's killer lived with his boyfriend who identifies as transgender. And then we have the Annunciation shooting, the Covenant shooting, all of these incidents. The President said that we're looking into transgender violence. Does that mean the FBI is looking into it? And can you give any more clarity on how the administration is viewing this uptick in specifically transgender violence? It's definitely something worth looking into. And I think anyone who denies that at this point is being willfully ignorant. And the administration is taking, taking it seriously, all causes of violence and why these people would be driven to such evil and such hatred. And there's probably many answers to that question, but the administration is really focused on all of them for individual investigations and cases. Of course, the FBI and the Department of Justice are leading those, you know.
- [17:58]
David Pakman
Young white men are dramatically overrepresented as perpetrators of violence relative to their share of the population. And I haven't heard a single one of these people go, we really need to look into what's going on with young white men. Why are they committing so much violence? On the other hand, trans people are disproportionately victims of violence, are underrepresented as shooters, and yet Donald Trump and Kooky Caroline want you to believe that we really need to investigate why so many trans people are committing acts of violence. It's sickening, sickening stuff. And we're going to cover this in more detail on our substack. If you're not getting my substack, I would love it if you did. It's free. Okay, I'm, I'm selling you nothing other than offering you a free good time. Go to substack.david pakman.com make sure you're getting my newsletter and we're going to follow up in more detail about this issue. You know, no matter how fast time seems to be flying by, it is never too late to make some progress. If you're saving for a big purchase like a home or a car and you need to build credit, Kickoff can help. They are the number one credit building app in the App Store. Plans start at just five bucks a month. No credit check, no hidden fees, no interest. If your credit is under 600, you could jump 28 points in your first month. Kickoff is a smart legal credit hack with no catch. No credit check, no hidden fees and no interest. You just make on time payments. Credit bureaus see the good behavior and your credit grows. Start building credit immediately for only a dollar your first month. And with autopay you never have to worry about missing a payment. So you can build credit in your sleep. Sign up in minutes from your phone. No credit check. Cancel any time. Kickoff is the number one credit building app out there with over 100,000 positive reviews in the app stores and 98% are five stars. Building credit can happen faster than you expect with Kickoff. Don't wait and get your first month for just a dollar at get kickoff.com/pacman the link is in the Description One of the best upgrades I've ever made to the meals I make at home is Wild Grain. Wild Grain lets me have high quality baked goods ready at home whenever I want them. Wild Grain is the first bake from Frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, pastries and pastas. You can customize your box online. If you're gluten free, they've got it. It all goes in your freezer. You put it right in the oven. 25 minutes or less. No need to thaw, no need to prep. No need to clean up. They've got some great limited time fall items. Pumpkin Cinnamon Biscuits My favorite. Apple cider donuts. I grew up with these in New England. They've been a hit in my kitchen. The biscuits are buttery and flaky. The doughnuts are just a little crispy on the outside. Warm spiced center. Impressive stuff. You would never know it was baked from frozen and also wild grains. Slow fermentation process makes their breads more nutrient rich and flavorful. So maybe it's a cozy weekend breakfast or something to add to dinner. Wild Grain makes it easy and for a limited time you can get $30 off your first box plus free croissants in every box when you subscribe at wild grain.com/pacman the link is in the description. All right. On September 30th, we are doing a one day membership special. That date will mark three years, three months and three weeks remaining of Donald Trump's presidency before we can send it to the dustbin of history. Right. As Ron Desanctimonious would say, we are doing a blowout one day membership drive. I would love for you to participate. If you are not currently a member, make sure you're on my newsletter and then you'll get an email on the 30th telling you how to avail yourself of this explosive and dangerous membership discount. Hopefully the, hopefully Cash Patel doesn't shut us down because the membership discount is so huge. And if you don't want to wait until the 30th, you can sign up today at join pacman.com I hate what I'm about to admit to you. I really do. But we may lose again and again and again. Because the truth is that the right has figured out something that the left exhaustingly still has not, which is that it is not enough to say Trump is corrupt. He's authoritarian, he's dangerous. And to send a strongly worded letter, it is not enough. It's true that Trump is corrupt, it's true that he's an authoritarian, it's true that he's dangerous. But oftentimes we are not mobilizing people on the left. People are rightly angry. But meanwhile, Republicans have made calls to action. Their entire playbook. They, they are mobilizing. And I want to break down some of the areas in which they are absolutely crushing us. You look at school boards, okay, Moms for Liberty, Liberty floods meetings until they control the agenda. They get books banned, they bully teachers about curricula, they reshape curricula in towns you maybe haven't even heard of. And Democrats, you know, we've got a strongly worded op ed in the local paper. Maybe we've got a hashtag campaign or somehow like that. One side is showing up in the room, the other is writing tweets about the room. You then look at youth recruitment. Obviously we've got to talk about Turning Point usa. They built this entire pipeline, the campus chapters and the conferences and the trips to Arizona or Florida or wherever. The merchandise and all of it. They are really training the next generation of right wing organizers. And the left is counting on young people to vote because Republicans suck. It's not that much of a plan. It's really wishful thinking. You then go to state houses where Republicans are treating abortion bans like a weekly grind. They show up every session, they introduce bills, they push votes. They don't stop until something else, until something is passed. While Democrats sometimes do show up once, sometimes Democrats lose. And then they go to Twitter and they say the system's broken. Well, the system is broken. That's why Republicans are exploiting it. But unless we actually take that back, we're not going to be able to fix it. We're not going to be able to win. You look at the administration of elections and what's called the precinct strategy. What Republicans have done is look at the dullest corners of politics, county election boards, and they turn it into an organizing target. And now they start stacking those county election boards with their own people. And on the left, we say, oh, you know, this is. We don't even realize we're getting outflanked by something that sounds really boring. And then finally, you got to look at higher education. This one is quieter, but maybe it's the most pernicious. Red. State governors have discovered they can take over universities by filling the trustee boards with partisans. DeSantis did it in Florida, tossed out diversity programs, rejected tenure, fired faculty, installed right wing activists as leadership. Glenn Youngkin has been doing it in Virginia. Greg Abbott's been doing it in Texas. Republican legislatures have been doing it elsewhere in the Midwest. Missouri is one place where it's happening. So this is not like culture war rhetoric. This really is structural power. Trustees control budgets, they control faculty hiring, they control tenure, they control accreditation. And Republicans saw the boards that ran universities and said, this is our organizing target. This is how we can start controlling the culture from the bottom up. Many Democrats didn't even realize the boards existed until they had already been captured by Republicans. So the pattern here is the right is doing a lot of critiquing, but they're mobilizing and organizing. The left is doing more critiquing than anything else. And so we often win arguments and. And then Republicans actually win power and win ground. So this is not just about what the left doesn't do. It's about what we waste time doing, pouring energy into. Sometimes it's candidates that have no chance to be quite honest and Twitter debates that convince no one and symbolic gestures. And I understand the politics of performance, or the performance of politics may be better said, but Republicans are more focused on. On the power of politics. Now. This is why I think Gavin Newsom's Proposition 50 feels like a little bit of a spark. Whatever you think of Newsom, he is at least experimenting with the right formula, and he's pairing critique with action. Prop 50 is not just another speech about Republicans being wrong. It's a specific and concrete initiative. It forces a fight. It gives people a clear yes or no choice. They're going to vote on it. It's mobilizing volunteers, it's generating interest online. And so it's the idea, and this is why I'm optimistic about it, that if you combine messaging with organizing, you can do more than just win an argument. Now, I expect that for as long as the left is playing defense and the right is playing offense, we're going to be sort of like fact checking from the sidelines. We're going to win a lot of arguments, but not much more. So the question I have is, what would it look like if Democrats and progressive media and other voices like the David Pakman show, if we all combined the critique with a couple of concrete steps, One thing that people could do today, because we know that the critique alone isn't enough. And if the left doesn't learn that lesson, I hate to admit it, but there's going to be another loss and another loss and another one after that. The time for mass activism, I believe, has arrived. It's not someday, it's not, you know, after the next election, we might really need to get out there. It's not after we get the courts involved. It's not when Republicans finally go too far, they've gone too far. The fantasy is gone. The time, I believe, is right now. Let me lay it out. We are in 2025. Trump's back in power. He's governing like the strongman authoritarian. He promised to govern us.
- [28:27]
Caroline Levitt
He.
- [28:27]
David Pakman
He has floated suspending habeas corpus. He's cracked down on protests. He says criticizing him on TV feels and should be illegal to him. He's gotten entertainers fired because they criticize him. So we are way beyond rhetoric, we are way beyond hypotheticals. It's happening right now. Now, unlike Donald Trump's first term, Trump has learned a couple of things back in the first term. Sometimes the system would sort of trip up triple Trump. Courts would block his worst ideas. Some cabinet members would resist the chaos. It's gone today. The courts are stacked with loyalists. The federal government has been purged of dissent, and the movement is very disciplined. So we are sprinting into this authoritarianism. The climate around political violence is deteriorating very quickly. After the killing of Charlie Kirk, the right's response was actually more incitement. Trump calling, talking about leftist scum and how he hates his political enemies. MAGA leaders are openly encouraging their base to see violence as politics, but it's just a different name for it. They're giving permission for the rage to spill into the streets and to really treat political opponents as targets. And the contrast couldn't be clearer because when the left organizes a peaceful march, police are deployed in riot gear. When the right talks about Second Amendment solutions, they're treated as patriots by the MAGA people. And then on top of this, free speech is under siege right now. The pushing out of Kobert and Kimmel, although I guess Kimmel's coming back, although I guess the affiliate stations won't be airing the show. So it's all really wacky. The message that's being sent is you criticize the president and you're gone. Your career is at risk. And it's not because of bad ratings. It's because you crossed an authoritarian line with your satire. So you combine that with book bans and curriculum censorship, attacks on independent media. The picture is very clear now. Just as a reminder, remember to like this video and share it. Make sure you're subscribed on YouTube. This is a critical time to do it. And a lot of the ways that you can help support the media you do like are free. Like, share, subscribe. But all of this is feeling very familiar. And history is full of examples of what happens when you start to lose in this way. The labor movement didn't get the 40 hour workweek because it was handed to them. They organized and walked out and forced the issue. The civil rights movement was not one in courtrooms alone. There were the mass marches, there were the Siddons, there were sit ins, There was the bravery of people who said, we're not going to accept injustice like this anymore. And so you look at different countries, you look at Hungary, you look at Turkey, Russia. Authoritarian leaders tightened their grip because a lot of people assume someone else is going to act, so then they can ratchet it a little bit tighter and then a little bit tighter and then it becomes difficult to act. So that is why I believe right now, In September of 2025, the case for real activism in the streets has never been stronger, mass, sustained, visible activism. Now, I wrote about this. My book, the Echo Machine is back here. I got something really weird going on in my hair. Geez. I wrote about this in my book the Echo Machine, which is that historically it's been boycotts, strikes, marches, sit ins, and sustained public pressure that force elites to act rather than stay comfortable. It worked for labor, it worked for civil rights. It worked during the AIDS crisis. There's a lot of times that it worked. And so voting matters. But marching, striking, boycotting, refusing to normalize, what's happening is a part of it, and activism is what puts authoritarian regimes on defense. And it's the only thing that has ever shaken entrenched power. Now, I've covered politics for nearly two decades. Bush, Obama, Trump's first term, Biden. There is no moment at which I believed more strongly than I do now that mass activism may be the only way forward. The institutions we thought would save us have been captured by Trump. The elites we thought maybe would stand up, even if only for their own interests. They are mostly silent. And so are we now at the breaking point that people have been waiting for. I don't think the question is whether activism is necessary. It's are we willing to do it? Are we willing to risk inconvenience, discomfort, maybe worse? Right, to stop the authoritarian slide? History tells us the answer determines whether democracy survives. And I do believe Trump will leave. I do believe there will be a 2028 election. But the question mark is how much damage is Trump going to do between now and then? So I want to hear from you. I believe the time for mass activism is not after the next outrage. It's not tomorrow. I believe it's right now. There have been anecdotally some protests. No Kings 1, no Kings 2, etc. What do you believe? Is this the time and must it start right now? Info at David Pakman Dotcom. Let me know and leave a comment on this video if you're watching on YouTube. Have you ever wanted to feel more connected to your partner but found that daily life gets in the way? There is an app designed specifically to help couples deepen their bond called Paired. Our sponsor, Paired, gives you daily personalized questions, quizzes, fun games, really just crafted to inspire meaningful and enjoyable conversations with your partner. And you won't see your partner's answers until you've shared your own. So it's like a safe, genuine space for honest dialogue and discovery. Recently, one Paired prompt asked, what's something you admire most about your partner? Answering this simple question created a conversation with my girlfriend and I highlighted things that we sometimes overlook. The Paired app is a great daily reminder of the qualities that make relationships special. Whether you're just starting to build your connection or you've been together for years, Paired helps make it easy and enjoyable to strengthen your relationship. And it's just five minutes a day. Head to paired.com/pacman for a seven day free trial and 25% off your subscription. 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. Today I'm going to be speaking with Nathan Taylor, Executive Director of Public Engagement for the Election Truth Alliance. This is quite, quite honestly, Nathan. This is one of the most requested interviews over the last couple of months with folks saying you've got to hear Nathan out and hear what he has to say. So maybe what I'll do is I'll set up my understanding of some of the claims that have been made about the election and then you'll explain to me what your claim is. Is that fair?
- [36:50]
Nathan Taylor
Yeah, let's do it.
- [36:51]
David Pakman
Okay, so Greg Palast put out a piece some time ago. I looked at the piece. The piece made a number of claims that I found to be a little too circumstantial for me to make a definitive statement about 2024. They included extrapolations of prior, for example, Black voter behavior in terms of the split between Democrats and Republicans, assumptions about changes to the number of registered voters, extrapolating from that in some cases with 8 or 10 year old data to make claims about 2024. It didn't feel super solid to me. And so I came away from those claims sort of saying, listen, I'm open to hearing anything. This I don't find convincing. So let's now give with that as the context, give us the, at the most basic level, the claim you're making and then we will talk about the evidence.
- [37:48]
Nathan Taylor
Yeah, sure. And if I may, I'd love to throw a little bit of background at you just for my work history in the eta. So my personal background, I have a degree in cybersecurity and information systems. I am Also, I was a 25 Bravo computer tech specialist in the army, actually commissioned as a signal officer as well. So I do know a little bit about computers, computer systems, some data analysis. And on the civilian side I worked with a company that provided real time network monitoring for multiple entities like banks. So I've done a lot of data analysis. I've, I've looked at network security and what happened was right after the election there were multiple red flags that brought the ETA together. So the ETA at this point there's three executives, Me, Lilly and Jive. Lilly and Jive have different backgrounds in either statistics and finance or political science. So we all got together and that's when we sat down and we said this. We said there are some interesting things with the election. Let's do a little bit of investigation, let's see what can we start looking at to determine if our elections are being run correctly. Free, fair, safe and secure. That was the concern is we wanted to verify the vote, to validate. That is what we did. We started bringing in volunteers with various backgrounds and statistics. Some of them have PhDs in statistics, some of them are auditors or computer scientists. And that's when we sat down and we said, okay, how can we look at elections and how could we perhaps apply statistics to look at elections to flag any concerns? And at the time we knew that there was audits in the elections, we reviewed those and if you're familiar, audits, that's a standard practice in finance, engineering, public safety. So auditing elections shouldn't be that much of a concern. But immediately when we did start talking about this, right after the election, the concern was, as you said, people wanted very credible, very well established concerns. And the common pushback was election denial was on the rise. So just want to make that clear. This is not election denial, this is election integrity and auditing. This is a standard practice. And because of that mindset we said, okay, let's do this. If you can apply statistics to detect fraud in banking, if you can apply statistics to do safety and quality testing and engineering, why can't we use statistics to flag non human or abnormal voting behavior? That could mean vote manipulation. That's what we said. And Then we discover this is already a thing, it's happening outside the US already. There are already election fraud experts such as Roman Udot, Sergei Shilkin, Peter Klimick, et al, who've been applying election statistics to Russian elections, to elections in Afghanistan, Kenya and Bolivia, and they have all begun to find credible concerns of election fraud. So we took their techniques and the ETA has ran with those methods and we've begun to analyze swing states and non swing states for the 24 election. And then we begin to publish those reports. So that's the background, as you said. I'd love to kind of walk you through some of the things we do, some of the things we find and then the big picture. So any questions?
- [41:08]
David Pakman
Yeah, so let's, in order to pick one thing, because we could spend hours on this, let's go to is there. And then you walk me through the example if you have it. Is there a state that was reported as one by one candidate that your analysis leads you to believe that was wrongly reported and in fact the will of the voters was that the other candidate should have been awarded that state?
- [41:36]
Nathan Taylor
Yes, we've published two different reports now, both for swing states, three in total, but two of them meet that criteria, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, if you're familiar with Pennsylvania. There's a lot of controversy around Pennsylvania, especially on election night. I think they had over 30 bomb threats and multiple machine failures across the state. So what we've done for Pennsylvania and the report is on our website right now, alexandrudeliance.org and we've analyzed the entire state of Pennsylvania, every county in the states. We've also analyzed three main very strong Democratic counties and put those up in the report. So what our statistics is finding and what our statistics does. So for example, we like to use the work of Dr. Or the work of Dr. Walter Mebin and Peter Klimek as examples. So I do have a visual for you. Now is probably a great time to reference it. So what we've done on the first slide for these visuals, this is a heat map. And as I said, this is an example of how we do statistical analysis of elections. This is a method developed by Peter, Peter Klimick et al. So this is a group of election fraud experts and statisticians and they've said let's look at Russian elections, let's look at Ugandan elections. And they put out a paper and on the right side of the screen we reference their statistical analysis of those elections. So we see Russia in 2011, Russia in 2012, and we see a Uganda, which I don't know the exact date, but it's in their paper as one of their foundations. And so we, what a heat map does is we look at every precinct in a county. This data is public. You can go get it from the county's websites, you can get it from the state. So we took publicly available data and we developed this heat map on the left for you. And California is an example of what we argue is more of a normal and expected election, per the work of Peter Klimek. They say a non manipulated election should be more of a circle. There should be no noticeable shifts in precincts of high versus low turnout. And that's what we're measuring. So the X axis is turnout. Turnout is just how many votes were cast compared to how many people could vote and that's it. So if you're 50% turnout, half of your voters showed up and voted. And then the Y axis is the amount of votes each candidate got. We're just looking at one candidate for these heat maps and that's Donald Trump win candidate in a majority of the swing states. All the swing states.
- [44:09]
David Pakman
So Nathan, I may hear, just to make sure we're not missing anything, the idea here is by looking at voter turnout versus candidate performance, you're accounting for the size of the precinct. In other words, we're already adjusting for population density insofar as we're not looking at the number of people that voted, we're looking at the percentage of eligible voters in a precinct. So this is not about. Oh well, it makes sense because denser urban areas tend to lean one way. We've accounted for that by looking at voter turnout rather than number of votes.
- [44:45]
Nathan Taylor
Yes, and this is, as I said, based exactly on the work of Peter Klimek and other experts that have looked at other elections. So we're actually going to compare US elections to some European and other elections.
- [45:01]
David Pakman
Got it.
- [45:02]
Nathan Taylor
And I'll run you through just very quickly what is concerning and what would be potential vote manipulation on a heat map, please. If you look at Russia on the right side of this, a heat map that begins to stretch up and to the right could be indication of vote manipulation. Specifically, it may be an effect of ballot stuffing. Whether it's physical ballot stuffing or digital ballot stuffing, we don't know that's where you would go and investigate on the ground. But as we see in Russia in both 2011, 2012, they have key indicators that they are potentially manipulating the elections in Russia by stuffing. And you actually see some places in Russia in 2012 that are at 100% turnout. And that's in the top right of the little grid there for the heat map. So, as you can see, California, we're going to use California as a baseline here. This is Shasta County. This was won by Trump. So this is what's important. That county was won by Trump. But it looks statistically normal. Looks like a circle.
- [45:58]
David Pakman
Trump genuinely won that county, is your belief.
- [46:00]
Nathan Taylor
Yes, yes. Statistically speaking, there are no, no red flags here. It looks very normal. And then. So we'll go to the third slide for you. And this is, as you said, are we concerned that there was multiple states, a single state that could have had vote manipulation, change the outcome of the election at the presidential level? So Pennsylvania 24. This is every precinct in every county in Pennsylvania. This took a lot of work to pull all that data together. But we visualized it here for you on the left. And immediately we see a serious concern that instead of what we would expect in a free and fair election, which is a more circular distribution, we see a strong shift where in places of higher turnout in precincts of higher turnout independent of county. So we're looking at Philadelphia, we're looking at Allegheny county, we're looking at Erie County. These are some of the more blue counties in the state. Even in those counties, in precincts over 60% turnout, the Republican candidate for president begins to win. In those precincts, they begin to get more votes consistently. And what's important here is, as you, as most people would say, maybe there's, you know, some really strong pockets of Republican voters in some places. This effect is consistent across a majority of the precincts. This isn't just a handful. This is almost algorithmic in nature. And that's what our analysis is showing here. And the other half of it is as well. There's almost an artificial wall. And you can see it for Pennsylvania, where instead of that more circular round effect, we see a stretching around 85% turnout. So it almost seems like these precincts could have been, in this case, this could be vote manipulation, stuffing. They could have been stuffed up to around 85%, 80, 85%, and then any votes after that point deleted.
- [47:50]
David Pakman
So the. If we are to assume the worst here and then we'll get to the differential diagnosis in a moment. And I have some other questions. If we assume the worst, the technique would be maybe the voter turnout didn't really go as high as it looks like in some of these areas, it's like over 90%. I'm looking at the chart. Is it like 90 to 93% in some of these counties, is that right?
- [48:12]
Nathan Taylor
Yeah, in some of these counties and precincts.
- [48:14]
David Pakman
So maybe instead of really having that level of turnout, the real level of turnout was lower, but there was manipulation, either physical or digital, as you say, ballot stuffing, or through technological systems which credited votes above and beyond the real votes to candidate Trump. Is that essentially the sort of like most dystopian interpretation of this?
- [48:38]
Nathan Taylor
I would say this. We don't truly know how much of this could be stuffing versus switching, but we do know the scale of impact. So we don't know exactly what the real turnout could have been, which was still expected to be very high. But we do know that switching, deleting votes and stuffing votes could create this effect. And we are able to estimate the amount of votes that could have been impacted at the presidential race in Pennsylvania. And per our analysis, and per the work of Dr. Walter Mebin, he's a PhD, statistician, professor at the University of. I'll have to double check which exact university is. I think it's Michigan. And so he's put up a paper as well. So he actually looked at Pennsylvania. So, as you said, do we think this is enough to change the outcome of Pennsylvania for the 24 election? 120,000 or so, 121 or 22,000 votes is what Trump was winning by in Pennsylvania for the President. Our analysis says potentially 190,000 votes could be manipulated, stuffing, switching. And Dr. Mevin even supports in his model, his method even says up to maybe 210,000. So, yes, if this is vote manipulation, if these effects from high turnout, bidding, fitting one candidate is because of some type of digital vote manipulation, this would be enough to change Pennsylvania. And we're seeing the same effect in North Carolina, which it would be enough as well. The margin is 184,000. We have over 190,000 flagged anomalous votes. And it could be enough to change the outcome in Nevada as well. And these are just the states we've published, we've been looking at other states that, other swing states that raise the same concerns. Statistically, we just haven't yet estimated the potential impact.
- [50:35]
David Pakman
So as of right now, if indeed let's assume it's true, Harris really won Pennsylvania, Harris really won North Carolina. Harris really won Nevada. Trump actually still has 270 in that scenario. But what you're saying is this is only what you've published and you believe there is more?
- [50:55]
Nathan Taylor
Yes. So the common pushback we get is everyone says every State runs their own election. Every state uses different systems. What we've started to find as we do this analysis is what is the common trend between all of these swing states and all of these other states that we've not published yet? We are finding these concerns statistically and it's very simple and very concerning. This is where my background with cybersecurity starts to jump in, is we did find that at least 70% of the US uses the top two voting systems. And these include the tabulation machines. And so this is a fact I want you to understand if you are able to compromise these systems, these tabulation systems. In 2024, nearly 100% of votes were counted by tabulation machines at some step in the process, even the hand marked paper ballots. And so that's very important is because we're seeing in these swing states, they're all using these same systems. And we're starting to find in states that aren't swing states that do use these systems the same effects.
- [52:00]
David Pakman
And as of this moment, that leans more towards the technological manipulation rather than the physical ballot stuffing. Right. I mean, because the physical ballot stuffing would not be as relevantly mediated by the same tabulators. The tabulators seem to point more to the technological manipulation.
- [52:20]
Nathan Taylor
Yes. The consistency, how aggressive and consistent this is across multiple precincts and counties points to it being a system instead of people going and doing things. Because it's too algorithmic. We can actually, we've begun to now analyze, is there a consistent pattern, is there an algorithm, is there, you know, a formula? And we're able to start seeing that there may be a formula in how these votes are being shifted around and that'll come out as you go forward. Yeah, go ahead.
- [52:47]
David Pakman
One of the questions I know my audience will have is does the scenario Nathan is drawing up require individuals at either every county, precinct, etc. Or would this. And again, this is, this is all I'm not telling my audience. This is what happened. I'm asking questions to try to figure out exactly what the claims are. Would this be something that theoretically could be preinstalled in some of these machines such that the machines already know what to do and it doesn't require someone in Pennsylvania, In Philadelphia, Precinct 39 is pressing a button.
- [53:25]
Nathan Taylor
Yes. The concern is that whether through compromise of the vendors, through a common point, like for example, some of these systems use hard drives. If you were able to influence them before those hard drives ever get sent out, or putting code on the machines. Yes, you could do this before the election. Cybersecurity wise. I have an example of this is this is just malware that would have a time to window to execute. It wouldn't be manipulating votes or changing things before the election or after the election, just during that window. And we actually found, and this is something people know about, but maybe not as readily is there's an example of this have already happened with technology. Have you heard of Diesel Gate?
- [54:07]
David Pakman
Diesel Gate? Oh, this is the Volkswagen gas mileage scandal, I guess we would call it.
- [54:14]
Nathan Taylor
Yes. So Diesel Gate was where Volkswagen had a software program to cheat emissions. And when they were auditing the machines in a lab or when testing them, the cars ran normally and their emissions was normal.
- [54:29]
David Pakman
Right.
- [54:30]
Nathan Taylor
But the data from emissions reports wasn't matching up. There was way higher emissions than what should have been accounted for. So some independent nonprofits actually got together and they took a Volkswagen system and they put a tester on the back of the vehicle in the trunk and on the tailpipe, and they drove it on the highway. And in use, the Volkswagen began to output higher emissions. So they had designed a way to cheat audits so that when they're being tested, they look normal, but when they're in use, they begin to act in this way. If it was voting systems, you could do the same thing, whether by design or through malware. During testing, you wouldn't catch any problems. But when they're being used, you could manipulate votes. And the other half of the battle is we're finding the largest voting system brand in the US they do seem to have cellular modems in their tabulators that counties are using to send early reports to the counties from the precincts. We begun to investigate this as well, because the common pushback is our systems aren't connected to the Internet. Your tabulators could be. And if I have the means to compromise them digitally, I don't ever have to be anywhere near these systems when they're operating. I can compromise them before, during testing, put malware on them at any point in the process, and then manipulate votes. And it would be very difficult to catch that without sufficient audits and without statistical investigation to go and figure out where to look.
- [56:03]
David Pakman
All right, I want to ask you about one more thing, and then I'll sort of give my sense to my audience of what I think makes sense to do based on what you're asserting. I want to just propose a differential diagnosis. Right. What we're pointing to here is an association between counties. Sorry, is it counties or precincts with higher turnout?
- [56:20]
Nathan Taylor
Precincts, in this case, precincts what you've.
- [56:23]
David Pakman
Identified is an association between higher turnout at the precinct level and a larger share of the vote going to Donald Trump. That's the association that you've identified that we're focusing in on here. Is it possible, is it possible? Or from a statistical perspective, how would we contradict the idea that there are certain parts of states where due to what's happening socio culturally, it makes sense that the higher turnout correlates with more support for Trump? For example, I'll propose one possibility in some areas, just based on activism and who's there? New voters said, let's get together and vote Trump. It was specifically a Trump supporting effort. And so that explains why you've got an anomalous larger turnout share. But it is because of some state level activism or precinct level activism that it was mostly Trump supporters that said, hey, we're going to turn out more than we did in previous times. Is that a plausible differential diagnosis here?
- [57:28]
Nathan Taylor
That is a good concern. But two things is the first, we're seeing this effect even in places where the population wouldn't match the results in some of the most heavily Democratic registered places in the U.S. nevada, Las Vegas, we're still seeing this effect. But this effect isn't happening right at the beginning. It happens almost after a certain threshold of votes or a certain threshold of turnout. And that's what's weird is if we were seeing high votes for Trump from the beginning or from low turnout to high turnout places, then yes, this would be normal. But it almost seems to begin to happen after a threshold. And here's what's interesting is the last little piece. We haven't revealed this yet. So this is the first time anyone's ever going to see this. We asked the question which is if the concerns we're finding is a compromise of the systems, what if we look at the places that did hand count some of their precincts and some of their counties in the 24 election and that is the second slide we have for you. And this is very simple. This is 24. This is in Minnesota. So St. Louis county, they hand count a few of their precincts and they do have almost like a split where some of the, some of the, like half the county will do machine and half the county will do hand counting. And in this case we compared the two. This is the same county and this is 24. And we found that in the precincts that hand counted their results, Trump won this county overall, by the way. In this sense, he got more votes. I think he got a little closer to 55% of the votes in this county, we found that in precincts that hand counted their results, Trump was receiving on average around 40% of the vote. In precincts that they machine counted, using these tabulation systems that we're flagging as a concern, Trump got 7% more of the vote consistently across all of those precincts. That put him above the 50% margin. And statistically speaking, this does not look like a free and fair result. It actually exhibits effects of potential switching of votes for the machine.
- [59:45]
David Pakman
Again, differential diagnosis. Playing devil's Advocate.
- [59:48]
Nathan Taylor
Yeah.
- [59:48]
David Pakman
Is it possible that there are reasons that correlate with Trump voting, why Trump voting precincts would be more likely to machine count than hand count? Right, because we've got to back that out in order to be able to make the claim.
- [60:02]
Nathan Taylor
Yeah, that's a good point. That's something you would be able to identify as you dive a little bit deeper into historical representations, which we will be releasing as we go forward, is we actually have the same data, multiple elections going in the past. And we asked the question then, of course, when did these places actually start using voting systems? And we'll be publishing that as we go forward. But no, these are good concerns. I will highlight one other thing then, which is less about the data, but more about the intent. So, as we said, if you were to pull this off, right, it would take access to these systems or compromises of these systems, and honestly, like, that would be hard to go unnoticed. Right. But we do have examples of these systems being targeted back in 2024, in November 13, free speech for people had a group of cybersecurity experts say, hey, we know about known attempts to compromise the election Systems across the U.S. examples of this was in Mesa County, Colorado in 2021, when actors breached voting systems in potential benefit of Trump's administration or Trump's campaign. At the time. We see these same examples in Coffee county in Georgia. So what's interesting to us is if this is a compromise, as we said, we're going to keep putting these reports out there, we're going to keep asking these questions. And I love the Devil's Advocate because that's what you have to do to test things.
- [61:26]
David Pakman
Yeah.
- [61:27]
Nathan Taylor
But we've moved forward. The ETA has moved forward from statistical reporting to actual on the ground investigation. So that is the other half of what we do now is we will continue to put out these statistical analysis, but we ask the question, if this is vote manipulation, let's go to these places and, and let's work with the people on the ground. And let's see if we can find evidence that this is a real concern. And we are moving forward with two cases, litigation, where we have found sufficient concerns of vote manipulation, and we've not published these yet. We were hoping to file our first lawsuit this month. We've actually hit the opposite of what you'd expect, which is we have so much that we're struggling to cut out the things we think are less effective and put in. And I can maybe tell you just a few examples of what we are finding.
- [62:17]
David Pakman
Well, you know, what I would rather do is just get. There were a couple of things I wanted to ask about. And then I think maybe what you're. That that might be best left for a second interview. But so, so my audience knows right now you've talked about Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Nevada in this interview as published stuff that would still give Trump to 71. Is it your belief right now, as you speak to me, based on everything you have published and not yet published, that Donald Trump did not genuinely win the 2024 election?
- [62:46]
Nathan Taylor
As of right now, every set of data and additional evidence that we have found points to a serious concern that our election system could be compromised. It could have changed the outcome of not only the presidential election election of the 24, but it could have also impacted state Senate and House positions that would go on to impact Congress.
- [63:10]
David Pakman
Okay, so here is what I'm going to say to my audience and encourage them to do, which is what I'm going to do. Nathan has laid out this case. He's provided some visuals. The first thing I would do is now I'm going to go and first try to verify that the data Nathan's working with is accurate. That's the first thing. Is the input data accurate? I'm then going to evaluate his conclusions, delve more deeply into differential diagnoses, and that's the process I will start to use to make a decision. And then what I would love to do, Nathan, is after you, you have more to reveal and after I've had a chance to do that, we could have you back and have another conversation.
- [63:49]
Nathan Taylor
Yeah, that would be great. Our data is actually our, our methods. And our data is public@data.election truth alliance.org we built a dashboard, digital dashboard, so you can actually go download the data for yourself, compare it to the county and state reports, and. And then you can do your own method or analysis or apply our method analysis yourself on the dashboard.
- [64:06]
David Pakman
All right. We've been speaking with Nathan Taylor, executive Director of Public Engagement for The Election Truth Alliance. Nathan, I appreciate you being here. Of course this is opening up a very serious potential can of worms which we're going to investigate. I look forward to speaking to you again.
- [64:21]
Nathan Taylor
Thank you so much for having me. And I have a lot more to share.
- [64:26]
David Pakman
Every time you Google your name, you will probably find dozens of sites that expose your personal information. This can include phone numbers, home address, family details. It's just sitting there waiting to be scraped or abused. Incogni is a privacy service. They go after these sites on your behalf. They contact the data brokers. They demand your data be removed, which the brokers are legally required to do. Incogni will automatically remove your information from hundreds of the biggest and most notorious data broker sites. But you're not just limited to those. You can use Incogni's custom removal. And if you find your info on a website outside of Incogni's default list, team at Incogni will work to get that information removed. This is how you protect yourself and your family from identity theft, financial scams, harassment, even AI powered profiling by ad companies. And Incogni's data removal process is the only one verified independently by Deloitte. This gives them a unique level of credibility. Try Incogni risk free and get 60% off. When you go to incogni.com/pacman and use the code PACMAN. The link is in the description. A terminal level of confusion has hit Donald Trump's White House as the result of more utter incompetence among those around him. We have the receipts and it would honestly be funny to watch if people's well being and livelihood didn't depend on this stuff. Now let me explain to you what's going on. Donald Trump's press secretary, Caroline Levitt had to hit Twitter to try to clarify that Donald Trump's proposed new $100,000 H1B visa fee is a one time fee, not an annual fee. Now, Caroline Levitt's tweet is the following quote. To be clear, this is not an annual fee. It's a one time fee. That applies only to the petition. Those who already hold H1B visas and are currently outside of the country right now are will not be charged $100,000 to reenter. H1B visa holders can leave and reenter the country to the same extent as they normally would. Whatever ability they have to do that is not impacted by yesterday's proclamation. And this applies only to new visas, not renewals, and not current visa holders. It will first apply in the next Upcoming lottery cycle. Now, why is Caroline Levitt having to do this? I know some of you are probably already confused. What's she talking about? The reason Caroline Levitt had to do this is that Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said multiple times in a row, the $100,000 H1B visa fee is annual. He called it an annual fee multiple times. Don't take my word for it. Listen to this.
- [67:11]
Howard Lutnick
I think, John, you agree with that. They're $100,000 per year. So the whole idea is no more we have these big tech companies or other big companies train foreign workers. They have to pay the government $100,000. Then they have to pay the employee. So it's just not economic. If you're going to train somebody, you're going to train one of the recent graduates from one of the great universities across our land, train Americans, stop bringing in people to take our jobs. That's the policy here. $100,000 thousand dollars a year.
- [67:47]
David Pakman
That's the second time. $100,000 a year, H1B visas.
- [67:52]
Howard Lutnick
And all of the big companies are on board. We've spoken to them about the gold.
- [67:57]
Nathan Taylor
They love us.
- [67:58]
Howard Lutnick
They love renewals. First times, the company needs to decide do they want, is that person valuable enough to have $100,000 a year payment to the government?
- [68:11]
David Pakman
Okay, so that's the third time, $100,000 a year. So Caroline Levitt had to come out and say, no, no, no, no, it's a one time fee of $100,000. Now, the initial assumption was they're confused about their own plan. They don't understand their own plan. Some of them believe it's $100,000 a year. Some believe it's $100,000 one time fee. They just don't know it's the Trump administration. So confusion is often enough of an explanation. But that may not be the explanation here. It may be that they wanted it to be $100,000 a year. But they then, after announcing it, got feedback that that's completely bonkers, insane, that would never possibly work. And so they said, okay, okay, okay, we'll back off and make it a $100,000 one time fee. We don't know because this is an administration that's constantly in shambles. Now, let's talk about the policy a little bit. The H1B visa is a US work visa. And what it allows American companies to do is if there is a specialized, high skilled job, often in tech, engineering or medicine, and they want to bring someone in from another country specifically for that job, it's called an H1B visa. That's, that's the process that exists now, even as a one time fee. $100,000 would make the United States by far the most expensive country in the world to apply for this high skilled foreign labor. Now I understand the idea here. The idea is convince companies to hire American by making it more expensive to hire from other countries. The problem is because in part due to our education system, which Republicans have damaged, there are arguably not enough of the high skilled people that these companies want and need to hire from the United States. In other words, if Republicans really wanted to fix this problem and make it so that American companies look inward rather than to other countries for a lot of these roles, why are you worsening our education systems? And by the way, the people that are hired for these roles domestically disproportionately are coming up in these dangerous liberal blue state education systems and liberal universities. So to the extent that this is a problem, it's a problem of their own making. Now Trump says we're going to make corporations pay, but in practice, this is just anti immigration through economics. If you can't ban H1B visas, you make them really expensive. And even as a one time fee, if you do this small and mid size, first of all, small and mid sized businesses, forget about it, the ones that rely on international talent, they can't afford this. So that's it. You're hurting small and medium businesses. You will push skilled workers who might come to the United States, work productively, innovate, have kids here who then work here, pay into the system, they're going to go to other countries. So you're also hurting the United States in that way. And I should also mention that all of the people concerned about the birth rate, it's widely accepted that legal immigration to the United States needs to go up. If you believe in the paradigm of in order to grow economically, we need more people here and it's hard to convince people to have more kids. So one way to increase your population, increase your tax base, etc. Is to bring in legal immigrants, especially highly skilled, highly qualified ones, to do relatively high end jobs. You should be in favor of this. Like what Elon Musk has been talking about is we got to get more people here, qualified, smart people. And so this is nuts in every sense of the word. If you really want to deal with this issue, you can't fix it in one presidential term. You've got to deal with education. Trump doesn't want to do that behind closed doors. Some of the top CEOs of the United States are admitting something they will never say on tv. They will never say it in a shareholder letter. They will never say it in front of Donald Trump, which is that Trump's economic policies are destroying the economy. These are not progressives. These are not democratic strategies. These are strategists. These are CEOs. Many of them are Republicans. These are executives who benefit from Trump's tax cuts, who love deregulation. They don't want to be called anti business. But they are admitting what they see, which is tariffs raise prices, chaotic trade wars that freeze investment are bad for business, and politically bullying the Federal Reserve, as Donald Trump has tried to do, is not a good idea. Now, the tariffs CEOs told a Yale Leadership Forum that two thirds of their companies are being hammered by Donald Trump's trade policies. They estimate that 80% of the costs land squarely on the American firm and the consumer. You hear these rumors, oh, the companies will eat some of the tariffs or other countries will eat. It is not happening. It is. 80% of it is floating down to consumers. Consumers are not going to pay $50 for a hammer. They're not going to pay triple for clothes just to make Trump feel like he did a big boy. Second is uncertainty. This is another word that kept coming up. Trump changes the rules on a whim. The tariffs are on. The tariffs are off. The supply chain shifts overnight. CEOs say we're holding back investments, we're shelving projects, we're freezing hiring. And it's not because they don't want to grow. It's because they don't want to look like fools. When Trump hopefully wakes up and realizes this was a bad idea. I'm going to do a 180 on that. I'm changing the next thing. They don't want to be left holding the bag. And that's not a position of strength. That's paralysis. Third is the Federal Reserve. Trump has spent months just hammering on Jerome Powell. Slash interest rates. Do it, do it, do it. Now, the Fed has finally done the 25 basis point cut, but this is, this is all an attack on the independence of the fed. That business CEOs see and they go, that's not good. Historically, that's not a good thing. That's. There's a lot at stake there. If the world stops believing in the independence of the Fed, it could be bad for the dollar. And then you've got the part that fewer people are talking about, which is this obsession Trump has with trying to Control private markets. The America first president acting like a central planner, the likes of which you would expect, you know, in Beijing or in Moscow or in other places. So Trump is also, I'm not praising or criticizing. I'm just saying CEOs are worried because Trump's moving away from what we know of as free market capitalism, is moving towards state run capital capitalism. So why don't the CEOs go public and call Trump out? I think they know what happens when you cross Donald Trump. They've seen what happens when a company or a CEO becomes a target. You get the boycotts, the social media tirades, and it's not good. Threats to your contracts all of a sudden. Start now. The irony is that in public, Trump is still getting the dear leader Praise from CEOs, you know, Zuckerberg and Bezos and Sam Altman. They show up. It's so incredible what you're doing, sir. We're so glad that we finally got competent leadership and, you know, whatever. And privately they're going, this is very much not good. This is bad for our customers, this is bad for our employees, this is bad for our business. And when they see the layoff starting and they realize the dollar is not going as far for our workers, they're going to be in a very difficult situation. So this is not even left versus right. This is really about results. And one of the things about CEOs, many CEOs are political. There's no question. Sometimes they're publicly political. Most of them vote and have private politics that they may or may not espouse publicly. But at the end of the day, there's a lot of downsides to shareholder value being the number one priority. But one of the things about it is that it can transcend politics. And for a lot of these CEOs, they like Trump's tax cuts for the rich. They may like what Trump is doing on vaccines or whatever. It goes beyond that. And it's, this guy is wrecking the business environment for us. And this is going to be a building problem for Donald Trump, a very, very serious building problem. Now on the bonus show today, we will talk about the return of Jimmy Kimmel to his show. But is anybody going to air the show? That's the question. Trump is also putting pressure on Pam Bondi to charge his political foes. This could be a real legal problem. And finally, the annual hunger report has, has been canceled by the Trump administration. You don't want pregnancy, don't test, you don't want autism, don't evaluate people for autism. You don't want to acknowledge that there's hunger in the country, in part due to your policies. Cancel the report about hunger. All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Sign up@join pacman.com I'll see you then.