Loading summary
Transcript74 lines
- [00:00]
Patient
I get so many headaches every month.
- [00:02]
Pharmaceutical Representative
It could be chronic migraine, 15 or
- [00:05]
Patient
more headache days a month, each lasting
- [00:06]
Pharmaceutical Representative
four hours or more.
- [00:08]
Pharmaceutical Advertiser
Botox Onobotulinum toxin a prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine. It's not for Those who have 14 or fewer headache days a month. Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems or muscle weakness can be signs of a life threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions including als, Lou Gehrig's disease, Myasthenia gravis or Lambert Eaton syndrome and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects.
- [00:53]
Pharmaceutical Representative
Why wait?
- [00:54]
Patient
Ask your doctor, visit botoxchronicmigraine.com or call 1-844botox to learn more. Get in the game with the College Branded Venmo Debit Card Wreck your team with every tap and earn up to 5% cash back with Venmo Stash, a new rewards program from Venmo. No monthly fee, no minimum balance, just school pride and spending power. Get in the game and sign up for the Venmo debit card@venmo.com collegecard the Venmo MasterCard is issued by the Bancorp Bank NA Select Schools available Venmo Stash terms and exclusions apply at Venmo me stash terms max $100 cash back per month.
- [01:31]
David Pakman
Price hikes continue across the United States as the trade war is hitting the wallets of everyday Americans in a more serious manner. And apparently we still have to be explaining how inflation works. We'll look at that and then a stunning constitutional issue at Pete Hegseth's Pentagon, where government officials are organizing religious worship inside the military command structure. Completely unconstitutional, mind you will also look at the Republican Party openly admitting that the Constitution is sometimes inconvenient. These are the people who say they are the biggest defenders of the Constitution. Turns out sometimes doing what is constitutionally required is just a little bit annoying. And then we will have Exhibit A. J.D. vance setting new records for awkward, unlikable and totally lacking all charisma. In a major bombshell, Donald Trump's own strategist Steve Bannon privately believed that Trump should have been removed from office using the 25th amendment. All of that and Dr. Frank George will join me today. Price hikes continue across the economy. We were promised lower prices. That requires deflation. We haven't gotten that. And now the Trump administration is panicking about the likely political fallout as we are just eight and a half months from the midterm elections. Now, before we even get into the story, I apparently still have to explain very basic things. Unless inflation is negative, prices are going up. That's how inflation works. Lower inflation doesn't mean prices go down. It means prices go up more slowly. Prices only fall when inflation is below zero, a negative number. I can't believe I still have to explain this, but that's where we are. Now let's look at what's happening. We have a report that several major companies are raising prices in 2026 because of Donald Trump's trade war. This includes Levi's jeans, McCormick spices. And 54% of small businesses say they plan to raise prices in the forthcoming months. Let's take a look at this report this morning.
- [03:56]
Pharmaceutical Representative
New word that several major companies say they will be raising prices this year largely thanks to President Trump's trade war. Price hikes reaching from your closet to the kitchen. CNN's Matt Egan joining us now with more reporting on this. And what are you hearing, Matt?
- [04:11]
Matt Egan
Well, yes, some companies are jacking up their prices for a variety of reasons. Some of them are setting higher wages for their workers, higher health care costs and of course, the president's historically high tariffs. And yeah, this is affecting everything from jeans made by Levi to spices from McCormick, also outerwear jackets and other clothing from Columbia Sportswear, one example. So McCormick said that they're facing about a $50 million hit from higher U.S. tariffs and they're taking what they're describing as, quote, surgical price hikes. Levi says that some of their men's jeans are going to go up by $5 per pair, women's jeans up by $10. Not just major corporations. Look at this. This is small businesses. More than half of small business owners in a recent survey, 54%, that's the blue chunk here, say they plan to raise prices over the next few months. 42% say they're going to keep them the same. And just 3%, that little green slice, say they plan to cut prices. Now, some of this is kind of normal start of the year type moves that you see from companies as they look at their prices. Some of it seems a bit more aggressive. The Wall Street Journal talked to A construction company in Cincinnati. That said, because of health care costs and steel tariffs, they plan to raise their prices by 10 to 15%. Online prices are also going up rapidly.
- [05:30]
David Pakman
I think you get it. Prices are going up, up, up. Now I do want to announce the David Pakman show will not. We will not be raising membership prices or substack premium prices in 2026. Mark my words. They will have to take my mouse from me over what's the cold dead hands thing. They can rip my mouse and keyboard from my cold dead hands before I will raise prices. That's my commitment. But listen, this is predictable. When Trump first suggested blanket tariffs years ago, economists and anyone with common sense said that's going to raise prices, it's not going to lower them, which is Trump's promise. And it is very simple economics. A tariff is a tax on an import. When the government raises the cost of bringing stuff into the country, the costs are passed along to consumers. Now, later today, or maybe we won't get to it until tomorrow. I'm going to have a report about what percentage of the tariffs are being passed on to the consumer. I'll give you a hint. It's a double digit number that starts with a nine, but we'll get back to that. But the point is, businesses aren't just going to absorb higher costs out of generosity. They're going to raise prices. That means consumers pay. This is why economists left, right and center warned for decades about this sort of use of tariffs. Trade barriers almost always mean higher prices at home. Now you might do it in a way where you believe that the higher prices are justified or that they are working towards some bigger good. You might tariff Taiwanese semiconductors, which will raise the prices domestically in order to encourage that supply chain to move domestically. It takes six to eight years. There is intermediate pain, but you might say there's a national security reason. The blanket tariffs that we're seeing don't really make any sense. It's just causing inflationary pressure throughout the economy. And then enters politics. The politics of it is that Trump built a large part of his political brand on I will lower costs for you. I will lower prices. Groceries, energy, everyday expenses. Prices are high because of Biden. I will lower them. Tariffs do the opposite. And inflation is greater than zero, meaning prices are continuing to go up. Now, just eight and a half months from the midterms. The administration has a reality problem. You can't promise cheaper goods while making goods more expensive and then saying, vote for us so that we can do more. It's not going to work. The global supply chain is very much interconnected. American companies rely on foreign stuff, foreign manufacturing, foreign markets. If you disrupt the system, those problems, those disruptions are going to come home. Now, the Smoot Hawley tariffs in the 1930s triggered retaliation. They reduced trade. They worsened economic conditions during the Great Depression. And the more recent implementations of tariffs have basically produced the same dynamic. Prices go up, markets get unstable. Retaliation can happen from trading partners. The basic lesson here hasn't changed. Trade wars are easy to start, difficult to control, and very tough to win unless the tariffs are used in an extremely surgical, calculated, proactive manner. Now, as far as the politics of it, you can yell that the economy is great until you're blue in the face. You can say that prices are going down. But if people go and see that stuff costs more. When I go in to get my beautiful smoked paprika, maybe from McCormick Spices, I don't know. But by the way, McCormick is not a sponsor of the show. I am not going to. But what am I going to believe? Trump or the fact that my beautiful Spanish paprika. And what about car to Mom Carter?
- [09:29]
Pharmaceutical Representative
Mum?
- [09:29]
David Pakman
Cardamom? Both of them. Really? They get more expensive. I'm going to believe the price tags, not Donald Trump. So this is about more than the price hikes. It's about what happens when. When policy has consequences and it meets the real world and it affects people's lives. So we will continue following the price level, but in 2026, it is going up. We are now seeing something extremely dangerous happen in plain sight, open violations of a little thing called the Constitution. All right, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution. We have images and reports from the Pentagon showing what was described as a worship service. You see senior leadership with their heads bowed in prayer. Organized religious activity happening inside the United States military command structure. In a tweet about this, they put. We have gathered at the Pentagon for our monthly worship service. We are one nation under God. Imagery of Pete Hegseth with his head bowed in prayer. Images of prayer taking place. This is all completely unconstitutional. Now, by the way, the specific guy, Doug Wilson, who's involved in this is disgusting. Doesn't think women should be allowed to vote. Has talked about slavery coming back, maybe being a good thing. Believes the US should be a nation under God, governed by God. So let's be clear about a couple different things. The US government is not allowed to run religious worship. That is not a partizan opinion. That is a constitutional opinion. That is the First Amendment. The Constitution prohibits the government from establishing religion. The principle exists for a reason. It protects religious freedom. It keeps the state neutral. The government can't promote one religion over another or religion over non religion or non religion over religion. It just needs to stay out of it. But they are turning institutions. We talked with Ruth Ben Ghiat earlier this week about how institutions are being carved out by the Trump administration. But they're also then being filled with religious moralizing. The Pentagon is not a church. The military is not a ministry. Government led religious activity at the highest levels of the military violates the Constitution. Now defenders will say, well, what's the problem? People are just praying. You can't control that. And of course it's true. If someone, while they are sitting there at work in their government job in their head, is saying a prayer to themselves, you can't control that. Nor does anyone want to, nor does anyone care. Individual prayer in your head is protected. Private beliefs are protected. Service members can practice religion freely. And if you want to drill yourself with questions about religious doctrine as you sit there, nobody can stop you. But what we are talking about here is leadership promoting worship inside of official institutions. That is not the personal faith of any one person. That is state backed religious activity. It's against the law. Now, if you look at history, you see that when religion and government fuse, a lot of problems come up. Aside from the fact that it's unconstitutional, policy becomes theology. Political power claims divine authority. We are sent by God to do the politics that we are doing. The founders understood the danger because they saw what state religion had done in Europe for centuries. And so the whole point was, let's separate it. Let's separate church and state. Some of the figures connected to this ideological movement represent really extreme views. And this is why the prayer service is bad enough. But involving Doug Wilson is an extra disgusting little detail who has openly said women shouldn't have gotten the right to vote. Slavery historically wasn't a bad thing. And again, maybe most dangerously, Doug Wilson has promoted the idea that the US should be governed as a Christian theocracy, just a Christian version of that which they claim to oppose in the Middle East. That destroys the Constitution. When you put religious authority above democratic institutions, you have destroyed the Constitution. They talk about. Oh, foreigners are bringing in ideas that are not compatible with the American Constitution and way of life. Instituting religion in our federal government institutions is not compatible with the way that this country was designed by the Founders. Will there be any consequences? I wish, I wish I could say yes, but it really doesn't seem like there will be Pete Hegseth Day will come. I think that is maybe the the best thing to go back to. Remember that this and every story today is part of our daily podcast. The podcast is free. The podcast is on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and every podcasting app that you might like. Please remember, follow and subscribe to the show free on Apple and Spotify. If you've got an iPhone, you've got Apple Podcasts. Open it up right now. Hit that follow button. Leave us a five star review. We are pushing to beat back the right wing surge in the podcasting world. Help us do it. We'll take a quick break. Staying focused while you work can be difficult, especially for folks with ADHD. Maybe you've tried listening to music on YouTube or ambient videos background noise, but the sounds and the music weren't designed for focus and they end up distracting you. Our sponsor, Brain fm is a music app specifically designed to support Focus with music. Designed by musicians working together with neuroscientists and because of Brain FM's unique audio technology designed to change the patterns in your brain, Brain FM is the only music app funded by the National Science Foundation. The app includes task specific modes like deep work, creative and motivation. It has a dedicated ADHD mode designed for brains that benefit from additional stimulation. And what really sets Brain FM apart is the research behind it. They published a peer reviewed study showing their patented music technology increases activity in attentional networks and improves performance on attention based tasks, especially among people with ADHD symptoms. If you're looking for a science backed alternative to generic focus music, Brain FM is worth trying. You can get 30 days free at Brain FM. Pacman the David Pakman show is an independent media program. That means we are primarily funded by you members of the audience. You know when I play the Alex Jones flipping out about our bonus show clip, I always get emails from people saying that Alex Jones impersonator really sounds a lot like him. I want to remind you that is not an Alex Jones impersonator. Alex Jones once ranted and raved against our bonus show. He hates our membership funding system.
- [17:08]
Dr. Frank George
Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money.
- [17:10]
David Pakman
Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. That's the real Alex Jones. We have a whole segment about it and it's on video. You can find the entire thing. Fight back against Alex's antagonism by signing up@join pacman.com let's talk about a little thing called the Constitution. Many of you know that Republicans constantly brand themselves as Constitutional conservatives. We defend the founding Principles. We protect liberty. The Constitution is the ultimate authority. We are on our knees for the Bill of Rights until it gets in the way and then suddenly the Constitution is very inconvenient. Let me show you this. We have Republican Congressman Buddy Carter responding to Democratic demands about warrants. What about warrants? Due process, law and order. Let's do things the right way. And it's just not convenient to do the constitutional thing if you're Buddy Carter. But some of the demands that the Democrats have put forth, we're not going to be able to obtain that. We can't have a warrant every time. And ICE is so important. And I support. Think about that for a second. ICE is going to do what ICE is going to do. We can't have a warrant every time. That is not a little bureaucratic detail. That's the Fourth Amendment. The Constitution requires warrants based on probable cause before searches and seizures. It's not a suggestion, it's the rule. So when a Republican says we can't have Democrats, pesky Democrats want warrants every time. What he's really saying is constitutional rights are getting in the way of what he and Trump and Republicans want to do. And that is a massive revelation that shouldn't come as a shock. I have a whole chapter in my book the Echo Machine about how it's fine to talk about our philosophical principles, but that there is no point in wasting time arguing about it with these right wingers because their stated principles go flush right down the toilet as soon as they become inconvenient. Real constitutionalism is not about defending rights when they are convenient. It's about defending them when they are inconvenient. It's really inconvenient to carry out this deranged deportation scheme by ICE to get a warrant every time. But we're going to do it because that's what the Constitution says. Rights exist to restrain government action, to slow things down. They create friction. They force having to justify what you were doing. The founders didn't design a system for maximum efficiency. George W. Bush once. What was that thing Bush said? It would be a lot easier if I was dictator or something like that. Do I even have it here? I think I do.
- [20:07]
Charlemagne the God
China.
- [20:08]
David Pakman
No, that's not it. What you are seeing is the opposite mindset here. The Constitution is a tool. If it's convenient, we will talk about it or allude to it. Especially if it supports our goals, then it's really sacred. When it restrains our goals, we're not so big on it. That is not constitutional conservatism my friends, that is situational constitutionalism. Historically, that's how civil liberties get eroded. It doesn't usually start with a leader who goes, I'm flushing the Constitution. It starts with arguments about what's practical, what's convenient. The rules are too slow, the threat is too urgent, the safeguards are too burdensome. We can't follow the process every single time. And you heard this after 911 to justify the expansion of surveillance. Much of the post 911 surveillance state was couched in some of the same kind of authoritarian rhetoric that we've heard around the world. We've, we need to be more efficient. The cost, of course, is liberty. Now there's a deeper contradiction here as well. The same political movement that warns constantly about government overreach, you got to be careful, they're going to make you get vaxxed and all of this other stuff. They're going to put cat litter boxes in your kids school bathroom and kid goes to school, a boy comes back, a girl, you know, all this, their overreach, overreach, threats everywhere. They say government is dangerous and untrustworthy. But they also say we're not going to get warrants every time. Just let us do whatever the hell we want. So that tension reveals their real priority. It's not government power or the restraint of it. It's simply, do we get to do whatever we want? That's all that they really care about. Now, the Constitution represents a different philosophy. I don't consider myself a constitutional conservative. I consider myself a pragmatic progressive. Pragmatic progressives also care about the Constitution. But we care about it not only when it's convenient or inconvenient. The Constitution assumes power can be dangerous no matter who holds it. And so the limits are universal. They're not. Well, we might do the limits or we might not. Once rights are subject to political convenience, they stop being rights, their privileges granted by whoever is in power. That's not the way it was designed. So this is how democracies weaken. Not with like a single dramatic moment. Nobody said the Constitution's gone. As I said, if you look it up, we've got a First Amendment there in black and white. We've got a Second Amendment, we've got a Fourth Amendment. But are they actually being respected is a different question. And as these principles get redefined and squished and prodded like Plato into a hole, you are going to be able to hear increasingly ridiculous justifications for why in this scenario, it's just not. We love the Constitution. But in this scenario, it's not convenient. We're going to go a different direction. We love the Bill of Rights, but over here, these couple amendments when we're trying to do this other thing, not really very convenient for us. And as that happens, you get a death of a thousand cuts. And against what was supposed to be almost like a sacred text to them, the Constitution. J.D. vance is doing some remarkable things. He is proving that you can have a complete lack of charisma, gravitas and likability and still be the Vice President of the United States. J.D. vance just hours ago spoke on Fox News with Martha MacCallum. Martha MacCallum said, Surely you would like to be president, right? And JD Delivers the most bizarre, forced, phony laugh and then a complete and total lack of charisma. Why is he so unlikable? Take a listen to this together.
- [24:04]
Pharmaceutical Representative
But surely as vice president, you'd like to be president.
- [24:08]
J.D. Vance
What I. Well, look, I think again, I'm going to try to do as good of a job as I can right now. So one of the things that I, that I don't like about this question and this entire perspective is I've been in this job for all of a year. About six months ago, or, sorry, a year and six months ago, I asked the American people to give me this job that I have right now. Why don't I do as good of a job as I can at this job or worry about the next job sometime in the future?
- [24:31]
David Pakman
Okay, is there anyone who lacks gravitas, charisma and likability as hardcore as J.D. vance? Like, it's, you have to try to be this unlikable. Now, the interesting political story that's kind of developing in the background is that what was assumed would be an unbridled, unrestrained, unfettered support for JD Vance as the heir to the MAGA throne is not yet shaping up that way. Now, listen, we're many years out. Trump may end up saying J.D. is the guy. But it is clear from hearing Trump speak and also from reporting from, from around Donald Trump that there is a lack of confidence that JD Vance is really the guy that can take over the MAGA throne. And there's a lot of people talking about Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Now, as I've said before, I'm not a fan of Marco Rubio nor JD Vance, but given the choice, I would definitely go with Marco Rubio as the more competent guy with a better head on his shoulders. But the fact that it is clear there is hesitation as to who is going to be the rightful heir to the throne is very, very interesting. Now a couple other clips and again, just the total lack of likability here is JD Saying that ICE agents will not surrender to local authorities. It's kind of interesting, interesting spin on federalism.
- [25:53]
J.D. Vance
That's how it should work. Where you have that chaos in Los Angeles and Minneapolis. It's because the local authorities are so committed to an open border that they want to put law enforcement at risk. We're not going to surrender to that. We're not going to submit to that. We are going to be deliberate. We're going to be smart. We're going to try to prevent these chaotic scenes that of course, the Democrats use to political advantage.
- [26:16]
David Pakman
Once again, do we care about the law or don't we care about the law? ICE must conduct their operations while adhering to the law and to the Constitution. They are not they are functioning as an occupying force, but they are not an occupying force. They haven't been requested in many of the venues in which they now are operating. Lawful conduct is a requirement. And again, it's we don't really care about that. Martha MacCallum asked JD Vance about a poll that is not looking so good for Republicans heading into the midterms. It's a Fox News poll. And JD Just goes, oh, Fox News polling is terrible.
- [27:03]
Pharmaceutical Representative
So we just mentioned the midterms. I want to just put up a poll. This shows congressional vote preference. This was at the end of January, so just a few weeks ago of all voters, Democratic candidate preference at 52, GOP candidate at 46. We've got a long way to go. But obviously that that number would not be good for the majority.
- [27:26]
J.D. Vance
That would not be good. I will say as much. We love Fox News. We always think Fox News has the worst polling. Me and the president agree on that. I'm sorry.
- [27:33]
David Pakman
Hey now. You know what is fascinating about that? Fox News polling is pretty good. And in fact, Martha MacCallum could have shown JD a fox a far worse number for the generic ballot question for 2026 if she had chosen a different poll. But we all know that they just have no choice but to deny reality. The polling looks disastrous for the midterms. Fox News polling is done by an outside agency. Fox News itself isn't doing the polls, it's commissioning the polls and co branding the polls. Fox News polling is historically pretty good, but there is no polling you can find, I guess, other than maybe White House internal polls that are shown to Donald Trump to placate him and PACIFY him. All the polling looks terrible. Even Rasmussen, which is historically quite friendly to Trump and to Republicans. Rasmussen polling looks terrible. They have no choice but to deny reality because the numbers are so bad. Finally, JD Tells us what they want to do with these ICE operations. What I suggest we do is let's listen to what JD Says they want to do and let's compare it to what they are doing.
- [28:40]
J.D. Vance
Horseman what we've consistently said is that we want to deport violent criminals, people came in under the Biden administration illegally and get them out of our country so that Americans wages can go up, so that American streets can be safer. Tom's been an important part of that. But of course, Kristi Noemi has been an important part of that. Our DHS secretary Stephen Miller at the White House has been an important part of that. Here's the thing, Martha, where you, you've had cooperation between the state, the local and the federal government, whether it's a blue city like Memphis or a red city in a small town in the middle of Ohio, you have great cooperation and you don't have the chaos. We're able to get illegal aliens out of our country and we're able to do it in an orderly way. Where you have Democrats refusing to cooperate, places like Minneapolis, places like Los Angeles, the entire immigration enforcement thing, it becomes more chaotic, it becomes harder to get the worst people out of our country. It's a nightmare for the American people. But unfortunately the Democrats, at least some of them, some elected Democrats, are so committed to the idea that you shouldn't be able to deport anybody that they're willing to put at risk the lives of local police, the lives of federal law enforcement to ensure that it's as hard as possible to enforce the border. We're going to keep on enforcing the border despite that. But man, it would be great to have a little bit more help from
- [29:59]
Pharmaceutical Representative
the local officials that the president didn't like. The videos that he was seeing in Minnesota.
- [30:04]
J.D. Vance
I don't think any of us like the videos.
- [30:06]
Pharmaceutical Representative
Are we not going to see that kind of surge in Los Angeles or New York, the other places that you mentioned?
- [30:10]
J.D. Vance
Well, Martha, none of us like those videos. That's in fact, the point is we don't want immigration enforcement to be chaotic. In 99% of cases, you have a federal law enforcement officer, they show up in at a jail or they show up somewhere else, they identify a person who needs to be deported and they get him out of our country. That's how it should work. Where you have that chaos in Los Angeles and Minneapolis. It's because the local authorities are so committed to an open border that they want to put law enforcement at risk. We're not going to surrender to that. We're not going to submit to that.
- [30:40]
David Pakman
And then he goes back to the surrender thing. So listen, they want to report the report. They want to deport violent criminals, okay? But they're deporting nonviolent criminals. There's also no evidence that criminals meaningfully reduce wages, which he says is something. I'm sorry, not criminals. Immigrants, documented and undocumented. But what they do is become customers of businesses. When you have more immigrants, be they documented or undocumented, they need to buy clothes, they need to buy food. They become customers. Now, this is not a justification for letting people in illegally, but we should hold them to what they said they were going to do, which is get rid of violent criminal illegals. And they are snatching up people who not only don't meet that definition, they are even snatching up people that are American citizens. So, JD as always, unlikable as ever, deranged as always, raising questions as to whether maybe something is going on with his brain as well. Although I don't think so. I think he's just deeply uncharismatic and a completely unserious person. Let me know what you think. Leave a comment Most scammers rely on information that's already public. Your name, address, phone number, family connections. A lot of that is online and available to be scraped and abused. Our sponsor, Incogni, reduces the risk by removing you from the Internet wherever that personal data appears. It works across many types of websites, not just one category. So scammers have fewer ways to piece things together about you. Incogni automatically submits removal requests to hundreds of sites on your behalf. But the standout feature is custom removals, where you find your information on any website, even one not in their database. You paste the link and Incogni's team will get to work to remove it. I can tell you I've personally been getting way fewer scam and spam calls and messages ever since I started using Incogni. You can accomplish a lot quickly with Incogni. Protect yourself before your data is used against you. Get 60% off when you go to incogni.com/pacman and use the code PACMAN. The link is in the description. Today we'll be speaking with Dr. Frank George, a psychologist and cognitive neuroscientist. He has been studying and writing about Donald Trump's personality disorder. For the past 10 years. His substack is the Gaslight Report. Really glad to have the opportunity to talk to you today.
- [33:08]
Dr. Frank George
Thanks, David. I'm happy to be here.
- [33:10]
David Pakman
So even just the introduction is already interesting. The personality disorder. Let, let's kind of build up to this a little bit. I've read that in things you've written, you appear adamant that Donald Trump does not have Alzheimer's and that instead it is a different type of dementia. Frontotemporal dementia. Let's start there if we can. There are a lot of people who interchangeably say dementia and Alzheimer's sort of generically as a catch all. Talk to us about what you do see, what you don't see.
- [33:46]
Dr. Frank George
Sure, you're absolutely right. Most people equate dementia as being Alzheimer's because that's what people are familiar with, that's what they've heard. In fact, there are several types of dementias. Alzheimer's is one of them. It is the most common. But it is just one. Just saying dementia isn't really correct. If one wants to emphasize Alzheimer's, they just say Alzheimer's. The second most common is frontotemporal dementia. And people have just been saying Donald Trump has dementia. So people equate that with Alzheimer's. And no, he does not have Alzheimer's. If he had Alzheimer's, it's like, God, I wish he had Alzheimer's. The world would be a better place. If he had Alzheimer's and was diminishing and going away like in Ronald Reagan's last couple of years, I, you know, had had Alzheimer's, why would that be better? It would be better because he would be diminished. And so his underlying personality disorder, the malignant narcissism, would be getting diminished and he'd becoming less in terms of what he was able to do. You know, just everything about his personality. But with frontotemporal dementia, the person augments because it affects a different part of the brain. Alzheimer's affects the hippocampus, mostly the memory areas of the brain. That's why people forget. Frontotemporal dementia augments. It affects the frontal. Frontotemporal dementia. The areas of the brain from the frontal cortex are involved with judgment, inhibition of what one might want to do, the confabulations that we see. A lot of these things are regulated by the frontal cortex. One way that I often describe it, which has a lot of ability to it, is that it's like drinking. It's almost like having too much to drink. People say, oh, I have a couple drinks, I get uninhibited, I'm more social, it sort of thing. Well, you're becoming disinhibited. And you get to the point where, you know, the classic, you know, hold my beer and then they do something really stupid. That type of disinhibition is exactly what we see with frontotemporal dementia. But in Donald Trump's case, what's being disinhibited is his underlying malignant narcissism. And that's the horrific danger of the whole situation because.
- [36:30]
David Pakman
Can you talk to us about some of the behaviors you've observed that would illustrate this?
- [36:37]
Dr. Frank George
Sure. Let's see. Well, the confabulations, the. At this point, almost his entire speeches are a symptom. You know, what people don't realize they'll look at. Well, a couple days ago he glitched in the middle of a, you know, speech. I think it was about the, the EPA regulations.
- [37:00]
David Pakman
Yes.
- [37:00]
Dr. Frank George
And, you know, oh my God, he glitched. Yes. And, and that's very serious. But his entire speech is a symptom. You know, he's speaking at a fourth grade level, typically, you know, where 10 or 15 years ago, you know, he was fairly eloquent. You might not like what he was saying, but he said it eloquently. You know, that is just gone. You know, the words he uses now are, he repeats very simple words like big, great, best, you know, over and over and over. You know, they become a great part of his vocabulary. That's symptomatic. You know, actually people don't realize that the paraphrases, you know, Obama, you know, screwing up the words, that's a symptom of frontotemporal dementia. It is not Alzheimer's. Now, when you combine the disinhibition on top of the underlying malignant narcissism, that's where we start to see the escalation of the vengeance, the retribution, the. Just the random decisions that go back and forth. Like, I'm implementing 100 tariff. A week later, he's getting rid of the tariff, we're invading Greenland. And then he's not invading Greenland. You just. That type of thing that, you know, 10 years ago, he just, he wouldn't do those sorts of things. And that type of erotic, sort of chaotic, erratic. So erotic gets it a whole different thing.
- [38:38]
David Pakman
Not erotic. Yes, not at all.
- [38:42]
Dr. Frank George
Yeah, that, that's another issue. But the erratic behavior and gets everything that goes with that. The disinhibition is an augmenting of his underlying personality disorder, and that's the horrific part of it, because as the dementia, as a frontal temporal dementia progresses, that disinhibition just gets worse and worse, and so his decisions will become more erratic, more vengeful. It's just getting expressed with no guardrails.
- [39:17]
David Pakman
There are people that have written to me and they've said that on. On the frontotemporal dementia front, that there are characteristics about how Donald Trump stands and walks that coincide with what you're talking about. And a couple of the things that have been pointed to are that when Trump stands, he often sort of hinges forward at the waist in a way that's a little difficult to describe, but it's a slightly wide stance and kind of the top half of his body leans forward. It's interesting because from the side, it almost seems to deny the laws of physics in some strange way. But that's one thing. And then another about his gait, the kind of shuffling, unsteady gait that sometimes includes the dragging of the right leg. Is that at all clinically relevant to you as you think about frontotemporal dementia?
- [40:03]
Dr. Frank George
It's absolutely relevant. The. The forward lean is another classic symptom. And like you said, you think it's physically impossible. It's just part of the posture, and that posture is consistent as a symptom. The walking, the gait, the sort of swinging, the wide stance is also symptomatic. And that's why all these symptoms, the physical symptoms and those behavioral symptoms are consistent with ftd. Frontotemporal dementia.
- [40:42]
David Pakman
When Donald Trump confuses people like Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi, for example, or doesn't recognize people right in front of him, how does that interact with your assessment?
- [41:00]
Dr. Frank George
He does that. He does that pretty consistently. And part of what you can detect there is that he believes it, you know, so he will repeat that error. And, you know, and so that gets into it, you know, a confabulation. You know, he believes what. What he says when he talks about. Like in that same interview a couple days ago, earlier today, when he was on the. On the plane.
- [41:25]
David Pakman
Yes.
- [41:25]
Dr. Frank George
And he was talking about, you know, murder is down, crime is down, and he just went over the same things over and over again, even though they're not true, and we have the lowest crime since 1900, and, you know, all these things, and he's so far off of the question, and. And he's just repeating these things that he repeats over and over again. He'll say the same thing tomorrow. And he said that last week. And that's just part of this one way to describe it. He's truly living in his own reality. You know, I tell people that if he took a lie detector test and you asked him these questions, he would pass it.
- [42:05]
David Pakman
Because you know that I was going to ask you about exactly that, which is whether you believe Trump to be a liar or that he is so confused that he comes to believe the things he says in his mind.
- [42:19]
Dr. Frank George
I think he absolutely believes most of them. Okay. You know, some of, some of it is just, you know, the usual BS lying, but the things that he repeats over and over, you know, eyes, you know, ended eight wars, you know, all that kind of stuff, he believes that you can ask him that on a logitech test and he'd pass it. Yeah, I am absolutely convinced. So, yeah, the lies are in there. And sometimes it's hard to differentiate, you know, what is he making up and what does he truly believe. But at this point, more and more of it, he really believes what he's saying.
- [42:59]
David Pakman
Is frontotemporal dementia as compared to Alzheimer's, more suited to holding it together for some period of time? For example, in thinking of the State of the Union address that's just a few days away from now, I don't really expect any major meltdown where he completely loses his ability to speak during an event like that. He does seem to be able to sort of hold it together in some of these high stakes situations. Is, is that more associated with frontotemporal dementia rather than Alzheimer's?
- [43:32]
Dr. Frank George
The coming and going is. Well with frontotemporal dementia. You know, it does come and go, but overall it progresses. You know, Alzheimer's, I think, is more of a constant progression. So yes, I think he's having fewer periods of elusiveness, but sure, it's possible. And I suspect that something like the State of the Union address there are with teleprompters, you'll have notes and he will get told a hundred times, stick to the script, read the script. And I imagine he'll, he'll riff a few times, you know, but it's more of that constrained, contained situation that he can still pull off. It's when he gets into the more ad lib, there's something like the interviews and questions that it just shows up, been more of a contained situation. I think that he can pull it off. I don't expect him to do anything that's abysmally symptomatic other than most of the speech will be a fairly low level Sort of indication of his deterioration.
- [44:51]
David Pakman
There's a particular characteristic that happens, and it's happened for a very long time with the glitches that I'm curious to get your thoughts on, which is that Trump seems to have almost like an escape hatch, or we might call it like an eject button of sorts, which is that when the glitch takes place, he seems to kind of recenter himself on these crutch phrases. Phrases like, oh, would you look at that? Or sort of like calling out to someone in the crowd, like in that recent glitch you're talking about, he goes, oh, what about that, Mr. Speaker? Sort of referring to Maga Mike Johnson in the crowd. Is that a sort of. What is the utility of that? Is it that on some level his brain is recognizing, I just messed something up. Let me go to something familiar and safe? Because that seems to be a pattern. He'll sort of like go back to one of these catchphrases or refer to someone in the crowd when the glitches happen.
- [45:45]
Dr. Frank George
Yes, and I believe, like that glitch a couple of days ago, I think he did recognize that, like it just happened.
- [45:54]
David Pakman
Yes.
- [45:55]
Dr. Frank George
And I think then he recognized that, that it happened and immediately went to save this, the situation. So I think that that's what he's doing there. I think that he does recognize now sometimes that he's glitching like that. More like the paraphrases and things, the confabulations. No, because he's saying stuff that he believes.
- [46:17]
David Pakman
What's the right way to deal with the confabulations? And, and I'll ask it in this context. I have a lot of mental health professionals in my family. My dad's a psychiatrist, for example, and I've spoken to him about, you know, when you have patients and they come in and they. A story that you know to be factually untrue about. It might be a paranoid story about how certain people in the family or the boss or whatever. What. How do you deal with that as a mental health professional? And one of the things my dad said is, well, you don't really argue about the facts, but you might ask a question like, have you told other people about this? How did they react? Right. And sort of ask questions that are not necessarily going to directly confront and argue about the fact that fact, so to speak. But that's in like a clinical context. What would be the right way in a political context or in a social context to deal with that sort of confabulation?
- [47:08]
Dr. Frank George
Again, I would agree with that general assessment, you can't really confront it because he believes it. So you're saying, oh, come on, you didn't solve a war, you know, end eight wars. You'd be arguing with him, you wouldn't get him to recognize that. Oh, yeah, you're right, you know, so you, you can't confront that. And the aspect of, oh, we'll ask what, what other people think ends up being sort of, you know, also pointless. Yeah.
- [47:39]
David Pakman
Trump would go, listen, well, the fake news, tell me I'm lying, but we know we can't trust them or whatever.
- [47:43]
Dr. Frank George
Yeah, yeah, exactly. So, so I think that it's almost a matter of blowing it off in a sense. But I think that this gets to one other point. It's partly up to the media not to confront him, but almost to just ignore it. One of the things, like with the pathological narcissist, one of the more effective ways to deal with them, like in a relationship or something especially, is to do what we call gray rocking, where you just go from being controlled, manipulated, you know, sucked into that relationship to just flat. And so I think the media just sort of ignored the question. Like, you know, well, what do you think about the negotiations? What negotiations? And if he's not answering it, well, you just go on to the next thing, you know, it's just kind of ignoring him. And I think that one of the faults, if I may, of the media in general, you know, reporting especially, is that people have the microphone there and they let him say whatever he wants and they, you know, they consider themselves to be reporting the news and all they're doing is reporting symptoms. They're not really getting at the news. The headline should be Donald Trump displays symptoms again today.
- [49:10]
David Pakman
Right.
- [49:10]
Dr. Frank George
You know, it shouldn't be Donald Trump's, you know, chaotic Donald Trump reverses the tariff thing. Rather than just saying Donald Trump expresses, you know, whatever symptom that should be the headline and that's what doesn't occur. And I think that that has, is partly why we're here. You know, the people just aren't recognizing that, that they're dealing with what he says as if, yeah, he's kind of, you know, quirky, but, you know, maybe it's becoming something serious now. But they're still dealing with it like it's. I'm a reporter and I'm reporting.
- [49:46]
David Pakman
That is a very accurate and depressing and sobering reality about the state of reporting about the President's day to day behavior, that's for sure. We've been speaking with Dr. Frank George. His substack is the Gaslight Report. Check it out. Really appreciate your time and your insights today.
- [50:05]
Dr. Frank George
Thanks for having me David. Appreciate it.
- [50:07]
David Pakman
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 an absolutely bombshell story. There are newly revealed text messages where Steve Bannon, top Trump propagandists during the first term, told Jeffrey Epstein in 2018 that Trump is beyond borderline and suggested that the 25th Amendment should be used to remove Trump from power. This is Steve Bannon. We have the text messages. We'll put them up on the screen after Epstein says Schiff trying to find knowledgeable financial people. It's intriguing as I guess they can't use the best guys at IRS or Treasury. Bannon says, wow. Epstein says, hell of a year. Next will be biblical. Bannon says, we either own 2019 or it will surely own us. And then later Epstein says, spoke to my Dems this weekend. Boy, are emotions running high. To which Bannon says, going to blow him up right out of the box. White House has zero plan to punch back. Fort Apache with no cavalry en route, to which Epstein says, and no soldiers in the fort, he is really borderline, not sure what he may do. Bannon says, I think it's Beyond Borderline, Borderline 25th Amendment. This is Trump's former chief strategist. This is a central figure in the movement that brought us Donald Trump, appearing to say privately Trump should not remain president. Now at the time, Bannon was communicating with Epstein while trying to kind of help Epstein rehab his public image. And, and what we have learned about Bannon's involvement with Epstein is also completely disgusting. Now there are other messages where he discussed pushing back on what he called the pedo trafficking narrative and helping to build Epstein's reputation up as a philanthropist. So Bannon was involved in a lot of really disgusting stuff. But we have the same person presenting himself publicly as a Trump loyalist, privately advising Epstein on image repair, questioning Trump's stability, and discussing the removal of Donald Trump from office. That tells you something about how politics actually operates behind the scenes. Publicly loyal, privately not so sure. I believe that the importance of this politically is something we've been talking about for a while. Populist movements like MAGA are built on personal trust in the leader. The leader is not just a politician. The leader is almost like a father figure. The leader is a strong, uniquely stable, uniquely capable person, and image is essential. When insiders privately question the leader's fitness for office, it undermines the core myth of the movement. There are many political figures that perform loyalty publicly and in private. They're very worried. We've seen it with aids. We've seen it with Cabinet members. We've seen it with insiders, and it's bigger than Trump. This happens in many administrations. What's striking here is the severity you had. Bannon publicly, there was no bigger advocate for the unique genius and ability of Trump, and privately, he's texting about removal via the 25th Amendment. Just incredible. And Bannon today positions himself still like an ally of Trump. He talks about there may be a way for Trump to serve a third term and all of this stuff. So the question is, what? What. What is it that changed with Trump that got Bannon to change his view? We don't know. I mean, the answer could be as simple as, Bannon saw the same stuff we were seeing, and. And that's it. But then publicly, Bannon has continued to extol the virtues, the alleged virtues of Donald Trump. So I think the bigger story here is not so much about Bannon per se. I mean, listen, the fact that these are cowardly people who have one private view and one public view rather than just telling us and saying what you really believe, yes, it's disgusting. And we've come to sort of be used to that. I think the most important revelation here is that even the most strident defenders of Trump still have some ability to honestly assess his failures and successes. And, of course, it's been mostly failures. And this is a real peek at how power operates behind closed doors and how loyalty is constructed, how political narratives are managed. Even when you have the architects of a movement privately questioning the leader's fitness, which raises major questions about everything the public has been told, they still put on a happy face and go out publicly and ultimately, you know, get pardons or whatever it is. But when you think about the people closest to Trump once claiming that there is no greater gift than this man to the American people and privately saying, 25th Amendment, dear God, that couldn't possibly be a bigger gap. And will Trump have any comment on this? Will Bannon have any comment on this? I don't know. As of this moment, neither of them has weighed in. We see more of Trump's allies and supporters turning on him, and the backlash is getting very, very ugly. Now. I don't mean random critics. I mean people who have been defenders and supporters of Trump for a long time, who have built the culture around Trump in a way that was useful to helping him win just over a year ago. And people who gave Trump the benefit of the doubt again and again and again, and now they are saying something very different. And a lot of it has to do with the Epstein files. Here is Andrew Schultz speaking with Charlemagne the God. Charlemagne the God has not been a supporter of Trump's, but Andrew has. And Andrew Schultz continues to go deeper and further into this. They are covering something up. Here's Schultz speaking very bluntly about the Epstein issue.
- [56:39]
Andrew Schultz
Obviously, as we just stated, we're looking at it and it's like, clear there's something that Trump does not want to get out. Now, some people, like he's protecting his friends, which is if you're protecting your friends and fuck little girls, fudge you. If he's protecting himself from doing heinous shit in the past, fudge you.
- [56:53]
Dr. Frank George
Right?
- [56:53]
Andrew Schultz
Obviously this is. Any human being looks at that and they go, that's reasonable.
- [56:57]
David Pakman
Do they? Does any human being look at that? Now, this is not msnbc. It's not. It's not Ms. Now. This is not the left. This is someone from the broader manosphere culture who has not been part of the anti Trump media ecosystem all along, suddenly saying, wait a second, what the f is going on here? This is the pattern that we're seeing. For years, the Epstein issue was framed in Trump world as a weapon against Democrats and against elites. We're going to expose all of them. Bill Clinton's going down and all of these people are going down. The narrative was always, when Trump is in charge, the truth will come out. Trump is in charge now and the transparency isn't there. There are delays, silence, deflection. Some of Trump's own supporters are noticing now. Listen to what Charlemagne the God said about the situation. This is very interesting. What?
- [57:46]
Charlemagne the God
Like the fuck happens? Something has to happen. There has to be consequences and repercussions.
- [57:53]
David Pakman
Yeah.
- [57:53]
Charlemagne the God
Why has no one else can't just move on? Like, like fudge it. Everything got to get burned down. Everything. The whole system, all of these people, all of these individuals, them all. Like Pam Bondi said, if they was to prosecute everybody in the Epstein files, the system will collapse.
- [58:10]
J.D. Vance
Collapse.
- [58:10]
Andrew Schultz
Which is, yo, this is the fear that they try to stoken us. They're like, if. If all these people would go to prison, the system would collapse. And it's like, shorty, every four, eight Years, we replace the leader of the country. Every two years, we replace the House of Representatives. Every. Was it six for the Senate? Every six. Were. Is it six for the Senate? How many years, Senator? Every six is. It's a. It's like we're used to replacing. The system is built for interchangeable figures, so stop giving us this, that if pedophiles get put in prison, America, what she's basically saying is, hey, America runs on pedophiles, so without it, we won't have a system get the out.
- [58:47]
Charlemagne the God
Well, guess what, the. The pedophiles are alleged pedophiles in positions of power right now. They collapsing the system any goddamn ways.
- [58:55]
David Pakman
Notice what is happening here. There is anger about the actions of Epstein, but the real anger is about the betrayal. Trump built this huge political support on the idea that he was going to finally expose the corruption and the elites and drain the swamp and reveal all the hidden crimes. The moment came and we heard from Cash Patel and Dan Bongino. There kind of is no list of crimes and perpetrators and no one else is going to be getting arrested. And all of a sudden the system is too fragile and the truth would be too dangerous if it came out. If your entire movement is built on exposing secret wrongdoing and then you say there is no secret wrongdoing and also if we exposed it, it would collapse society, what exactly are you admitting? You're either admitting that the corruption is massive but you're not going to expose it, or that you're protecting people because they are people you want to protect, or both. And Trump supporters who took the anti elite message seriously now have to wrestle with the contradiction. This is how you fracture a political coalition. Now, when critics attack from the outside, you have one reaction, but this is the believers that are asking questions from the inside. And historically, one of the most destabilizing moments for these pseudo populist movements is when the believers start reconsidering. We've seen versions of this all over the world. When the anti corruption figure starts looking like part of the corruption, when the calls are coming from inside the house, for lack of a better term, that can be a crisis moment for these movements. Now, does this mean Trump loses his base overnight? No, of course not. But it does show that there are visible cracks, very real anger. And when the people that used to defend you say you're hiding something, it's very, very dangerous. Politically, the signals are shifting and there is a growing willingness among these Trump adjacent voices to openly question him. And that can get very ugly. Very fast. We should encourage it. And remember, we should go to Andrew Schultz and say, hey, brother, my friend. Cool that you're recognizing that this is really messed up. But why did you support this to begin with? Did you really get tricked that badly? It was predictable that this was going to happen. You're welcome back any time. You're welcome to join us on the side of logic any time. But the whole act of you're shocked that this happened. Not believable. Not believable. We are going to talk about the latest with the Russia, Ukraine peace talks. Do they still exist? Are they going on? We will also discuss Big Food pouring millions of dollars into rebranding certain products as GLP ones are reshaping demand for certain food products. And Governor Gavin Newsom expanded free preschool so much that private daycares are saying we can't afford to stay open. A victory with an interesting little problem. We will discuss all of it today on the bonus show. Sign up@join pacman.com Remember to follow the podcast on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leave us a rating if you would be so kind.