Senator Chris Murphy (11:45)

Dr. Means, are you familiar with FTC policy that requires those who are recommending products online to disclose their financial connection to those companies? In particular, the document from the FTC says this. If you endorse a product through social media, your endorsement message should make it obvious when you have a relationship with the brand. Are you familiar with that Kinds of. So as you know, there is a pending complaint regarding your failure to adhere to those guidelines that basically makes the contention and this committee has verified the data that underlies their complaint that you routinely violated this policy and that in fact, in the majority of of your posts for many of the products you recommend, you did not transparently reveal your financial connection. Let me give you an example.

Casey Means (12:51)

That's false.

Senator Chris Murphy (12:52)

Well, let me give you, let me give. I'll give you an example. So there's a prenatal vitamin called Wenatal. Your filings before this committee show that you started receiving compensation in the spring of 2024. And yet in September of 2024, you posted a video saying that you had no financial relationship to the company, just a big fan. And then in October you said not sponsored, just love these. But in fact, you have documentation before this committee that showed when you said those things you had a financial relationship, you had already started receiving money from that company. So you weren't telling the truth when you said you were just a fan, you were actually receiving money, correct?

Casey Means (13:48)

If I in the, in any post where I said I am not receiving money, I had not been receiving money at that time.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (13:53)

But you had noticed the use of

Senator Chris Murphy (13:55)

at that time received partnership fees for this particular prenatal vitamin. In fact, prior to September and October, you had posted partnership links in which you get compensated based upon click throughs, correct?

Casey Means (14:12)

I'm happy to look at whatever documentation you're talking about, but I do not. This is. It's incorrect and it's a false representation. And just to be very clear, I've spent the last several months working with the Office of Government Ethics to be fully compliant with this process. I take it very seriously.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (14:30)

All right, so now she's going and filibustering about other things. This is a classic semantic evasion. Senator Murphy lays out a very simple timeline. You were being compensated, and you told the public you had no financial relationship. That's not ambiguous. That's very binary. Either you do or you don't have a financial relationship. And her defense is, if I said I wasn't receiving money, I wasn't receiving money at that time. Now, what does that really mean? If you get paid in January and then you make a post in March and you go, well, at that time, I wasn't receiving money. Well, but you were paid in January. What does it mean? You know that. Does that mean that they're not paying you monthly? They paid you in January. Does it mean that you formally severed ties, but yet you're still recommending this thing? What exactly does it mean? It's not transparent in any way. And instead of clarifying these relationships cleanly, she goes, well, if I said it at. At that time, at that moment, I wasn't receiving money. You mean that as you type the tweet, they weren't stuffing twenties in your pocket? What exactly do you mean, Senator? Also, Brooks backed Kasey Means into a corner about her failure to disclose conflicts. And in this case, instead of denying it, Casey means just kind of concedes the point. You know what? You're probably right.

David Pakman (15:44)

From a company called Peak. Yes. Okay. And in Your newsletter, number 33, you acknowledge that Peak has sponsored you. Now, were you aware that this company was served notice under California's Proposition 65 for containing and failing to disclose that lead above the allowable amounts of carcinogen and reproductive toxin was present.

Casey Means (16:04)

I just want to repeat, I've worked with the Office of Government Ethics. I'm not going to be taking anything.

David Pakman (16:08)

But we're talking about just the ones you've already. So this is.

Casey Means (16:11)

We're talking about conflicts. And I have been clear notice, by

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (16:15)

the way, the bait and switch she tries to go. Listen, I've already said I won't be taking any money. Right, but we're not talking about that.

Casey Means (16:20)

By the Office of Government Ethics. Through an exhaustive process, I have signed a letter that I will be fully compliant. And this is before, during, and after the term I Take it very seriously, and I'll work closely with them to make sure there are no conflicts.

David Pakman (16:32)

The point here is that you've received compensation from these companies, including Daily Harvest, where this company was subject of to an investigation by the Food and Drug Administration after hundreds became seriously ill after consuming the product. And these are, these are companies that you have received money from. They've been investigated, and you are railing out against pharmaceutical companies that you say are advertising these products that mislead the public. And yet you've received compensation from companies and you've promoted them in your newsletter. And you're doing the same thing the pharmaceutical companies are doing by advertising and influencing people for these products that have been deemed to be unsafe for the public. Now, let me just move on as well to that.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (17:24)

Listen, Kasey Means is not, is not a doctor in the sense of being a licensed physician who practice. Okay. She is really a wellness entrepreneur who went to medical school but didn't finish her residency and didn't practice as a doctor. And that fits perfectly with this kind of Maha RFK Jr Trump ification of the medical world. And the problem with trying to dance around these disclosure rules is that you can't argue that there were misunderstandings once it's laid out as clearly as Senators Murphy and also Brooks laid it. Laid it out. Okay, so we then get to Senator Susan Collins. Susan Collins brings up Kasi means, use of illicit psychedelic mushrooms. Now, I think that there is a lot of interesting science behind the use of psychedelics in different treatment modalities. It is still illegal in the United States. Let's listen to this exchange, which I think is very interesting because again, it's just Casey means can't answer things directly

Casey Means (18:27)

that you were inspired to try psychedelics

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (18:32)

in what I can only describe as an internal voice that whispered, it's time to prepare. Illicit drug use remains a huge problem in this country. And this didn't happen in your teen years. According to your book, in 2021, you began using illicit psychedelic mushrooms. So my questions to you are twofold. One, do you stand by what you

Casey Means (19:11)

said in your book encouraging people to try psychedelics?

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (19:17)

And second, as surgeon general, should you

Casey Means (19:22)

be confirmed, how would you speak to the American people about the use of illicit drugs? Thank you so much, Senator Collins. And I also thank you sincerely for engaging so deeply with my work and learning about me. This is a very important question. And I would start by just saying that I believe what I would say as a private citizen is, is in many cases different than what I would say as A public health official joining a team where the purpose of this role is to communicate absolutely the best evidence based science to the American people to keep.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (20:00)

Now remember what she's saying. Communicating the best evidence based science. We're going to get back to them

Casey Means (20:05)

safe, thriving and healthy. And when it comes to psychedelic therapy for mental health issues, I think the science is still emerging. And so it would certainly not be a recommendation to the American people to do that. Under no circumstances. I do believe that there is exciting work being done in this area that needs to continue on psychedelic therapies for PTSD and veterans for mental health issues. And some of the researchers who are doing this work have said it's some of the most promising and exciting of their entire careers. So I look forward to following that. But to be very clear, under no circumstances what I recommend that to the American people in this role. Our illicit drug use problem in our country is monumental and severe. And I look forward to working with you on these issues that are so important.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (21:00)

What did you mean by saying that you heard an internal voice whispering to you, saying it's time to prepare?

Casey Means (21:10)

Yeah. In that passage of the book I'm referring to.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (21:13)

Well, Senator, I was high as a

Casey Means (21:15)

kite at the moment my mother's passing, which happened. She got a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer about a week after that experience. And in my meditations and prayers at that time, I was having a deep session, sense that something ominous was coming.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (21:33)

So listen, the, the shrooms made her have a premonition about her mom's health and. All right, well, I mean, that's serious. Okay, so we'll move on here. Again, she tries to turn around questions from Senator Chris Murphy and blame him and his staff for the fact that they are even asking her about this stuff. It's always someone else's fault.

Senator Chris Murphy (21:55)

Function Health, which is your lab testing platform, data shows that you disclosed your partnership with them less than a third of the time that you recommended their services online. Genova Diagnostics. You, you disclosed your sponsorship and only two of the nine times that you promoted Genova Daily Harvest. You disclosed your sponsorship in only three of the 14 posts recommending that product. Zen Basil Seeds. You disclosed your partnership only two out of the 13 times that you recommended the product. This seems systemic. It seems that in the majority of instances in which you were as a medical professional recommending a product, you were hiding the fact that you had a financial partnership. You seem to be in regular willful violation of the FTC rules. That is concerned concerning. As someone who agrees with Senator Cassidy that our focus has to be on restoring trust in the medical profession. And yet over and over again you seem to be at scale recommending products without telling your followers and you have

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (23:09)

she's just a wellness influencer. That's the answer to all of this

Senator Chris Murphy (23:12)

hundred thousand newsletter subscribers. You have almost a million Instagram followers and in only 3 out of 14 times on daily Harvest when you were promoting Daily Harvest, you disclosed that you're getting paid by them.

Casey Means (23:27)

It sounds like you have a lot to say about this issue and I would be very interested to see how your staff looked at this data. I have a strong feeling that the way in which they gather this data is, is done intentionally to.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (23:41)

It's everybody else's fault. They're trying to make me look bad. Okay. Finally asked by a Republican Senator Cassidy, who's also a doctor, are you going to recommend people get the measles vaccine? She avoids the question. And this is very trouble question. We've had two children die from measles in west Texas.

Senator Chris Murphy (23:59)

We've now have an outbreak of like

J.D. Vance (24:01)

a thousand children almost in South Carolina area. You're a mom.

Senator Chris Murphy (24:06)

We're on verge, we're on the verge of losing our measles elimination status.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (24:10)

Would you encourage other mothers to have

Senator Chris Murphy (24:13)

their children vaccinated against measles with the MMR vaccine? Vaccine?

Casey Means (24:18)

Like you, I'm a physician. I believe vaccines save lives. I believe that vaccines are a key part of every public of any infectious disease public health strategy. And I would work with you, the cdc, the nih, asip.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (24:33)

Would you encourage mothers to vaccinate their

Senator Chris Murphy (24:35)

children with the MMR vaccine? Seeing how we've had children die in

Casey Means (24:40)

this outbreak in South Carolina, I'm supporting of a vaccination. I, I do believe that each patient, mother, parent needs to have a conversation with their pediatrician about any medication they're putting in their body.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (24:51)

Their children's nation's doctor, would you encourage

Senator Chris Murphy (24:54)

her to have her child vaccinated?

Casey Means (24:55)

I'm not an individual's doctor and every individual needs to talk to their doctor before putting a medication there.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (25:00)

Now that might sound reasonable, but a better answer would be of course the default should be yes. We advocate vaccination against measles, which is so safe and effective and prevents outbreaks. If there are edge cases where an individual shouldn't be vaccinated, those conversations can be had with doctors. But of course, as the surgeon general whose job is to make public health recommendations for the country, the default would be yes, vaccinate against measles. If you can't clearly endorse that and just go, well, vaccines are cool, but you got to always talk to your doctor. You're already struggling. A disastrous nominee, but she might get confirmed, which is terrifying. One thing that's become impossible to ignore with mainstream AI chat bots is how aggressively they police what you are allowed to ask. Perfectly normal questions get flagged, refused or answered with warnings like you're doing something wrong just for being curious. And so it starts to feel less like a tool and more like an interrogation, assuming that you are the problem. And that's why the AI tool I use instead is Venice, our sponsor. Venice takes a completely different approach. Your conversations are encrypted. They're only stored on your device, not on company servers. They are never used for training data. There's no surveillance. There's no content policing. There's no treating users like potential criminals for asking questions questions. Venice runs open source AI models for text, code, images and video directly in your browser or app. No censorship. The Pro Plan adds features like PDF uploads, higher usage limits, custom system prompts, and uncensored image generation, all while keeping control in your hands. If you want AI that doesn't monitor or restrict you, go to Venice AI/PACMAN to get 20% off a pro Plan. The link is in the description. If you're trying to get away from cigarettes or vaping, one of the first practical questions is what you replace them with. Especially if you're not ready to eliminate nicotine immediately, check out our sponsor Zipix Nicotine Toothpicks. Zipix uses quality plant derived nicotine with a very short list of ingredients. It gives you a another option for managing nicotine with no smoke or vapor. Zipix comes in six flavors. There's two or three milligram options lets you control the nicotine as compared to a cigarette or vape. They're also easy to use throughout the day and in places where smoking or vaping isn't allowed or it would require you to step out conspicuously for a cigarette, which can cause other problems. Zipix also offers caffeine and B12 toothpicks if you're reducing nicotine altogether or don't even use it at all. If you're tired of cigarettes or vaping, try Zipix Nicotine TOOTHPICKS and get 10% off your first order with code PACMAN@ ZIPIXTOOTHPICKS.COM the link is in the description. You must be 21 or older to order. Nicotine is an addictive chemical There's a fascinating and disastrous new Reuters Ipsos poll and it finds that 6 in 10Americans now say Donald Trump has become more erratic with age. That includes a third of self identified Republicans. This is not a fringe perception. And only 45% of Americans believe that Trump has the brain that it takes to deal with the job of president. This is absolutely fascinating. This, we've got it up on the screen what Americans think about Trump's mental fitness. This was, by the way, done right before the State of the Union. I don't know if Trump's total meltdown during the State of the Union, including rocketing out six tonsil stones while visibly slowing down as the speech went, with that right eye completely swollen shut, changed their minds and made the numbers worse. But these are pre State of the Union numbers. Trump has become erratic with age. 61% of Americans believe that that is indeed the case and that includes 30% of all Republicans. On the question. Trump is mentally sharp and able to deal with challenges. Only 45% of all adults believe that the President has the mental sharpness to even do the job. That's not. Do you like his tariff policy? That's not. Do you think he's handling foreign policy? Well, it's not. Do you like what he's doing on men and women's sports? As he said, this is just. Does he have the mental sharpness to do the job? Only 45% of Americans believe that he does. Now listen to how that sentiment is showing up in real world voters. This is not a pundit we're going to hear from. It's also not a pund dent, which I don't know how it became so common to say pundit instead of pundit, but you hear it everywhere on tv, folks. It's pundit. This is from a voter who called in to C span. Take a listen to this.

David Pakman (30:23)

I just want to say, and I mean this in all sincerity, this man is mentally unfit to be president. He doesn't live, he's. Everything comes out of some weird thing in his head. But he is not living in reality. Honestly, they need to. He needs to be impeached.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (30:39)

Well, when it comes to the speech, when it comes to the speech last night specifically, what was your reaction to that?

David Pakman (30:46)

It's all it is. It's like listening to. He's mentally. He doesn't know he's talking about. He's just making up stuff.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (30:54)

I love this woman hand.

David Pakman (30:57)

I live in the real world. Prices are up. I don't live in his world where whatever he wants it to be, he just makes it up. And throws it out there and expects everyone to believe him. He is a pathological liar, he is a narcissist, and he has severe mental problems.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (31:13)

If we're giving out the Presidential Medal of Freedom, we got to give it to that woman. I mean, they're handing them out like they're Chiclets, so we might as well get one to that woman. So there's about three or four different layers to what's going on here. Okay, first of all, the caller points out this reality versus messaging disconnect. Trump is giving one set of messages about the economy, and he's, you know, talking about prices are down at the macro level and we fixed everything, trades fixed, all this different stuff stuff. Prices plummeting and inflation numbers are fake, all this stuff. And then the caller is saying, I see what's going on in my life, and it's not what Donald Trump is describing. This is problem number one for Trump. Problem number two, and this is all what we're getting from the poll that we looked at and from this caller. Leadership and credibility, approval ratings and disapproval spikes tell the story. And what's revealing is how people talk about the leaders. When people say that the leader is not living in reality, it starts to be like the pseudo cult leader, Kim Jong Un type dictators, where he lives in the best country and most prosperous country in the world. The first time he golfed, he got holes in one on every shot, on every hole. And then he never defecates and rainbows come out every time that he steps outside. Right. It's that level of disconnect that the caller is presenting. Number three, the cognitive decline story is getting big. And for years, Trump's team weaponized cognitive fitness critiques against Joe Biden and saying Biden's detached from reality, he's aging, he's mentally unfit. And now voters are applying the same lens to Trump, and many of them are realizing Trump seems even worse off. We then get to the need for a narrative change. When there is economic pain, when more than 80% of people say affordability hasn't improved because it hasn't, inflation is still positive, meaning prices are still going up, half say it's gotten worse. You can't use abstract economic indicators, whether they're accurate or not, importantly, and many of Trump's are not accurate, to tell people that everything is great. And then that sort of builds to political consequences. And this is why the polling really does matter politically. If there's declining confidence in Trump's decision making, coupled with rising impressions of him as erratic or disconnected at the same time that people are being told things that they see day to day in their lives aren't true. That is going to be a major problem for 20, 26. 28 will get to I don't know. But it's going to be a major problem for 26 if the average voter listens to the messages this administration puts out and says, oh, they're out of touch with reality. They are describing a world that does not exist as far as my life is concerned. So great caller distressing poll if you are Trump. But if there's anything to be reassured by, and again, we've got to make it happen in November. But if there's anything to be reassured by, perception is increasingly matching reality when it comes to the impotence of Donald Trump. There's a clip circulating of Republican Congressman Glenn Grossman attempting to explain why the Epstein related files disappeared. Remember we covered yesterday that There are over 50 files, Epstein files that reference Trump that are gone. Let me see if I have my Alex Jones. Hold on.

Senator Chris Murphy (34:35)

Thank your lucky stars every day you're not David Pakman.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (34:38)

Oh, no, it's the one. There's one I have. Alex Jones goes, this dude is gone. Those files are gone. Glenn Grossman was asked why are the files gone? And it's very hard to decipher what he's saying. But I think he's saying that because Democrats are perverts, the files are gone. This is really weird. Listen to this. Representative Grossman, you are on the Oversight Committee in attendance last night, several members of of the guests that were invited victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Your committee's investigating that. What more do you think needs to be done on this front?

Congressman Glenn Grossman (35:12)

Well, we want to look in. I think one of the things we ought to be doing is looking for other people who can give us more information. You know, I'm going to be present, I intend on Friday when we depose President Clinton. I don't think he's the most honest person in the world, so I don't expect to get a lot of breaking news out of him. But perhaps some of the other characters were around Epstein Island. The other characters who staffed Jeffrey Epstein's airplane will be more forthcoming and tell us a little bit more that's out there. You know, we've heard of a lot of famous people who've already been caught in this net. We know you know, who the problems are, but I think there are a lot of people I'd like to yet know. I do think that perhaps early on some of those files Disappeared. But, you know, it says something about the elite of this country. And it seems largely we're dealing with liberal, not exclusively. They're have very. Their sexual mores are very different than that of the average American. When you.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (36:17)

That's the takeaway that we're dealing mostly with liberal elites in the Epstein files whose sexual mores are different than those of the average person. Trump is president and he is on record saying creepy and disgusting things, even about his own daughter. And it's multiple affairs and all, and it's the sexual mores of the left that are the problem. And that's really what the Epstein files are revealing. Now, notice what happens here. Epstein's crimes were real. His network of offenders was real. His associations spanned from finance and academia and royalty and business and politics, multiple political parties. This was a scandal about power protecting power. And Grossman reduces it to. Liberal elites have perverted sexual mores. When politics becomes totally tribal and it breaks your brain, this is what happens. Where you boil down a complex institutional failure, multiple institutions overlapping to the other side is morally disgusting. And here's the deeper problem. When you turn a potential federal failure into a culture war talking point, you guarantee that there's never going to be a serious investigation. Because if the explanation is the sexual mores of liberal elites, you don't really need accountability. You just need to have a moral panic. Oh, my God, look at the things these liberal elites want to do. It is completely unserious intellectually. We have one more clip of Grossman. And then something became very clear to me. I wasn't super familiar with Congressman Grossman. I realized as I was watching this interview, this guy might just be really dumb. And I apologize. I hate to present such a simplistic analysis. Check out his answer to this economic question. You've probably seen polling over the last couple of days leading up to the State of the Union charting the President's performance on the economy. The last one, this one from the post on ABC News saying 57% of Americans disapproved of that handling of the economy. Do you think that's a messaging issue as far as what the administration wants to tout and how Americans are receiving that?

Congressman Glenn Grossman (38:25)

I said I only have to lay out that the things that people are disappointed in are very difficult to undo. Say the inflation of the Biden. That's got to be explained to people. I think we can do a better job of highlighting the labor shortage and how much money is available out there for people who want to work. I'll tell you, I've spoke several times with Walmart, for example. Now they only hire the best. But you've got truck drivers for Walmart now making 140 grand a year. That's pretty good, right?

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (38:55)

The question is about broad economic dissatisfaction and the response is I know of a specific trucking job at a single company with a good salary. That is a talking point. From a press release. From a Walmart press release. If your defense of the national economy is that there are Walmart truckers doing well, you're really not engaging with the experience of most voters. And this actually goes back to the Epstein comment. It's the same response types in both cases. The instinct from Grossman is I'm going to give you an anecdote. Rather than thinking structurally about systems, the Epstein files. Well, listen, there are liberals that are sexually deviant. That's really what this is about, economic dissatisfaction. Here's one job that pays surprisingly well. There is no structural thinking there. There's no acknowledgment of complexity or engagement with institutional credibility or systems that we have. This is like the intellectual floor of modern Partizan politics. And there's one other thing going on here. When Grossman blames liberal elites for sexual corruption, he's performing outrage for his base. It's a performance, it's not substance. It's not about solving a single problem. You solve nothing by going well the sexual mores of liberals, you're just signaling your tribe loyalty. And when he pivots to Walmart Truckers make 140k, he is doing performative optimism for his base. He's again not solving a single thing. He's just signaling. And meanwhile serious systemic questions go completely unanswered. I don't know, I feel silly with this like this guy seems kind of dumb analysis, but he doesn't seem particularly bright. And if these are the only sorts of people that the Republican party has to offer to solve real problems, we're in trouble. AI tools are everywhere now, but most people aren't even aware how much AI can help their business and their daily workflow. Our sponsor Outskill is hosting a free two day AI mastermind training this Saturday and Sunday from 10am to 7pm Eastern. You don't need any coding or technical background. And over those two days you're going to learn practical skills, how to use AI to automate repetitive tasks or building agents that can handle multi step work connecting it to sheets or notion or CRMs so the information moves on its own. They are going to give you ready made systems that you can put to use right away. Outskill is rated 4.9 out of 5 on Trustpilot. More than 10 million professionals have taken their programs, learning directly from the experts with experience at Microsoft and Nvidia. The training is normally almost $400. They're offering it free right now to my audience. And if you attend both days, you'll also get bonuses worth fifteen hundred dollars, including an AI prompt bible, a monetization roadmap, and a personalized toolkit. Availability is limited. Grab your free seat using the link in the description what is happening in Texas? Could the Texas Senate seat really be in play for Democrats? You know, it seems like every election cycle for the last I don't know how many years, 15, 20 years, we hear Texas could be in play. Democrats could win a Senate seat in Texas even though it hasn't happened for decades. But tomorrow we are going to dig into more detail about the specifics of the primaries happening in Texas Senate races today. I have fascinating video from just hours ago from this morning. CNN's data analyst Harry Enten almost blows a gasket with new data that shows Texas really is shifting red to blue, that we are seeing Democratic primary turnout come in really high and we are seeing Republican primary turnout in those Texas Senate races low. Let's check this out and then we will discuss Something is going on in Texas. Primaries are March 3rd, that's next week. There is a really interesting phenomenon happening though among who is voting. Let's get to seeing a chief data analyst head Harry yet. And we're not even exactly talking about the candidates here, which is why it

Harry Enten (43:12)

might be even more important, no mind blown to quote the show Blossom Joey Whoa. I mean, look at this. Okay. Share of Texas midterm primary ballots at this point in the cycle cast in Democratic primaries or Republican primaries. In 2022, the last midterm overwhelmingly, the votes were being cast in Republican primaries, 62%. But look at what's going on now in the 202026 cycle. More votes are being cast on the Democratic side. What a shift from where we were four years ago at this point. More people in Texas picking up the Democratic ballot.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (43:46)

More Democrats are voting in Texas than Republicans. I mean, how unusual is that?

Harry Enten (43:51)

Just how unusual? Well, you see the massive shift from 2022. But look at history go all the way back. When was the last time that more people actually, actually picked up a Democratic ballot? Cast a ball in a Democratic primary in Texas in the midterm. You have to go all the way back to 2002. So this could break. This could break an over 20 year stretch, my goodness gracious, whereby more people are actually voting in the Democratic side. And I will note it really hasn't even been close since 2002. Overwhelmingly more people have been voting on the Republican side in Texas. And this year so far, more people are voting on the Democratic side.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (44:27)

This is different, very different with a capital V in this case. So we still have a few days to go here. What are the chances, what are the prediction markets saying about the chances this will stick?

Harry Enten (44:37)

Okay, so we're only really been talking about the early vote, but if you look at the Cauchy prediction market, what you actually see is the chance to have higher Texas primary turnout right now that people putting their money where their mouth is actually slightly predict that there'll be more votes cast on the Democratic side then on the Republican side. 60% to 40%. Still a close race. But given that Republicans have been so outvoting Democrats and.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (44:59)

All right, all right, I think, I think we get it. And I really appreciate his, his passion and enthusiasm. So is this proof that the eventual Democratic nominee is going to win the Texas Senate seat in November? No, of course it's not. We have to, I don't want to blow smoke. We have to do a serious analysis, which is that right now there are really motivated Democratic voters in Texas. Part of it is because there are multiple candidates that have relatively significant support. You've got James Talarico, who is expected to win the primary. You've got Jasmine Crockett, who is not expected to win the primary, but she is polling relatively well. And thus you have a lot of very motivated Democratic primary voters who want to have their voice heard as to which Democrat should represent them on the ballot in November, Texas still has many, many more Republicans than Democrats. And so I believe that Texas is in play. But it doesn't mean that it's a likely victory for Democrats coming in November. What is very important about this is that for a long time there are the. Every, every off year election cycle, every midterm rather I should say, and every presidential election, you start to hear the demographics of Texas are shifting. This time it could be at the Democratic presidential candidate might actually be able to take Texas. And for a really long time it hasn't happened. And there are some who say it's a pipe dream, it's never going to happen. A lot of these changes happen relatively slowly. And if you look back in history, if you look for example, at the Progressive era of the United States, 1890 to the 1920s, that's 30 plus years. If you were in year 17 of 31 of the progressive Era, it might not have felt like things were changing that quickly. There might have been a long time of going well, we're working on getting women the right to vote. And we're still working and we're still working and we're not making progress and it's taking decades. And then it happens. And so I think that on the one hand, it's important to know that all of the this is the year that Texas turns blue, all right? I mean, a lot of people have been wrong with that for a while. But on the other hand, the shifts that we are seeing in Texas are significant and sometimes you just don't notice the speed of change when you're in the middle of it. We're going to be watching Texas very closely tomorrow on the show. We'll dig in more deeply to the specifics of the races that are happening there and then we'll see where the results land. J.D. vance, the Vice president, went on Fox News expecting a friendly interview and instead he was presented with numbers. Fox put up polling showing Donald Trump and is underwater on the economy. Republicans are better stewards of the economy has been a talking point and sort of false conventional wisdom for a long time. And J.D. vance has shown the numbers and J.D. vance doesn't like it. And what does he pivot to? The Biden administration left us a disaster, ladies and gentlemen, it's almost March of 2026 and we're still blaming Joe Biden, the issue that might clip this administration,

Senator Chris Murphy (47:58)

and that's the economy on screen.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (48:01)

Now we can show you three of the most recent polls about the economy. How about Americans are feeling about it? Everything in red. Our Fox Polling disapproves at 59%.

Harry Enten (48:09)

Washington Post, ABC News 57, Wall Street Journal at 54.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (48:12)

Now let me just pause here for a moment. Bill Hemmer is doing something astute. The last time J.D. vance was on Fox, he was asked, I think it was over the weekend, he was asked by a different anchor about Fox polling that was bad for Trump. And JD Responded with, well, we happen to think Fox polling is a basically the worst of the worst. Now, the truth is Fox polling is pretty good. Fox polling is not done by, you know, Bret Baier or Greta Van Suster and actually Greta Van Suster and hasn't been on Fox for a long time. The Fox polling is actually pretty good. Anticipating that, Bill Hemmer shows JD that there are polls from all sorts of polling agencies, including the right wing Wall Street Journal that indicate that Trump is underwater on the economy. So that JD can't just go, well Fox polling is no good. So instead JD Goes to a different one which is blame Biden. It seems like you're pushing a car

Senator Chris Murphy (49:03)

uphill and you've got nine months to turn it around.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (49:06)

You know Democrats are juice, they are

Senator Chris Murphy (49:08)

ready to vote tomorrow.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (49:10)

Do you have enough Runway to get this economy where it needs to be before November?

J.D. Vance (49:17)

Well Bill, in some ways we are pushing a car uphill because the Biden administration left us in such a disaster of an economy. The highest peacetime debt in American history, skyrocketing inflation. A lot of Americans who had lost $3,000 was how much the average American had lost in take home pay. Now in a year we've actually seen the average American gain about twelve hundred dollars in take home pay.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (49:39)

Of course that ignores the additional cost of tariffs and the fact that cost of living has continued to go up even though they promised it would go down and the cost of groceries has continued to go up even though they said it would go down.

J.D. Vance (49:50)

But if you're sitting at home from the perspective of the Biden administration, you are still worse off than you were when Joe Biden take took over. So we are absolutely pushing that car uphill. But here's the good news, Bill. I think we're about to get over the hump. I think that tax season is around very soon on the corner. A lot of Americans because of no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (50:13)

Remember that there is no provision in the tax bill for no tax on Social Security. They keep repeating it, but it's not true. And in fact I got a bunch of emails after the State of the Union from viewers saying, hey, I'm a Social Security recipient, I'm paying tax on Social Security. I'm wondering why does he, why does Trump keep repeating that they're about to

J.D. Vance (50:30)

get a massive tax income refund? We've seen this massive, trillions and trillions of dollars coming into our country to build new factories. Those construction jobs are starting to hit the economy. Then the manufacturing jobs, once those factories are built will hit the economy too. So I, I think that we've got a lot of momentum here. But the president said this last night, we inherited a mess.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (50:51)

Yeah, if voters still, it's March, almost March of 26. If voters are feeling squeezed on groceries, housing, insurance, childcare, gas, your explanation is the last guy did it. How long is that going to work? Blame has to have some expiration date. Especially when you, you ran a campaign on immediately and quickly fixing everything. And now they're like, I think this is the year we're finally going to get to it.

Donald Trump (51:14)

It.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (51:15)

This is a much deeper issue than this clip. Vance isn't disputing the numbers because he was given numbers from three different pollsters. He doesn't argue that the polling is flawed because he can't get away with that this time. He also doesn't present any counter data. He doesn't explain how Trump's policies are measurably improving affordability because they're not. He just goes backwards and he's like, hey, you know, things were really bad under Biden, but we're trying to fix them. That is a political, it's, it's a political gag reflex and it reveals what, where they are. For months their messaging has been strongest economy ever, historic growth, incredible success, everyone's winning. The polling shows people aren't buying it. Voters are saying the economy is no good. Trump's handling of the economy is no good. And so because they're 19 points underwater on the economy, they can't insist we fixed it. So they go back to actually it isn't so good, but it's Biden's fault. Anything bad is Biden's fault, but we've improved it dramatically and soon it'll be good, but it's not and it's Biden's fault, but it's much better. And then give us praise for that. And if it sounds like a dizzying mumbo jumbo, it is. When your own friendly network, Fox News shows you in double digit disapproval, net disapproval on the economy, that's a real problem. And so JD Vance is short circuit. It's not dramatic, he's not yelling, it's subtler. And he's defaulting to an old script that they go back to because the current one's not working. And it's a defense in year two of a presidency that we inherited a mess. They will be saying that I predict into year four of this administration, if it were really going well, you would have no reason to look backwards and to point backwards. Now we have some historical examples that I think are interesting. Reagan in 84 ran on it's morning in America. Bill Clinton in the late 90s pointed to wage growth and job creation. Obama in 2012 ran on factual economic recovery metrics. After the financial crisis. They none of them ran on. Look at the previous administration, look at what we were handed. They were all able to run on what is happening now. Reagan was running on what is happening now. Clinton was running on look at what happened in my first term. Obama was running on look at what happened in my first term. Vance's answer is notable because they have no confidence in simply running on the right now because voters are perceiving this gap between here's what they're telling me, here's what I'm living and prices are high and housing is high. And there's a disconnect here. You can only blame your predecessor for so long. When confronted with uncomfortable data, even in a friendly environment, he doesn't counterpunch with evidence. He looks in the rearview mirror, and that is defensiveness. 19 points underwater on the issue which supposedly Republicans are the strongest on. If that's the best you've got, you're in trouble in November. That's for sure. Are you stuck staring at your W2? Are tax refund worries holding you back? You probably have FOMO the fear of messing up the fix using TurboTax on Intuit credit Karma. They find every credit and deduction to help you get every refund dollar you deserve or your money back. It's time to overcome your fear of messing up and get your taxes done right. Start filing today in the Credit Karma app.

David Pakman (54:44)

Just a short break with something useful.

Casey Means (54:46)

Spring, summer or fall, there's always yard work to do.

David Pakman (54:50)

TikTok shows quick, easy gardening ideas you can use today. No experience needed. Download TikTok now.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (54:58)

The David Pakman show is an audience supported program and the best, most direct way to support the show is by becoming a member. @join pacman.com you'll get the Daily Bonus show, the daily commercial free show, and plenty of other great membership perks. Get the full experience by signing up@join pacman.com they are now apparently confessing to crimes on live television. The latest one is that the Trump administration is stopping certain Medicaid funding to the State of Minnesota on the basis of supposed Medicare and Medicaid fraud, which has been, I would argue, unfairly blamed on the Somali population. Now, is there Medicare and Medicaid fraud in the United States? Yes, there is. Is some of it presumably committed by people of a variety of ethnic backgrounds, including just American born white people? Yes, but what's happening here is being done for political reasons because they're now obsessed with Somalia and Minnesota. Let's take a listen to what J.D. vance had to say.

J.D. Vance (56:09)

So we're announcing today that we have decided to temporary, temporarily halt certain amounts of Medicaid funding that are going to the State of Minnesota in Order to ensure that the state of Minnesota takes its obligations seriously to be good stewards of the American people's tax money. Now, what is this going to mean? What this means is that, first of all, the providers on the ground in Minnesota have actually already been paid. The state has paid those providers the money. What we're doing is we are stopping the federal payments that will go to the state government until the state government takes its obligations seriously to stop the fraud that's being perpetrated against.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (56:52)

You know, there's a key thing that JD Mentions there. The money's already been appropriated. We're just not going to send it. Remember that Congress controls federal spending. That's in the Constitution. When Congress appropriates money for Medicaid, the executive branch is required to spend it according to the law. It's not the president or the vice president or Dr. Oz's discretion to pause the funding because they don't like the behavior of a certain state. If Minnesota is violating Medicaid rules, there is a formal legal process to investigate that, to address it and to have consequences. You don't get to invent a pause on live tv. And withholding congressionally approved funds for political reasons is exactly what the Impoundment Control act was designed to prevent when Nixon tried this in the 1970s. So they seem to be breaking the law. But what's another law breaking action from an administration that does it all the time? Then we heard from Dr. Oz, with J.D. vance standing behind him saying that basically the same thing, they're going to be deferring funds.

Donald Trump (57:54)

I mean, the swamp of the crooks that have inhabited it and are defrauding us. There are three bold actions. The first, and for many of you may be the most important, is we're going to, for the first time, take a massive action to defer funds to a state. Let's start with this Medicaid program in Minnesota, which serves pregnant women. Medicaid takes care of our children. 53% of kids are born in the. In the poverty. They're supported through Medicaid. Disadvantaged seniors, individual disabilities. It's unponderable that you would take advantage of these precious programs, yet they are putting it at risk, all of it, by stealing the money. So it's our duty to preserve Medicaid. And what we're going to do is identify the scammers, which we have done in Minnesota. We identified that they've hijacked, in particular, a certain part of the Minnesota Medicaid system. Said differently, and I'll just put the numbers out There it's going to be $259 million of deferred payments for Medicaid to Minnesota, which we're announcing as I speak to Governor Walsh and his team. That's based on an audit of the last three months of 2025, restated. A quarter billion dollars is not going to be paid this month to Minnesota for its Medicaid claims. Now, that's a million, rather a quarter billion dollars of money. That's your money. It's your taxpayer money. And these home and community based services, which again, are services that are typically things you would do for your family, but for whatever reason, your family's not there to provide, provide them, are very hard to audit. And for that reason, there's been a lot of slippage. The guardrails have not been well maintained. And if you're not serious about the integrity of the program, you'll see these problems.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (59:25)

So similar stuff from Dr. Oz. We're pausing the money. These funds are for actual health care services guaranteed by federal law. And if an administration is withholding these funds outside of a formal enforcement process, which there isn't here, they haven't done investigations, adjudicated them and then said, we're holding certain funds, this is very legally dubious. Medicaid is governed by federal statute. If a state qualifies under federal, under the law, the federal government has to provide these matching funds. There's no, well, we kind of think you might be mismanaging things clause that lets the executive branch just go, we're not going to give you the money. Now, J.D. vance was actually asked, what is the legal authority here, which is a phenomenal question from a reporter. How can you do this given that the funds have been appropriated? You're, you're legally mandated. And Here is what J.D. vance says.

J.D. Vance (60:18)

Yes. On the second thing, actually, Marco briefed me about 15 minutes ago on it, but we don't know a whole lot of details.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (60:24)

And so, and he's first answering a

J.D. Vance (60:25)

different, I'll defer to, to the White House to provide more updates as we get them. Certainly, you know, a situation that we're monitoring, hopefully it's not as bad as we fear it could be. But, but can't say more because I just don't know more on the question of the legal authorities. I mean, inherent in Congress's assigning of the administration, actually, you know, we're the ones who spend this money. Congress appropriates it. We're the ones who actually make sure this goes to the people it ought to go to. And inherent in that is making sure that it only goes to the people that Congress says that it should go to.

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (60:58)

This is total legal bullshit. Like I said to you before, the process is Congress appropriates the money and the executive branch disperses it. It is not subject to the White House deciding who has earned the money. If you suspect fraud or any specific malfeasance, there's an investigation process. They haven't done it otherwise, presidents could punish states they don't like, which is, of course, exactly what Donald Trump is doing here. Let's talk about something that should really be setting off your authoritarian warning light. Donald Trump took to Truth Social after a couple of congresswomen, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, yelled out and heckled Trump during the State of the Union and says that they should be removed from the country. Let's first just. I'm going to quickly remind you what happened at the State of the Union. Trump is speaking. And then you will hear and see Congresswoman Omar and Talib yelling at Trump. That is why I'm also asking you

Donald Trump (62:09)

to end deadly sanctuary cities that protect the criminals and enact serious penalties for public officials who block the removal of criminal aliens, in many cases, drug lords, murderers all over our country.

Harry Enten (62:25)

They're blocking the removal of these people

David Pakman (Analysis/Commentary) (62:28)

out of our country. All right, you get the picture. So that's what happened. So Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump takes the truth Social and he says, quote, when you watch low iq, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib as they screamed uncontrollably last night at the very elegant State of the Union, such an important and beautiful event. They had the bulging bloodshot eyes of crazy people, lunatics, mentally deranged and sick, who frankly look like they should be institutionalized. When people behave like that and knowing that they are crooked and corrupt politicians so bad for our country, we should send them back from where they came as fast as possible. They can only damage the United States. They can do nothing to help it. They should actually get on a boat with Trump. Deranged Robert De Niro, another sick and demented person with, I believe, an extremely low IQ who has absolutely no idea what he is doing or saying, some of which is seriously criminal. Ok, so the whole point here is Ilhan Omar is a naturalized US Citizen. Rashida Tlie was born in Detroit. Robert De Niro was born in Manhattan. Now, this is not really about immigration enforcement. This is the president of the United States suggesting deportation for elected officials and a private citizen because they oppose him. And two of them yelled during a speech. Now, I believe the most important thing is the following, because I know my audience is very split about the role and influence of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib on the Democratic Party. You don't have to like screaming at the State of the Union. I kind of don't like it. I didn't like it when they did it to. When Republicans did it to Obama. I just don't like it. And I know some people go, no, David, I do like it. This is how you get attention. Cool it. It doesn't matter. Is the point either you like or you don't like. Maybe you think it cheapens the moment. Maybe you think it's the only way to confront the president who doesn't care what people say. It doesn't actually matter. You don't have to agree with Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib or Robert De Niro. You might disagree with them. That is not the point. The point is that in a democracy, yelling at the president is not grounds for exile, and it is certainly not grounds for institutionalization. Deportation. Members of Congress are allowed to protest. They're allowed to be rude. They're allowed to be wrong. If that's what you believe they are. They're allowed to oppose the president. That's how the system works. Trump isn't insulting them, although he is. He's reframing dissent as illegitimacy. If you criticize him harshly enough, you don't belong. If you embarrass him publicly, you should be removed from the country. That is authoritarian logic. Authoritarian leaders don't argue that their opponents are mistaken. They argue that their opponents are foreign, diseased, mentally unstable, or criminal. And then they strip them of belonging and they suggest they're not really members of this country. That's the language of institutionalized, excuse me, mentally deranged, low iq. Send them back, get on a boat. That's what that is. It's dehumanizing rhetoric from a sitting president. And he closes the post by saying the country is bigger, better, richer, and stronger than ever. And his critics are angry because of that. If that were true, sir, you wouldn't be threatening deportations over what is, at the end of the day, heckling Confident leaders don't respond to shouting with exile language. Remember that when Barack Obama would get heckled, he would very calmly go, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on a second, hold on a second. And depending on the circumstances, he would say, let's let those who are supposed to be speaking speak. Or let's address that and let me explain to you why you're wrong or whatever. So Trump's behavior is happening in an environment where they've normalized sweeping deportation rhetoric and they've deliberately blurred lines around who belongs. And so recall that political conflict in democracies stays in the system. You argue, you vote, you win or lose. You don't say, let's remove citizens from the country. You can dislike behavior, you can disagree with the politics, but when presidents start saying opponents should be sent back for what, at the end of the day are opinions and speech, this is much bigger than decorum at the State of the Union. It's how do we design power to function in a democracy? Who counts as an American, which is a classic trope for authoritarians. You don't count and you don't count. And I decide who really belongs here. We have a great bonus show for you today. We will talk more about the protests of Trump's State of the Union. We will talk about the letters Kansas sent to trans drivers demanding the surrender of their licenses. And we will talk about the latest insider trading case against an editor for Mr. Beast. This is very interesting. All of these stories and more on today's bonus show.