Jerome Powell (4:35)

But the thing that I think good number of people on the committee are concerned about is just the very, very low level of job creation. If you, if you adjust what has been the trend, job creation over the past, let's say six months, if you adjust that for what we think our staff thinks is the, the overstatement due to over counting. Effectively there's zero net job creation in the private sector. But actually that looks like that's about what the economy needs in terms of, of dealing with very, very low, nonexistent, really growth in the labor force, which of course, we've never had in our, in our history. So you've got a sort of a zero employment growth equilibrium. Now. That's, that's balance. Okay. But you know, I would say it does have a feel of downside risk and it's not kind of a really comfortable balance.

David Pakman (5:27)

So you Know, one of the things that this administration started regurgitating disgustingly when the jobs numbers started going south was this isn't a bad thing, folks, because we're losing government jobs, which is what we promised. This is the way that they hid behind the increasingly poor jobs numbers by saying, we promised through Doge and with Elon Musk and the things that we were going to do, we were going to get rid of some of these, according to them, wasteful government jobs. So when you see jobs lost, it's actually a good thing because that's taxpayer money that is being saved. Meanwhile, we keep spending more and more money, the deficit keeps going up. It's not like they solved that issue, but they were able to argue for a short period of time to what we promised. We said we would cut the government jobs, and we have. But Jerome Powell now says, no, we're talking about private sector job growth. The private sector is where Trump said we would see growth, like we have never been able to do so before, to quote George W. Bush. And we're not seeing it. Jerome Powell asked a good question. Is inflation going up right now because of the oil shock alone? And Jerome Powell says, well, that's part of it, but it's not all of it.

Howard Schneider (Reuters Reporter) (6:46)

Thank you, Howard Schneider with Reuters. Just to follow up a little bit and to be clear, is the higher inflation penciled in here for 2026 solely the result of the oil shock or something else?

Jerome Powell (7:01)

So that's going to be part of it, but you know, that wouldn't be most of core. Right. So the oil shock for sure shows up here. Some of that will be in core as well, but yes, but no. There's also just the feeling that we haven't seen, you know, the progress that we had hoped for on core goods and on tariffs and on the rest of it. You know, we've, we've. So for whatever reason, people did write up their inflation forecast that will certainly be tied to events in the Middle east and the price of oil. But it's also, I think, a reflection of the slow progress we've seen on tariffs, which we believe we will see. It's just a question of how long it takes for them to get all the way through the economy.

David Pakman (7:42)

The oil shock is part of the inflation problem and the tariffs are part of the inflation problem, both of which were completely optional. Trump didn't have to do tariffs and Trump didn't have to invade Iran. So we have an administration that ran on. Everybody else is going to see your prices go up. But I am going to drop prices quickly as soon as I get into office. And in fact, the two major drivers of higher prices are optional things that Donald Trump has chosen to do. Where are the magazines? Well, some of them are turning on Trump. We'll get to that later. Jerome Powell weighing in on the risk to the labor market. And he says it's downside risk for the labor market and it is upside risk for inflation, meaning the likely path is losing jobs, prices up. I'm trying to think, is that what

Jerome Powell (8:39)

Trump promised us, seeing these two goals in a situation where the risks to the labor market are to the downside, which would call for lower rates and the risks to inflation are to the upside, which would call for higher rates or not cutting anyway.

David Pakman (8:52)

And then finally, and this is just remarkable, Jerome Powell says half of core inflation right now, maybe even three quarters, is because of Trump's tariffs.

Audience/Interjection (9:05)

Wow.

Jerome Powell (9:05)

And if you look at total inflation, sorry, total core inflation, it's about 3% and some big chunk of that between a half and three quarters is actually tariffs. So we're looking for progress on Trump

David Pakman (9:17)

is the person whose policies are responsible for what's going on right now. Now on tomorrow's show, I'm going to delve into the slow realization within this administration that, number one, this is worse than many believed, number two, that it will likely continue getting worse. And number three, there is a growing sense of panic to try to back out of whatever they can back out of. But it's kind of too late in a lot of ways. Which that specific aspect, the too late to back out, too late to taco, as we like to say, is something we've been talking about now for several weeks. And the administration is quickly, excuse me, quickly realizing it. So now we go to wow, I have a frog in my throat. I must have been, I must have caught something on that flight home which was, by the way, not even a little bit delayed. I got through TSA beautifully despite the warnings of many in the audience. But the next layer to this inflation numbers which they are not happy about. Over on Fox News we have delightful video to play for you of Maria Bartiromo and other Fox and Fox Business hosts coping with bad inflation data that has plagued us over the last 24 hours. Here is Maria Bartiromo as we were awaiting the inflation numbers going oh, these numbers are not good. Not good is a direct quote from Maria Bartiromo, a big time Trump sucker.

Maria Bartiromo (10:51)

The Dow industrials down about 16 points. Again, we are waiting on the producer price index out any second here. Cheryl Cassoni with the number. Cheryl. These numbers are much hotter than expected, guys. For February PPE month over month, a 7, 10 of a percent jump. Street was looking for a gain of 3, 10 of a percent year over year. We came in 3.4% annualized basis. The street was looking for 2.9%. That's the reading that we got the month prior. So again, hotter than expected. We got 5, 10 of a percent for core month over month. The street was looking for 3, 310 of a percent to the upside and

David Pakman (11:25)

to bolt to sort of bottom line this. Every one of these inflation indicators came in at roughly double what was expected.

Maria Bartiromo (11:32)

And then we came in core year over year, 3.9%. The street was looking for 3.7%. There's, and there's, the markets are reflecting what we're seeing here as far as these numbers. I'm going to get to the report. I want to see what the government is saying here about where this rise was because it wasn't energy last month. I can tell you that from a, from memory. What they're saying here is, okay, so for final demand goods, we saw an increase of 1.1%.

David Pakman (11:59)

So now they go in to try to decipher exactly which elements are causing this. But notice that even on the inflation issue, we are now about to touch 4% inflation. And under Biden, 4% inflation as it was coming down from the COVID spike was a disaster. But now we are back up to 3.9, nearly 4% inflation under Donald Trump. But they are going to keep insisting prices are down. Well, by definition they're not. Prices are up 3.9% year over year. Other Fox hosts panicking over this disaster inflation report. They are trying to figure out how do we, how do we do narrative management here? Because the numbers are simply not with us.

Fox News Commentator (12:37)

I'm really, really not happy about this inflation and I know it's one data point. The Fed looks through it, we try to look at two or three month trends but this does not look good to me And I don't like sitting here after everything we're talking about and saying, oh well, okay, but it's just one month because unfortunately March is guaranteed 95% chance to get worse than what we saw. So core goods prices are up by 3, 10 of 1%. You're up 4.3% year over year. That's just correct. Core goods, prices, services. Inflation was up 6, 10 of 1% in December, 810 of 1% in January.

David Pakman (13:19)

5 the specifics, it's more that they're they're not happy. They're acknowledging that this is not what they were promised. And all of a sudden they are having narrative difficulties. They're not technical difficulties, but they're having narrative difficulties over on Fox News. Now, just for comparison, here, here is a more, much more sober report from CNBC about this inflation data and the phrase the worst of all worlds and the term stagflation are now being used.

Rick Santelli (13:50)

What does that tell you? I mean, I understand the short term we're taking the Fed activity out from the two year and that's why you see those spreads kind of get compressed. The long end. Does that tell you anything about how people are seeing the health of the economy down the road, or is it something else?

CNBC Commentator (14:07)

I do think that there is part of that reflected in this as well. It's almost the worst of both worlds. I guess stagflation would come close to describing the situation. We're probably not going to see Fed easing and the long end, well, part of it is weakness. We've had a spat of some fairly weak numbers. And then you put in the fact that we are on the PC, you know, 3% handle on some of the Fed's favorite metrics. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out today, it would be very difficult even for some of the recent appointees to think that easing could even be on the menu at this or even very close subsequent meetings down the road.

David Pakman (14:47)

So what Rick Santelli is saying there, and I disagree with him about a lot of things, but he's right about this. This is not an environment where, where the Fed is going to come in and cut rates to try to bail out the stock market because we have significant and deeper problems taking place here under Biden. There was global high inflation at the beginning of Biden's term because of COVID Because of COVID And as that came down globally and faster in the United States under Biden than it did in our cohort countries around the world, you had an economic situation that was reflective of global economic conditions, including the black swan event of the COVID pandemic. We have nothing like that right now. What we are seeing right now, as jobs are declining and inflation is going up and the stock market is in a freefall and gas prices are up. I think it's 42% over the last two months, an insane number for imagine if gas prices were up 42% under Biden in two months. It is a result of Donald Trump's terrible policy, his tariff policy and his decision to go into Iran into An optional war. So where is this going to go? Well, none of it looks good and every serious economist is forecasting major problems. One thing we are trying, this is so minor in comparison, but just to try to make something out of it, we are going to be releasing Trump's gas on Monday. Now don't, you don't need to go looking for the gas masks right away. What I mean is that we are going to do a one week membership drive starting Monday where we will discount our memberships on our website, which is the way that this show kind of survives. We're going to discount them down to the cost of a gallon of gas. And so that is going to be roughly a 50% discount. And each day we will match the discount to the price of a gallon of gas on the open market. So if you would like to avail yourself of that opportunity Monday, just get on my newsletter@substack.david pakman.com you'll get an email which will say, here's Trump's gas today. And therefore here is how you can get a discounted membership down to that level. Let's take a break. After the break. Maybe the most belligerent threat from this administration I think we've ever seen. Sometimes there's something uniquely nostalgic about breakfast cereal. I remember Saturday mornings getting up before everybody else, having a little cereal while watching cartoons. Our sponsor, Magic Spoon, is like the grown up version of that experience. It's high protein, low sugar, tastes like those cereals you remember from childhood. Each serving has 12 to 14 grams of protein, 0 to 2 grams of sugar and 4 to 5 grams of net carbs. It works for breakfast or a late night snack or after a workout. They've got flavors like Fruity Frosted Peanut Butter, Cocoa and Cinnamon Crunch. They launched marshmallow flavors, classic marshmallow and S'. Mores. Magic Spoon also makes treats, which are crispy protein snack bars with 12 grams of protein, 7 grams of fiber, 0 grams of added sugar, easy to throw in your bag. You can find Magic Spoon on Amazon or at your nearest grocery store, but you will also get $5 off if you go to magic spoon.com/pacman. The link is in the description. I believe that this is the scariest thing that Donald Trump has ever said as he quickly realizes that this entire Iran thing is a total fiasco. It's imploding the American economy and therefore it is imploding his presidency. Trump is also realizing that once you start a war, ending it can be difficult. It's not simply you saying I now end the war and then that's it and your economy recovers, which, by the way, is something that I have been warning about now for three weeks. So we have a complete and total fiasco. And Trump is also realizing that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tricked and baited him into going into this war. And now the fallout is seemingly bottomless, never ending. And so Donald Trump is issuing pleas and dictates to Israel and to Qatar and to Iran. But it may all be too late. I'm going to show you the post. My concern here is that a terrified cornered Trump, much like a terrified cornered animal, is a dangerous and violent volatile thing liable to do anything he thinks might help save his presidency. Let's check out the post that Donald Trump made late last night. Quote, Israel, out of anger for what has taken place in the Middle east, has violently lashed out at a major facility known as South Parr's gas Field in Iran. A relatively small section of the hole has been hit. The United States knew nothing about this particular attack and the country of Qatar was in no way, shape or form involved with it, nor did they have any idea that it was going to happen. Unfortunately, Iran did not know this or any of the pertinent facts pertaining to the South Pars attack and unjustifiably and unfairly attacked a portion of Qatar's LNG gas facility. No more attacks will be made by Israel pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars field unless Iran unwisely decides to attack a very innocent, in this case, Qatar, in which case, in which instance, the United States of America, with or without the help or consent of Israel, will massively blow up the entirety of the South Pars gas field at an amount of strength and power that Iran has never seen or witnessed before. I don't want to authorize this level of violence and destruction because of the long term implications it will have on the future of Iran. But if Qatar's LNG is attacked, is again attacked, I will not hesitate to do so. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Now consider just the surface level. Like we'll do a deeper analysis of all of the geopolitical implications. But just take what Trump is saying at its face for a moment and realize how completely deranged this is. Trump is saying I'm mad that Israel attacked the South Pars gas field in Iran. Okay, he's mad about that. He says Iran then attacked Qatar's gas facility in response. He's also mad about that. And Trump is threatening if Iran does Another attack against Qatar. Trump himself will go and attack the South Pars gas field, which he's currently angry with Israel for having attacked. Consider how remarkably stupid this is. He's furious about an attack Israel did on the gas field, and he says, if Iran retaliates against Qatar, I'm so mad about the attack on the oil, on the, on the gas field that I will attack it.

Narrator/Host (21:59)

What?

David Pakman (22:00)

This is totally deranged. Either this is like some 11D chess that we do not have the cognitive capacity to analyze and think about, or Trump's clueless and desperate. And I believe that it's the latter. Now, I've been warning for weeks, and it's happening. And I don't. I'm not patting myself on the back because it was such an obvious prediction. Trump, when he started with, this will be a few days. It might be three weeks, four weeks, five weeks, whatever. It's premised on the belief that when Trump says, this is over, it's over. But we are very quickly seeing that that is not the case. It's not the case because Israel can keep attacking even if Donald Trump goes, hey, you know what? I'm kind of crushing our economy. This is not so good. Gas is up 42%, stocks are in freefall, we're losing jobs. Other countries can say, well, we're going to keep going. Iran as the attacked country, they may not be ready for someone else to tell them when this is over. In fact, they might be waiting for Trump to say it's over, which Trump has kind of said three times. Even though we keep escalating the strikes, I mean, none of it is coherent. It's extraordinarily delusional. Iran might say, well, we're now going to keep attacking whoever, because we're furious about what was done here. The real bigger danger is that desperation on the behalf of Trump, plus access to nukes, plus being kind of dumb, is a very dangerous combination. And the fear that is buried somewhere deep down from me is that if Trump gets desperate enough and angry enough that he goes, let's just send a nuke. Let's, let's, let's end this thing with a nuke. And that would be a very bad situation. And quite frankly, I have no idea whether the people around Donald Trump would be positioned to dissuade him from doing that. I hope that they would. I hope Trump would listen. But Trump is not exactly one for being talked out of stuff. Sometimes it's possible, but it is not frequently the way that Trump operates. So a terrifying declaration from Donald Trump, as incoherent as it is dystopian, and it has left Caroline Levitt, his White House press secretary, really unable to do anything and say anything coherent. You've got to see Caroline Levitt's bait and switch here. Caroline Levitt is in an impossible position where she is having to lie so much that she's wearing larger and larger cross necklaces. The more she's going to lie on any particular day, the bigger the cross necklaces. And boy, was it a big one here. Caroline Levitt is now switching what the objective of the Iran war is, I guess, to try to argue that the US Is has or is about to achieve that objective. And so the new one is it's not regime change, it's not nuclear capabilities or even nuclear capabilities. It is ballistic missiles capabilities. There is one little problem with Caroline Levitt claiming that that's the whole point. I will tell you what that problem is in a moment.

Reporter (25:12)

Well, I'm a question leave that to others, which is very simply, can the president declare this war effort a success if the US does not retreat Iran's nuclear fuel?

Caroline Levitt (White House Press Secretary) (25:22)

Ms. Look, that's something the president has refused to comment on. It's an option on the table for him, but I'm not going to comment on it or take it off the table. We've defined the objectives of Operation Epic Fury very clearly, which is, of course, to wipe out Iran's ballistic missile arsenal, which we have been very successful in doing. We've achieved dominance over the skies of Iran to annihilate their navy, which we have done. According to centcom. This morning I received the updated numbers. More than 120 naval vessels are at the bottom of the sea because of our United States armed forces. That's a great thing for the American people. That's a great thing for our allies in the region. And of course, to ensure that, yes, Iran cannot permanently, permanently cannot possess a nuclear weapon is something this president has long said for decades.

David Pakman (26:09)

All right, so we now have a reorg of the priorities. And the number one that Caroline is mentioning, which was not mentioned at all at the beginning, but they slowly tried to introduce it as they realize that some of their other objectives are very unlikely to be achieved, is that the wiping out of Iran's ballistic missiles capabilities was a primary and maybe the primary and important goal in going into Iran. The only issue with that is is that Iran's ballistic missiles can't reach the United States. And that would mean that the decision to go in was made on the basis of something that does not present a credible nor imminent threat to the United States. We also know that there was no credible risk to our bases in the region. And so when Caroline Levitt goes, well, the main thing, the number one objective that I'm mentioning was the destruction of ballistic missiles capabilities in it completely undercuts and throws in the toilet and flushes the idea that this was necessary, that this was imminent, that this was existential, and Trump simply had to go in. Of course, I don't know that Caroline Levitt realizes that she's trying to get through the next day of covering up Trump's lies and distortions and disasters. A reporter asks Caroline Trump didn't consult Naito before the war began, so why does Trump now expect Naito allies to help? And Caroline Levitt spits out an impenetrable word salad President's been focusing on.

Reporter (27:46)

He did not consult NATO before the war began. And it's a defensive alliance, obviously, that doesn't traditionally engage in the Middle east preemptively. Why is it fair for the present to expect NATO allies to help now after the fact?

Caroline Levitt (White House Press Secretary) (28:02)

NATO allies benefit far more from the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz than the United States does. As you know, thanks to this president's energy agenda, we are a net exporter of oil. We have enough resources here at home for our people, and that's a good thing, thanks to President Trump. The strait opening is obviously good for America because it will stabilize the global oil industry, it will bring prices down again.

David Pakman (28:26)

But it's great if you're like, what the hell is she talking about?

Caroline Levitt (White House Press Secretary) (28:29)

Benefits?

David Pakman (28:29)

That's the right reaction.

Caroline Levitt (White House Press Secretary) (28:30)

Europe and our allies in Naito, and the President wants to see them do more. Look, I think you guys know this. One of the President's guiding principles is fairness. And he's long called out Naito for being what he believes sometimes an unfair alliance for the American taxpayer and our American military. You look at the billions of dollars we spend housing US Troops on the soil of our, of our NATO ally countries. That's a benefit to them because it serves as a deterrent.

David Pakman (28:58)

I've got to stop this. This is a meaningless word salad. What the administration fundamentally tried to argue at first is that, listen, if we're in Naito, there is a shared defense responsibility. It's Article 5 of Naito. And so now that the Strait of Hormuz is shut down and ships are being bombed, which of course is terrible, and I don't want that to be going on, and it wouldn't if Donald Trump hadn't invaded Iran. Now that that's happening in the Strait of Hormuz, our Naito allies have a responsibility and a duty to come in and help us defend that. But of course, that's not what Article 5 says. Article 5 is about the shared defense responsibility when a Naito country is attacked. A NATO country hasn't been attacked. Trump chose to do an optional war in Iran, and now he wants other countries to help defend and open up the Strait of Hormuz. But that is a completely different thing than the shared defense responsibility under Article 5 of Naito. Now that they realize that that's bogus and that that's been widely debunked, they go to, well, it's, it's in their interest to do it because of the oil that's going through. And these are, these are nonsense explanations. Finally, as it increasingly seems as though there is no plan here, Caroline reassures us there is a plan that the

Reporter (30:21)

allies seem to have rebuffed the President's

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) (30:23)

request for help, and now he says he no longer needs their help.

Reporter (30:27)

What is the plan to reopen Strait of Hormuz?

Caroline Levitt (White House Press Secretary) (30:29)

Quickly, the president is going to continue to talk to our allies, both in Europe and also in the Gulf and Arab region. The United States military has a lot of capabilities, as you have seen play out over the last 18 days, and they still do have tricks up their sleeve. I won't broadcast them for the media, but rest assured, there is a plan. They're working on it. We have seen some progress with respect to that.

David Pakman (30:52)

But, yeah, rest assured, even though since day one, it hasn't really seemed like there is a plan, rest assured, there is definitely a plan. Guys, I don't think there's a plan. And I don't think Caroline Levitt can really do this anymore because it is defending the indefensible. And Americans increasingly see the disaster that this is becoming. Let me know what you think. Leave a comment. And also, by the way, if you're watching on YouTube, make sure you're subscribed to the YouTube channel as we approach 4 million subscribers. All right. He actually said it. This should terrify you. Mark Wayne Mullen, a senator, terrible senator, just a horrible person with horrible political views, has been nominated to replace the fired Kristi Noem as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Mark Wayne Mullen's confirmation hearings have started. And when Senator Maggie Hassan asked Mark Wayne Mullen, if Trump tells you to do something that's illegal, would you follow the law or would you follow The President, Mark Wayne Mullen dropped a classic from 17 years ago, which I will show you in a moment. Mark Wayne Mullen pulled the. The President would never ask me to do something illegal. Take a look at this.

Senator Maggie Hassan (32:15)

I'm going to start with a question I have asked every one of the President's nominees. If directed by the President to take an action that would break the law, would you follow the law or follow the President's direction?

Mark Wayne Mullen (32:28)

Senator, thank you for the questions and thank you for the concerns. First of all, I've enjoyed working with you on several different issues. We've had very blunt conversations to answer your question. The President would never ask me to do that.

Senator Maggie Hassan (32:41)

Well, certainly everyday Americans who have served on juries would disagree with you about that. And the example he has set calls into question that answer.

David Pakman (32:52)

He would never ask me to do that. Now put aside for a moment that Donald Trump has been convicted of crimes. That Donald Trump has directed his administration to engage in all sorts of unlawful and unconstitutional behavior. I want to focus on that answer. The President would never ask me to do that. That is a classic cop out answer. And I will bring us back to the Iraq war era when an attorney for George W. Bush pulled the exact same thing. I was teleported back decades when I heard Mark Wayne Mullen pull that one out. That's not a new one. Listen, and remember to this incredible Kafka

Senate Hearing Chair (33:40)

esque moment, is there anything, Ms. Professor, you. That the President cannot order to be done to a suspect if he believed it necessary for national defense?

Counsel/Attorney (33:55)

Mr. Chairman, I think that goes back to the quote you just read because.

Senate Hearing Chair (33:59)

No, I'm just asking you the question. Maybe it does. Doesn't. But what do you think?

Counsel/Attorney (34:04)

I think it's the same question that I was asked.

Senate Hearing Chair (34:06)

Well, what's the answer?

Counsel/Attorney (34:08)

First, can I, Can I make clear. I'm not talking about.

Senate Hearing Chair (34:11)

You don't have to make anything clear. Just answer the question. Council,

Counsel/Attorney (34:16)

I just want to make sure. I'm not saying anything.

Senate Hearing Chair (34:18)

You don't have to worry about not saying. Just answer the question.

Counsel/Attorney (34:22)

Okay. My, My thinking right now.

Senate Hearing Chair (34:25)

Yes, right now.

Counsel/Attorney (34:26)

My thinking right now.

Senate Hearing Chair (34:27)

This moment.

Counsel/Attorney (34:27)

Yes, this moment, Mr. Chairman, is that you know, first the question you're posing.

Senate Hearing Chair (34:35)

What is the answer?

Counsel/Attorney (34:40)

Mr. Chair, I'm not trying to make you.

Senate Hearing Chair (34:42)

Ah, I get it.

Counsel/Attorney (34:44)

Okay, let me answer. I won't answer the question.

Senate Hearing Chair (34:46)

No, you, you waste. You're wasting my time. Look, Counsel, we've all practiced law. Holy. Could the President order a suspect buried alive?

Counsel/Attorney (35:03)

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that I've ever. I'm asking you that given the advice that the President could bury somebody alive.

Senate Hearing Chair (35:11)

I didn't ask you if you ever gave him advice. I asked you, do you think the President could order a suspect buried alive?

Counsel/Attorney (35:21)

Mr. Chairman, my view right now is that I don't think a President would. And no American President would ever order that or feel it necessary to order that.

David Pakman (35:32)

Nobody would ever do that. The President would never do that. They've been using that answer for decades, decades, when asked about the limits of presidential power. And it's very interesting because for decades the Republican Party has been arguing that they are the party of limited government power, restricting the power of the executive branch and all of this gobbledygook that we know they don't really mean. And for decades, when they're asked specific questions about the limits of presidential power, if the President says do something illegal, do you do it or don't you? They go with the exact same answer. The President would never ask me to do that. Except Trump does it all the time. Now after the break, we're going to get to my interview with Illinois Governor J.B. pritzker. I did it in person yesterday in Chicago with him. I had no Chicago style hot dogs, zero deep dish pizza the entire trip. And one of JB Pritzker's growing concerns is that this replacement of Kristi Noem with Mark Wayne Mullen. Yeah, Kristi Noem was a fool. She was embarrassed, she debased herself. But that Mark Wayne Mullen is going to be immediately, potentially worse. So after the break, my interview with JB Pritzker. Most guys I know wear underwear that is acceptable. It's not particularly comfortable, it's not really breathable. It's just like, okay, I guess it does the job. But many guys don't realize that there is a meaningful upgrade available. Our sponsor sheath is Underwear is that upgrade. She uses a dual pouch design up front which can separate and support. It reduces friction, it improves airflow all day. And instead of everything being pressed together like with traditional designs, you get the structure and the space that you deserve at the end of the day. The material is lightweight, it's soft, it's breathable, still supportive, high quality, holds its shape, doesn't bunch up. Once you try it, you'll notice the difference, especially on hot days. I've been wearing sheath for years. Sheath is one of those things you'll be glad you did every time you get dressed. Not just for men. Sheath also has a full women's line with the same focus on comfort and Quality, plenty of styles and colors. Go to sheath underwear.com/pacman and use the code PACMAN for 20% off. The link is in the description. Kristi Noem was an absolute disaster in the Department of Homeland Security and she got herself fired. But now Mark Wayne Mullen, a radical right wing senator, is Donald Trump's nominee to replace her. Well, what is he going to bring to the table? I asked Governor J.B. pritzker during an interview with him in Chicago yesterday. What does he think now represents the most dangerous aspect of Donald Trump's Cabinet secretaries? And he went very quickly to the rumors around what Mark Wayne Mullen is going to do. I also spoke with JB Pritzker about AI crypto and betting markets and whether Democrats need to stake out positions that are against those things or whether Democrats need to consider the degree to which young voters are in favor of a lot of those things in thinking about how to grow the base into future elections. It was a very interesting conversation with J.B. pritzker. A bunch of us creators were there. We had an off the record roundtable with him first. Then I had about 10 minutes to chat with him about a bunch of different issues. Let's take a look.

Interviewer (39:17)

Governor, we've talked a lot about how you fought ICE here in Illinois, worked with the mayor and maybe one of the more successful attempts at doing that. And lo and behold, Kristi Noem is now gone. So given that she's gone, I'm curious, as governor, who is the Trump cabinet secretary or top official that right now you think is the most dangerous for what's happening today in Illinois, where if you could say this is the person that has to go next, here's who it would be.

Governor J.B. Pritzker (39:45)

Well, when we're talking about ICE and cbp, of course it might be Mark Wayne Mullen. I mean, you know, he's, he's not the secretary yet, but he's clearly been designated. I guarantee he's already giving orders, thinking about what he's going to do. I've heard, you know, there's rumor, of course, that they're coming back to Chicago with thousands, possibly. I'm hoping that's not true, but it could be him because I know he's not the brightest bulb in the tree. He is a, an acolyte. He will do whatever he thinks will delight Donald Trump. And that's basically the extent of what he's going to do is, and that means he'll go overboard and, and do anything. So that's one, I mean, I guess I must say That I worry a lot about Hegseth, because Trump wants to deploy the military to our cities, American cities. He wants to disrupt the elections. And so it's going to take Hegseth in the mix of this to make that happen again. Mark Wayne Mullen is going to be part of that. But that cabal. But Hegseth, as you can see, has no limits. He's happy to. He'll deploy. He'll send them into your home and, you know, and take your family. I really think there's no end to the mischief and terrorizing that he's willing to do. So that's the one I'd probably say is next. Meanwhile, you know, I don't think there's any question that, that Stephen Miller is behind all of this. And we're going to have to deal with that when we can.

Interviewer (41:18)

In the last election, young people voted for Republicans at a sort of surprisingly high rate in 2024. I'm curious, when it comes to crypto AI and these betting markets, there are a lot of different views from Democrats as to how that should be handled. And I've read a little bit about your perspectives. There are young voters who are into those things.

David Pakman (41:39)

Do you think Democrats have to be

Interviewer (41:40)

kind of careful about going too far in the anti direction and maybe hurting themselves with the young voters?

Governor J.B. Pritzker (41:47)

Well, yeah. I mean, first of all, we're not Luddites. You know, nobody's trying to, like, shut them down, in my view. Now, you do have what I think is illegal, which is the prediction markets not getting sports betting licenses, but taking sports bets essentially on the prediction market. So that needs to go. That's illegal. It should be. And it should be found illegal in the courts. We're taking them to court. We're dealing with it here in Illinois. That's one aspect of it. But is crypto evil by itself or. No? I mean, but are there rational limits? Do we want to make sure there aren't scams being perpetrated on people? Yeah, we passed a law here to make sure that people aren't getting scammed. You know, there are the crypto ATMs that exist. Right. And by the way, there's some good companies that are doing that. But, you know, we need to make sure people aren't getting charged for things they shouldn't be. We've dealt with this in the banking world, but in the crypto world, it's new and it's a, you know, it's a new frontier that we've just got to be careful about, I think, because we're aware scams can occur.

Interviewer (42:44)

Would you regulate Bitcoin as a security?

Governor J.B. Pritzker (42:47)

I. It's a great question. I. Look, I think we all understand that Bitcoin has a huge advantage as a currency. Right. That, that, that there aren't all of the sort of barriers and sluggishness that occurs in the banking industry that that enriches people. We're in a situation where, frankly, we don't really need them in the middle.

David Pakman (43:08)

Yeah.

Governor J.B. Pritzker (43:09)

But it's also, we got to be awfully careful about, you know, bitcoin is also being used for purposes that I think are improper. And so what is the rational middle of that? I don't know the answer, but it definitely should not be that everybody goes to we're anti Bitcoin, as if there's something wrong inherently with a cryptocurrency. There isn't necessarily. And bitcoin has proven to be, I think, the most enduring and solid of all the cryptocurrencies. And we all talk about it as if it is, and I believe it is. There are some that I think are a little shakier. You know, there's. We ought to all be careful about that.

Interviewer (43:49)

Last thing I'll ask you about thinking about 2028, not personally, which I know we're not going to talk about today.

David Pakman (43:55)

I would love to talk about it,

Interviewer (43:56)

but I don't think I'll get any, any answers out of you about that. If we think about the candidate in 2024, Kamala Harris, and where she is on the political side spectrum, is your instinct that in 2028, the Democratic nominee should be politically to the left of Kamala Harris or closer to the center

David Pakman (44:13)

than where she was.

Governor J.B. Pritzker (44:14)

I think it's wrong to talk about it in ideological terms because I'll tell you what people are really looking for. They want to get things done, and they want people who know how to get things done. What I've been saying and I think is so important for people to recognize. Look, the one thing you could say I don't. Positive about what Donald Trump has done is he came in with an agenda, an agenda that he didn't tell you he had, but he had. They had written it. Project 2025.

Interviewer (44:40)

Yes.

Governor J.B. Pritzker (44:41)

And then they effectuated it in no time at all. Right. Flood the zone. Right. We've heard that. And, and I mean, it's challenging. It's awful. Their agenda, of course, is against working families and is about enriching Donald Trump and about a lot of other things. Tearing down the protections of people's rights. But we need our own agenda. You call it what you want. I'm just for simplicity, I'll say it's Project 2029, but we need to have our own agenda and it needs to have universal health care on it. It needs to have raising people's wages on it. It needs to have on it the things that I think matter in people's lives and we need to do it immediately. When I ran in 2017, 18, I ran on an agenda. And when I got elected and sworn into office in 2019, in about five months, we effectuated most or all of that agenda. Raising the minimum wage, building infrastructure, lowering cost of health care. We did. I mean, we did a lot and we did a very short period of time.

Interviewer (45:41)

Some of those things though, do sound like they are to the left of where Harris ran.

Governor J.B. Pritzker (45:45)

Again, I Left.

Counsel/Attorney (45:46)

Left.

Governor J.B. Pritzker (45:46)

Right. Here's what I think. People need health care.

David Pakman (45:48)

Yeah.

Governor J.B. Pritzker (45:49)

I don't know what you want to call that. I mean, I'm not. You're not calling it, but is that left? I mean, thinking everybody should have a doctor. I don't think that's on the left. I get that the Republicans are opposed.

Interviewer (45:59)

Yeah.

Governor J.B. Pritzker (46:00)

So if they're on the right. Yeah, we're on the left. You know, but everybody should have a doctor. You know, I believe that people should not be starving while working one or two full time jobs at $7 and 20, 25 cents.

David Pakman (46:13)

Yeah.

Governor J.B. Pritzker (46:13)

Why have we not taken that on? I think that was a mistake in 2024 that should have been rectified for sure. It needs to be rectified immediately. If not in 2028, somebody needs to run on it. We raise the minimum wage here to $15. That may not be enough anymore because of the inflation that we've experienced. So people aren't, you know, two jobs at $15 may not be enough. And I'm not suggesting people need two jobs. You ought to be able to earn it with one. One job. And so what is that wage? Let's determine it, let's pass it, let's make it happen. But these are all things that again, you can call it left if you want to. And look, I'm a Democrat. I believe though that we've got to make sure that people can afford housing, that they've got a doctor, you know, they can earn enough and that we have education in this country that actually helps you get ahead. So I don't know what you call that. Is that a left agenda? I think it's just, just an agenda about standing up for Working families. That is why I became a Democrat. I think that, you know, if you believe in Medicaid, Medicaid, Social Security, the Civil Rights act, the Voting Rights act and collective bargaining rights, I mean, which are all things I believe in. You're a Democrat, Governor. Thank you. Thank you.

David Pakman (47:20)

Appreciate your time.

Governor J.B. Pritzker (47:21)

Appreciate you.

David Pakman (47:22)

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 if I were JD Vance, I would be furious with the Trump administration and with Donald Trump and how they are trotting him out and sending him across the country to just do pathetic empty room speeches. This, it's just embarrassing. What's going on. Yesterday they sent J.D. vance to Michigan. Now, I've got video here of the kind of setup before the event starts. And as you can see, this is a tiny event. It's always staged so that on camera, when it's zoomed in, it looks like a big rally crowd. There's a couple dozen people here, here, okay? And maybe most importantly, the premise of this is to show that manufacturing jobs are growing. And all. We know that that's not true. We know that the manufacturing job index is lower than it has been in years and that those manufacturing jobs are not coming back. And it's all extraordinarily pathetic. Now, when the event actually started, we have a shot here kind of from the side. And as you can, as it was ready to start, you see that there's just very few people here. There's. This is not like a big exciting event. It's almost an empty warehouse. So in comes J.D. vance. And if you thought the setup was bad, just wait until you hear J.D. vance trying to allay the economic concerns of the people in the audience. And here is how he tried to soothe the concerns of the people in the audience. I don't think it really landed very

J.D. Vance (49:21)

well that we actually worked with a lot of our allies all over the world who are suffering from this, frankly, more than we are. Because unlike the United States, where we pursued an energy dominance agenda, you've got a lot of people all over the world who have focused on a lot of green energy scams and they're hurting a lot more than we are. So as much as we've got, we've got to focus on getting these gas prices down. The reality is and overseas, they're feeling it far worse than we did.

David Pakman (49:53)

Oh, man. Think about that. And notice that the audience is silent. They were not buying this crap. If you're sitting there at home or even in this mostly empty warehouse wondering, when am I going to leave so you can get back to work? And you're wondering how to make ends meet. You're wondering, how do I make it to the end of the month? How do I balance the cost of child care, food, energy, gas, my car bill? Take comfort in the fact that people you will never meet in other countries are even worse off than you are. Oh, God. And it makes sense that nobody goes, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. That is a terrible way to calm people's fears. Now, he can't help but make it political. He goes, some of these other countries, they've fallen for the Green New scam, and so they're even worse off than you are. You're getting screwed, but they're like, really getting screwed. But what's really funny about that is now the whole thing is we don't have the Green New Deal. So things aren't that bad here. But when Biden was in power, they were all like, the Green New Deal has ruined everything. Even though the Green New Deal was never passed, it wasn't a thing. It wasn't the law. Yes, Biden had a couple things about EV chargers and efficiency in the Inflation Reduction act and in a couple other bills, but there was no Green New Deal. And so the Green New Deal is like a piece of putty that they can mold into whatever. If you want to attack Biden when he's president, you go, the Green New Deal is the explanation. If you want to blame Biden when Trump is president for something bad, you go, this stuff is happening because of the Green New Deal from Biden, even though it was never the law. But then if you want to make people feel better about economic misery, you go, listen, we should. We're fortunate here that we don't have the Green New Deal because it's screwing these other countries, which, of course, other countries also don't have a Green New Deal, but some of them do have stricter efficiency and energy standards than we do in the United States. J.D. acknowledging we have a rough road ahead of us, but it's temporary. And the audience is completely silent. They do not buy it.

J.D. Vance (52:11)

But, yeah, we've got. We got a rough road ahead of us for the next few weeks, but it's temporary. Next question.

David Pakman (52:18)

Silence. Silence. Because they don't buy it and they shouldn't you know, we talk about how the country failed an IQ test, a national IQ test, by electing Donald Trump a second time. And I think that that's true at macro scale. At the same time, people in general can read others and nobody is falling for this is not really that bad and it's going to be temporary. I, I spoke to, let me see how I can say this. I spoke to an economist in the last couple of days on the condition of anonymity because he or she does not want to essentially attract the ire of this administration. This is sort of a semi prominent economist and this economist said that they believe oil is going to $175 per barrel. Now, to give you a sense of the implications of that, oil right now is just under 100 bucks a barrel and gas has already spiked to $4 per gallon. The implied price for a regular gallon of gas under $7,175 oil is about $7 a gallon. For regular, that means you might see nine dollar a gallon premium or I don't even know. In some states the gap between regular and premium is even bigger. So people aren't falling for it. And the problem that they now have is that this stuff isn't going to be undone quickly again. If Trump could end the war today, which he can't. If Trump said the war is over, I don't know that Israel will accept that. I don't know that Iran will accept that. But imagine that Trump could, quote, end the war today. The disruption to the oil supply and the problems in the Strait of Hormuz are such that this oil and gas problem is going to extend and more than likely it's going to extend into the summer months as people do more travel and road trips. Typically you see demand for gasoline increase during that time and therefore the price of gas goes up. This is, this doesn't have a clean off ramp and this is a major problem. It's so major that they're sending J.D. vance to nearly empty warehouses with dead silent crowds where you could hear a pin drop to try to convince people things aren't really that bad. Congresswoman AOC Congress Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. She dropped what is implicitly a criminal bomb attacking the lies of Donald Trump. Now let's listen carefully to what she says because the interpretation is as or more important than simply the statements that she makes here. And this relates to Donald Trump's decision to go into Iran and things the administration previously said. Take a look every day.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) (55:09)

Congresswoman, a double standard with regard to the fact that, that experts estimate that Israel has between 90 and 400 nuclear missile heads, but all of the talk on Capitol Hill is about stopping the Iranians from getting there.

Audience/Interjection (55:22)

Well, I, I mean, a question on a double standard is different than,

Caroline Levitt (White House Press Secretary) (55:30)

like,

Audience/Interjection (55:30)

I think we need to focus on their, on their claims, period. And last year his administration had claim in their, in their unannounced strike back that they had destroyed. And so for them to, and say, oh, they were two seconds away from a nuclear weapon, I think doesn't add up. Their story doesn't add up. The threat doesn't add up. They provided no intelligence to Congress. They're just winging it. And one day it's, you know, their justification is on nuclear weapons. Another day it's not something else entirely.

David Pakman (56:12)

One of the most important things to consider here is that if there was not an imminent, the reason that this relates to criminality is that if there was not an imminent threat to the United States, Donald Trump needed congressional authorization to go into Iran. I know it's quaint. It's like, oh, that's so old fashioned, David. We don't do it that way anymore. Anymore. Well, the law is the law at the end of the day, and there is habitual flouting of law in a lot of cases, but the law is still the law. Only if there is an imminent threat would it be okay for a president to circumvent Congress and to say, we're going in. What AOC is arguing here is that if it is not true that they were two seconds from a nuclear weapon or whatever, and they've provided no such intelligence to Congress, which they haven't, and there's no reason to believe that, then it does make the entire thing illegal. And I know a lot of you will kind of yawn and go, yeah, okay, but what I'm not saying Trump will be held accountable for it. I'm just saying it particularly, it makes it particularly terrifying when, as we looked at earlier in the show, Senator Mark Wayne Mullen is asked, if Trump told you to do something against the law, would you follow the law or would you follow Trump? And he goes, the President would never have me do that. We seem to be in an entire war right now that's illegal by, by U.S. law. One more clip from AOC here on the concept of this as a war of choice.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) (57:37)

I was wondering what you make of, not just now, Marco Rubio's comments, but also Joe Kent's comments suggesting that Israel would pull the US Directly to the war, that there's no real threat. What do you think?

Audience/Interjection (57:47)

Well, I mean, Marco Rubio said it, you know, some of this stuff himself. You know, I think that we know without a doubt that this is a world choice, that Donald Trump has initiated all of these hostilities, killing American service members and innocent Iranians alike. And for. For no reason. He has a different reason every day.

David Pakman (58:18)

The justifications for this war, as AOC astutely points out, constantly shift. Was it nukes? Well, I thought we destroyed the nukes, but they rebuilt them. But there's no evidence of that. And Tulsi is asked, is there evidence of that? And she goes, I'm not going to get involved. It's ultimately the president's job to judge that. All right, so it doesn't seem like the nukes are really the thing. Well, it's regime change, right? We've got to get the ayatollah out. This has been going on for decades. Any president could have done it. But Trump had the strength and the intelligence and the willingness and the audacity to do it. Except the son of the ayatollah has already been placed in charge as the supreme leader of the regime. So I guess that would be a fail if that was the goal. All right, well, how about just like we were going to get rid of their ballistic missiles missile capabilities? Well, that really undercuts the idea that it was urgent because those ballistic missiles can't reach the United States and local bases there were not in danger. So if you're retreating all the way back to the point was merely to get rid of the ballistic missiles capabilities. That undercuts the idea of this being imminent, which makes it an illegal war. AOC seems to get it, but she seems careful about straight up saying it is a crime what Donald Trump did. But it appears as though that's the case if you are indeed following the law. We have a phenomenal bonus show today. There is huge drama over revelations that Cesar Chavez abused and raped women and girls. This has shaken a huge activist core severely and we will discuss it. We will talk about Joe Kent, the wildly right wing, groipery, anti Semitic, ex Trump counterterrorism chief who resigned over the Iran war, apparently now under investigation. What a surprise. And we will also talk about the possibility that a judge will shut down Trump's White House ballroom place plan. All of those stories and much more on today's bonus show, which you can sign up for@join pacman.com and remember, next week we're doing the membership drive. Trump's gas will actually do something for you. We will be cutting the price of a membership to the cost of a gallon of regular gas. And so that's very high compared to where it was, but it is oh so much lower than what we normally charge for membership. So if you want to participate in that Monday morning, you'll get an email. Just get on my substack newsletter substack.david

TikTok Advertiser (60:48)

pakman.com hey, sorry to interrupt your playlist, but this is better than music. It's free stuff. Download TikTok, search free and share the link. To get items for free, start slashing now.