White House escalating on all fronts

Summary

The David Pakman Show – "White House Escalating on All Fronts"

Date: July 15, 2026
Host: David Pakman
Featured Guest: Dr. Jessica Nurick, Nutrition Scientist

Episode Overview

In this July 15, 2026 episode, David Pakman delivers a multifaceted analysis of the latest political headlines, focusing on the Trump administration’s increasingly aggressive foreign and immigration policies, chaotic policy reversals, ongoing controversy over the handling of Jeffery Epstein’s files, and a deep-dive debunking popular nutrition misinformation with Dr. Jessica Nurick.

---

Key Segments and Takeaways

1. Trump’s Shocking Rhetoric on Iran and War Crimes

Timestamps: [01:22]–[09:12]

• Ground War Threats: David Pakman discusses Trump’s recent Fox News interview, where Trump openly refuses to rule out sending U.S. ground troops to Iran, contradicting his “anti-war president” persona.

• Admission of War Crimes: Trump brags about potential plans to strike Iranian civilian infrastructure—power plants and bridges—actions that Pakman categorizes as outright war crimes.

  • Quote:
    “Next week comes the power plants, next week comes the bridges. We're going to knock out all their power plants, we're going to knock out all their bridges.”
    – Donald Trump ([06:53])

• Reality Check: Pakman calls out the normalization and muted U.S. media response to these dramatic escalations.

  • Quote:
    “This should be international headlines 24/7. And in the United States, it's kind of a shrug.”
    – David Pakman ([02:50])

2. Erratic Policy Reversals: Hormuz Fee and Taco Tuesday

Timestamps: [10:32]–[17:20]

• Strait of Hormuz Fee Flip-Flop: Trump abruptly rescinds a newly announced 20% U.S. shipping fee through the Strait of Hormuz, replacing it with vague investment promises following apparent pressure from Gulf state leaders.

  • Quote:
    “If the original policy wasn't worth keeping for even a week, why announce it in the first place?”
    – David Pakman ([17:20])

• “Taco Tuesday” Pattern: Pakman coins “Taco Tuesday” as shorthand for Trump’s tendency to dramatically change policies midweek—a pattern that leaves international and business stakeholders confused and hesitant.

3. ICE Traffic Stops: Reinstating Deadly Enforcement

Timestamps: [17:20]–[29:58]

• ICE Policy Reversal: Following internal administration orders to pause controversial and deadly ICE traffic stops, Trump reverses within hours, demanding the tactic continue.
• Political Fallout: The President’s inconsistency undermines faith in U.S. policy among law enforcement, lawmakers, and the public.
  • Quote:
    “One day ICE leadership says we're pausing this after two more deadly events. And then the next day Trump goes, no, no, no, you've got to do it, keep doing it. These public reversals not only create confusion about who's setting policy, it also sends a message... Trump Wants you to keep projecting toughness.”
    – David Pakman ([27:37])

4. Epstein Files Controversy: Blanche on the Hot Seat

Timestamps: [29:58]–[37:03]

• Attorney General Todd Blanche Interview: In an awkward interview with Katie Miller, Blanche denies the government is holding back Epstein-related files or protecting perpetrators, despite 3 million unreleased pages.

  • Quote:
    “There's a narrative that there's 3 million pages that are being held back. They have nothing to do with Epstein.”
    – Todd Blanche ([31:16])
  • Quote:
    “So that's kind of like a cop out language. And he says, I have not seen such a list. Now Pam Bondi said she had a list and it was on her desk... this whole playing stupid as to what it would even be. It's a list of the co-conspirators, the perpetrators.”
    – David Pakman ([33:16])

• Victims' Justice Denied: Pakman points out that only independent journalism is giving Epstein’s victims a voice, while official investigations are stonewalled.

---

Special Interview – Nutrition Science & Misinformation

Guest: Dr. Jessica Nurick
Timestamps: [40:44]–[64:05]

A. Why Misinformation Thrives

• Social Media Incentives: Sensationalism and fear-based content get amplified, while nuanced truth struggles for visibility.

  • Quote:
    “Even I want to listen to the [scary] one more than the first one... The challenge is breaking through the noise, giving accurate and nuanced information in an engaging way.”
    – Dr. Jessica Nurick ([42:53])

• The Kernel of Truth: Most effective health misinformation starts from a fragment of legitimate science, twisted into a broader, sometimes conspiratorial narrative.

B. The Commercial Incentive to Overcomplicate

• Parallels to Financial Industry: The basics of nutrition are simple, but overcomplication creates opportunities to sell products or content.
  • Quote:
    “If everybody was honest about how relatively simple the most important principles are... a lot of people would never hire a financial advisor or buy complicated products.”
    – David Pakman ([46:28])

C. MAHA/RFK Jr. Dietary Claims and Regulatory Capture

• Corporate Greed, Not Conspiracies: The real driver of poor public health is unchecked corporate power, not public health authorities.
  • Quote:
    “It's not that [corporations] are out to make us unhealthy, it's just they don't care if we are healthy or not.”
    – Dr. Jessica Nurick ([50:12])

D. Debunking Diet Myths

• Food Dyes: The problem isn’t tiny amounts of dye but the overall lack of nutrients in processed foods that contain them.

• Toxic Additives: U.S. food supply is among the world’s safest. The real issues are high rates of junk food consumption and poor fiber intake.

  • Quote:
    “We’re distracted from the things we know impact our health.”
    – Dr. Jessica Nurick ([51:40])

• Non-Nutritive Sweeteners: These are not counted as ‘added sugar’ because they provide no calories, not because of a labeling loophole. For most, switching to these instead of caloric sugars is healthier ([55:07]).

• Seed Oils: No scientific evidence supports claims they are unhealthy.

  • Quote:
    “With seed oils, it just defies nutrition science... Seed oils are not detrimental to health.”
    – Dr. Jessica Nurick ([58:04])

E. Practical, Evidence-Based Nutrition Takeaways

• Fiber: 95% of Americans don’t meet fiber needs.

• Vegetable Intake: Make half your plate vegetables.

• Variety: Eat a diverse range of foods; dietary patterns matter most.

• Balance: Use the “80/20” rule—not all foods have to be perfect.

  • Quote:
    “Start thinking of your diet as a dietary pattern. What are you eating consistently over time?”
    – Dr. Jessica Nurick ([61:13])

• Eggs: Fine for most people; total dietary saturated fat matters more than specific foods ([62:48]).

---

Trump’s Bizarre Press Conference Moments

Timestamps: [65:21]–[74:42]

• Confused Q&A with Iraqi PM: Trump appears disoriented, rambling from Iran strategy to oil partnerships to inflation, at times revealing confusion and possible cognitive decline.
• Strait of Hormuz Reversal, Again: He recounts abandoning the shipping fee after calls from “kings and emirs,” confirming yet again the administration’s policy instability.
• Lindsey Graham’s Death: Trump dismisses conspiracy theories, offering medically inconsistent explanations.

---

Trump’s “Charitable” Salary Donation – Misleading Talking Point

Timestamps: [74:42]–[80:33]

• Facts vs. Spin: Trump and his supporters tout his $400,000 salary donation, but Pakman reveals this is 0.018% of Trump’s 2025 $2.2 billion income.

  • Quote:
    “If your friend who makes 65k told you, I donated $11. Why don't more people talk about that?... Let me know when you actually donate something significant.”
    – David Pakman ([76:13])

• Larger Point: Trump has leveraged the presidency for vast personal gain; focusing on the donated salary misses the real story.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On War Crimes:
  “These are war crimes. Trump is casually talking about it, he's bragging about it...”
  – David Pakman ([07:19])
• On ICE Reversal:
  “This is more than economic. This is an issue of how policing is going to take place. And nobody seems to have a clue what it is that they're supposed to be doing, because Trump is just reversing and reversing and reversing.”
  – David Pakman ([29:58])
• On Nutrition Simplicity:
  “The basics of health, which I could rattle off in like less than 10 items are going to be like 90 plus percent of what’s determining our health.”
  – Dr. Jessica Nurick ([46:52])

---

Conclusion

This packed episode lays bare both the escalating militarism and administrative chaos of the Trump White House, the dangerous effects of policy whiplash on governance and the economy, and persistent failures on issues of justice (Epstein). It wraps with evidence-based, clear-headed advice on nutrition and critical thinking, strongly contrasting the tone and rhetoric dominating today’s political landscape.

For listeners wanting more context, analysis, and mythbusting, this is a must-listen episode of The David Pakman Show.

Transcript

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

I get so many headaches every month. It could be chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more.

[Botox Advertisement Voice]

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.

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Why wait? Ask your doctor, visit botoxchronicmigraine.com or call 1-844botox to learn more.

[David Pakman (Host)]

Traditional home security only alerts you after a break in and that's too late.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

SimpliSafe is changing that.

[Todd Blanche]

Stop.

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

This is Simplisafe Police are on the way.

[David Pakman (Host)]

We don't just alert, we stop crime before it starts.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

Simplisafe plans starting around a dollar a day.

[Katie Miller]

Save 50% on your new system with

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

professional [e-mail] Spotify or with promo code

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Spotify Outdoor Deterrence requires a Simplisafe Active

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

Guard Outdoor Protection plan starting at $49.99 a month. Visit simplisafe.com licenses for alarm license information. Tennessee 2012 we have a packed show today because Donald Trump made a series of statements that I believe would have been unimaginable to hear from a president just a few years ago. He's refusing to rule out sending ground troops into Iran. This is the anti war president. He's talking about destroying power plants and bridges, which is a war crime. And we will look at why legal experts distinguish between military targets and civilian infrastructure. Plus, after deadly ice encounters prompted Trump's own administration to say, hey, we're not going to do the traffic stops anymore. Trump steps in and goes, no, no, no, please keep doing the traffic stops. I love the traffic stops. We will also cover Todd Blanche's remarkable interview with Stephen Miller's wife on her podcast about Jeffrey Epstein, where he basically went, I don't know what you're talking about a client list. I don't know anything about that. An investigation into Epstein. Why would we do that? He's dead. And we have another taco Tuesday as the latest policy reversal once again dismantles one of Donald Trump's favorite talking points.

[Interviewer]

Points.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

We've got quite a program today. The anti war president, the peace president Donald Trump now says we may have to go into a ground war with Iran and admits plans to commit war crimes. This should be international headlines 24 7. And in the United States, it's kind of a shrug. Donald Trump was asked during what was supposed to be one of these very easy, friendly, softball Fox News interviews, are you ruling out a ground campaign? And Trump goes, no, sometimes you need a ground campaign. What started as no wars at all became sort of a war, but no ground troops. And it is now potentially going to go into a ground war with American troops in Iran. Think about the lies, foolish.

[Donald Trump]

But I'll tell you about Cargill. And so we've already.

[Interviewer]

Are you ruling out a ground campaign in a limited capacity?

[Donald Trump]

I don't want to say that either, but I would say no if I thought it was appropriate. Sometimes you need a ground campaign, but we have other people that will do the ground campaign for us. But we already hit Cargill and as you know, twice, even three times they said hit everything but the oil. Just leave that Little area. From 25 yards out, leave that little area. Don't touch you. Because I don't want that. In terms of the world economy, it's a, you know, it's a chunk of the world economy. So we haven't hit that. At some point we could, but I think it's unlikely. As far as taking it is concerned, if we degrade them far enough and deep enough back, I would do that.

[Interviewer]

Do you anticipate?

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

I'm trying to remember who promised no more pointless, forever wars in the Middle east when he ran for president, it was Donald Trump. And we are now in a position where, yeah, he's hemming and hawing, but he's saying ground war. Yep, that might actually have to happen. The follow up and more discussion. Can you even achieve your military objectives as if Trump knows what they are. Can you achieve your objectives with an air campaign alone, or do you need a ground component? And Trump goes, well, we have completed them. So then why are we back to war? Oh, my God, this progress.

[Interviewer]

So your objectives are to ensure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon, to keep the strait open and to degrade the Iranian military. Can those Objectives be completed in an air campaign alone, or does this require a ground component?

[Donald Trump]

Well, I think they're completed now. Honestly, if we left right now, it would take them 20 years to rebuild what they have. The only way.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

If that were true, don't you think we would have some leverage in getting this damn deal done? Which has collapsed again after 45 different claims of its bureau, Basically over. We basically have a deal now. This was not. Normally when a president announces, I'm thinking of a new ground war I'm going to involve the country in. That's the one and only headline. That's the big headline. But there's another headline from this absolutely insane interview, which was supposed to be easy. But the easiest interviews end up giving Trump the rope he needs to hang himself. Trump says, I plan to commit war crimes, saying that there is a plan in place to hit civilian infrastructure. He's saving those, but they're coming, the power plants, the bridges. These are war crimes, ladies and gentlemen. And Trump goes, I have a plan to do it.

[Interviewer]

Do you anticipate that the strikes were seen this week against Iran, will expand. Are you considering hitting energy targets or other locations inside of Iran?

[Donald Trump]

I'll save the energy targets for last. But ultimately we'll hit energy targets, yeah, but we're going to hit them very hard tonight. We're going to hit them very hard tomorrow night, we're going to hit them very hard the night after. And then next week it gets really bad for them because next week comes the power plants, next week comes the bridges. We're going to knock out all their power plants, we're going to knock out all their bridges.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

These are war crimes. Trump is casually talking about it, he's bragging about it, he's being extraordinarily cavalier, but that's what we're talking about here. So in 24 hours, not even really, we have gone from. Again, this is wrapping. Iran wants to make a deal for the 50th time to we might do a ground invasion and we're going to do a little bit of war criminality. Just some civilian infrastructure. Trump asked. I mean, listen, after you hear all these questions, the natural, all these answers, rather, the natural question is, so we're back to war, right? Like, the whole thing about how it's over, the war is obviously on. And Trump goes, well, you can kind of call it whatever you want. It's just. It's just semantics at the end of the day.

[Interviewer]

Has the war resumed?

[Donald Trump]

Well, I guess you could define it

any way you want.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

Is it A war or is it not a war? Well, it's Schrodinger's war, as I've jokingly called it from the beginning. I guess it is a war when convenient. Convenient and not when it isn't. If Trump wants to be the strong war president, then it's a war. If Trump wants to attempt to get leverage over Iran by saying we're back at war, then it is a war. But if Trump wants the anti war president bona fides, he talks about how he ended a war. Forget about the fact that he started it, he ended the war. Now in the midst of this and this just, it's, it's almost like a mental patient. And I don't say that in a pejorative way, but it's sort of like every 15 seconds he's saying the opposite. Now Trump goes after saying, we're going to do war crimes and hit civilian infrastructure. We're potentially going to go in with a ground war. It's going to be a very hard hitting tonight and then we're going to hit him hard tomorrow night. Trump goes, oh, Iran just contacted me and they want to make a deal. They do. Why am I struggling to believe that, sir?

[Donald Trump]

Three days ago we had a deal.

[Interviewer]

When was the last time you spoke with an Iranian official?

[Donald Trump]

Well, not me, but let's say my representatives, I have spoken to him, but my representatives over the course of. Well, actually an hour ago.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

Why is this so insane?

[Interviewer]

Message was delivered, they want to make

[Donald Trump]

a deal, but every time they make a deal, they break it. They don't want to die. People don't want to die. Yeah, about an hour ago.

[Interviewer]

And what message was delivered?

[Donald Trump]

You better make a deal. You're not going to have any, you're not going to have anybody left. We're being very careful with the civilian population, as you know. But, oh, yeah, I said, you better make a deal. You're not going to have anything left.

[Interviewer]

And you think that.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

Can people tell that he's just making this stuff up as he goes along? When did you last speak to them? An hour ago. Weren't you sitting here for this interview? An hour ago, sir? Doesn't matter. He's just making it up as he goes along. Finally, Trump says, we have cameras so strong that we can read the name badges of all the people named. Probably Mohammed.

[Donald Trump]

You know, we have cameras, Space Force, we have cameras that are, they can read the badge, they can read your name. Probably Mohammed.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

It's, that's probably, that's probably the name. This guy has no idea what he is doing. And he is now casually floating war crimes and casually saying, we may get the United States involved in a new ground war. But after all, it was Tuesday. And Tuesday is the day that everything gets canceled and reversed because it's Taco Tuesday. And that's what we have to talk about next. Donald Trump has done it again. He has canceled the entire thing. How many times are we going to do this? How much longer until we can get back to some semblance of sanity in this country? Just days after announcing that every ship passing through the Strait of Hormuz would face a 20% U.S. reimbursement fee, which, by the way, economists said shipping companies, foreign governments panicking to try to figure it out, Donald Trump has effectively canceled the entire thing. Posting to Truth Social, which is where presidential announcements are now regularly made. Quote, oil is flowing like never before, thanks to the awesome power of the United States military. A special salute to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Kaine, and Commander of the United States Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper. Because of them, and all members of the most powerful military anywhere in the world by far, the Strait of Hormuz is open to all ship traffic, except for Iran. And that is because of their lying, violent, malicious leadership, which is taking them down the path of total destruction. We will therefore have a full blockade, but only on ships coming to and from Iranian ports or carrying anything having to do with Iranian cargo. Based on highly productive conversations with Middle east leadership, I have decided to replace the 20% United States reimbursement fee with trade and investment deals. Oh, that's nice. That the various Gulf states will be making into the United States. Those investments will be massive, but at the same time, extraordinarily good for them and their future. As everyone is aware, we have the largest dollar investment into the United States of any country in history. But these new investments will make that number even larger. And we will see factories, plants and equipment pour into the United States at historic levels, which will create additional millions of high paying American jobs. America's winning like never before. The days of Iran killing hundreds of thousands of people, including 52,000 protesters, are over. And most importantly, Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. You know, even if a fracture, even if, like a tiny little bit of this crap were true, and you know, it's like, that's it, the fee is gone. We have investment promises. Another dramatic announcement. Even if a fraction of this were true, a lot of this stuff takes years. Trump goes now we've switched the 20% fee with commitments to build plants in the United States. Do you know how long it takes to cite a new plant and then to get a plan in place to build it and then to get approvals and for construction to start and for it to be. Even if this were true, which we have no evidence that it is, even if it were true, we're talking years long projects. The idea that these are things that are going to help Trump deliver on his endless failed promises is laughable. But this is the way it always happens. Dramatic announcement gets wall to wall coverage. Markets react, foreign governments go, we got to figure out what the hell we're doing here. And then never mind. Completely different policy. Tariffs announced, tariffs delayed, tariffs expanded. But there's exemptions to the tariffs. And here's the deadline. But now we've extended the deadline and the policies are rolled out with confidence, and then they disappear and then they're rewritten. And it has gotten so common that this whole taco. Trump always chickens out. Taco Tuesday. It happened to be Tuesday when Trump announced this. Whether you think that nickname is fair or unfair, you've got to understand why it exists. Traders, business owners, elected officials, domestic and international, everybody watches the pattern, and now you can start betting on it. And the market increasingly assumes Trump's biggest threats are often just things he says rather than a final policy. And there are people on the right who go, no, that's good. The fact that now people know this might just be something he's saying is a good thing. No, it's a bad thing. Because when everybody is left to wonder, even though Trump said it, is it for real? They delay decisions, they delay investments, they delay doing stuff. And so it puts everybody in this sort of stasis. And Trump's own explanation is bizarre. Here he says, you know, the kings, the emirs, the Middle Eastern leaders, they all called me and they said, you know, we'd rather invest billions in the United States rather than pay this fee. If that's true, then just a few phone calls completely upend a major international economic policy. One week the administration is saying, we need this fee, it's absolutely necessary. And then next week the fee is gone because somebody proposed a different idea. That's an extraordinarily fluid way, lacking all confidence to make these sorts of deals. If Trump really thinks through the 20% toll, then why would he abandon it because of a couple of phone calls that doesn't make sense? And of course, we are left to wonder what is actually going to happen. We've heard endless Announcements about countries are investing trillions, and it turns out those are hypothetical investments, much smaller over many years if certain requirements are met and it never materializes. Trump now has spent a year saying, I brought in whatever crazy amount of money it is from the Middle East. None of that money has come in yet. Like, I hope people understand the promise Trump made when he's come back from these trips and he goes, they, they gave me 800 billion. No, they didn't. They said, hey, over the next decade, if you present us with these types of opportunities, we would consider that level of investment. And there have been no such opportunities, unless you count Jared Kushner in his, in his fund getting a whole bunch of money from the Middle East. But that's a little different. Foreign governments are trying to figure out what's going on. Shipping companies are trying to plan routes. And this unpredictability is very costly. We aren't keeping them off balance in a good way. We are making them not trust us because they say, after every single one of these things, is this real, or do we just wait a few days? And you can't run an economy that way.

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

You.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

You can't run a company that way. You need stable circumstances, and companies need to be confident that tomorrow it's not all going to be canceled. On Truth Social, will these rules be in place six days from now? Six weeks, six months? I don't know. And so Donald Trump doing it once again. And if the original policy wasn't worth keeping for even a week, why announce it in the first place? Why? It's enough with the reversals. Nobody's respecting any of what he says because it's reversed so often. So yet another embarrassment. And there was another reversal we have to talk about, which has to do with ice and these deadly traffic stops. We'll talk about that after the break. A lot of men's clothing forces the same bad tradeoff. If the material feels good and the fit is decent, the price is ridiculous. If the price is reasonable, the quality is usually not there. Our sponsor, Quince, has that solved. Quince makes high quality wardrobe staples. They use premium materials. They don't mark them up like the luxury brands. Already a good start. They've got lightweight European linen shirts and shorts, soft 100% Pima cotton tees. They've got comfortable pants. The whole concept is simple, versatile clothing you can wear every day. I got a bunch of their basic Pima cotton tees. They're phenomenal. I can layer them. I can wear them by themselves. They look good. They don't degrade when you wash them. Plus, Quince works directly with ethical factories. They cut out the middlemen. This lets them offer the same materials you'd find with expensive brands but for 50 to 80% less. So refresh your everyday wardrobe with luxury you will use. Go to quints.com/pacman for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada. Also, that's Q U I n c e.com/pacman for free shipping and 365 day returns. The link is in the description now let's talk about suits for a moment. Guys want to look sharp for weddings or work or dinner or just you don't want to wear jeans one day. But finding menswear that feels classic, modern and comfortable is pretty difficult. This is why I like our sponsor, Southern Gents. Southern Gents offers refined menswear. They've got suits and blazers, trousers, dress shirts, loafers, all the finishing touches. They've got a great suit collection with single breasted and double breasted options. Maybe you need something polished for business or you've got a summer wedding. Southern Gents has what you need. I got a great single breasted blazer and pant combo perfect for a summer wedding. I'm going to the ordering is really straightforward. The shipping was super fast. Go to s-gents.com and use the code PACMAN for 10% off your entire order. The link is in the description. The David Pakman show is of course an audience supported program. I do what I do because of your support. We maintain a staff and are able to pay salaries and benefits and have this great team because of your support at especially what is a critical time for American democracy and the state of politics. I am flattered by those who are signing up and getting memberships on my website. I want to say thanks to our two newest members, Cheryl Aquino and Sherri Nelson. Thank you to both of you. You can join them and sign up at join pacman.com you can also get a membership on [e-mail] pakman.com all of it gives you access to the daily bonus show and the commercial free video program and audio program. And remember that my newest book Pay Attention. It's out in a few weeks. It is now available for preorder. We need to get our preorder numbers up. This is what will determine do bookstores stock the book? Any version of the book that you order, the hardcover, the signed copy, the audiobook. You can call any independent bookstore and ask them to get this book and they will get it for you. All versions of preorder will qualify you to get the number one copy of the book, which is this one that's sitting on my shelf, as well as the number one first ever printed copy of the Echo Machine, which I have here with me, dedicated to you. If you want to be included in the raffle for those two number one copies, simply send your preorder screenshot or receipt to info@david pakman.com it is a beautiful, beautiful thing. One of the biggest headaches for the Trump administration this week supposedly was going to be over after yet another two deadly ICE encounters. The administration quietly told ICE officers suspend most of these traffic stops during immigration operations, which are serving as the catalysts to some of these shooting deaths. And we had another situation where two ICE agents shot and killed drivers within a week. One was in Texas, another was in Maine. And according to reporting, neither of the men who were killed were even the targets of the operation that ICE was running. So the pause was not we've changed our ideology. The pause was we got to do damage control, we got to stop this. And a bunch of Republican lawmakers, including Maine Senator Susan Collins, who's in a reelection campaign, started expressing concern. I'm concerned about the shootings. And Susan Collins reportedly urged the Department of Homeland Security, now run by the completely incompetent former senator Mark Wayne Mullen. She urged them stop the non urgent vehicle stops after the main incident. If it's a high speed chase, something of, you know, danger to the public, but the average one of these traffic stops, you got to stop doing this stuff. And the administration seemed to realize the optics are really bad and people are going to vote against every Republican in November if we don't step in here. So they did that. But Donald Trump didn't like it. And just hours ago this morning, he went to truth social media and he says the policy is back on publishing. Quote, the men and women of ICE are doing a great job, one that has to be done. Crime is way down in America, in many cases with numbers that haven't been seen in decades. The open border policy of sleepy Joe Biden allowed 25 million people to pour into our country unchecked and unvetted. Many were criminals and we have to get them out. In order to do this, we must be strong, tough and smart. And we cannot give up one of ice's most important and effective crime fighting tools, the traffic stop. Once we do, we are playing right into the criminal's hands. The radical left Democrats would like to see this done, but it won't happen on my watch. Ice, be judicious, fair and smart, and go back and do your very important job. Keep those crime stat records coming. Remember, you are loved and respected in America. Thank you. Blah, blah, blah. So a lot of falsehoods there. ICE has a very low approval in the United States. And Trump going crime is way down. Crime has been declining in the United States for 30 years. And interestingly, client crime is declining no faster on average now than before for this ICE deportation policy. So if anything, the evidence points to this really isn't accelerating the climb to crime, climb to crime, the crime decline in the United States. But Donald Trump saying this pause that lasted a few hours on the ICE traffic stops is over. And to me, the most remarkable part isn't, you know, Trump supports aggressive immigration enforcement. We, we knew that he campaigned on that. It's his own administration came to the conclusion these traffic stops are such a liability, we have to stop them. While officials review what is going on. And Trump immediately goes, nope, do it again. According to the Associated press, at least 10 people have died during immigration enforcement operations since the start of this campaign. Multiple deaths involved vehicles. Former acting ICE Director John Sandweg estimated there have been 18 traffic stop shootings connected to Trump's policy. And whether every one of those uses of force was legally justified has to be looked at individually with at least some of them. When the evidence came out, it became clear they were not justified. But put that aside for a second. From a political standpoint, Republicans have a new problem, or they again have a problem they were hoping would fade away. And instead of being able to talk about lowering inflation or jobs or other stuff they want to campaign on, even though they don't have the numbers to justify it, they are now again in the position of having to defend these videos of fatal encounters during ICE operations. And then there's the broader question, of course, about decision making in the White House. We talked to Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan about this last week. Who is really in charge there? And they said it depends in which area. For some stuff, it's Stephen Miller, for some, it's Susie Wiles. But what we see now is one day ICE leadership says we're pausing this after two more deadly events. And then the next day, Trump goes, no, no, no, you've got to do it, keep doing it. These public reversals not only create confusion about who's setting policy, it also sends a message to rank and file officers, whatever internal review may be underway. Trump Wants you to keep projecting toughness.

[Katie Miller]

And.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

And he says it's indispensable that these traffic stops continue. Now, as we see these, we recognize we need greater restraint, we need more oversight. Policing experts have warned shooting into moving vehicles creates such a risk for officers and suspects and bystanders. It's one of the worst things you can do. And Trump goes, you got to keep pushing forward on exactly the sort of stops that are leading to those incidents. So took only 24 hours, 24 hours for Trump to say, it is all back on. And maybe one of the most incredible reminders I have is that back when Joe Biden was president, Donald Trump would insist, biden's not really making the decisions. It's the auto pen, and it's people who shall not be named because we don't know who they are. And Biden doesn't even know what's going on. We have a real question here in the Trump administration as to whose enforcement power is really being respected, because it's not clear that it's Trump's and it's not clear that it's his agencies. It's just the mishmash of back and forth. And as usual, I mean, listen, this is the theme when Trump goes, the tariffs are on, and then the tariffs are off. All of these trading partners economically see instability. They don't know what to do. They hold tight. It's bad for them. When we see that the Strait of Hormuz is closed and then it's open, and then it's closed and there's a tariff on it and there's not, or a toll or whatever. Others say it's too crazy over there. We just got to hold tight. We're not going to do anything. And that's bad economically. And then now we have a situation where officers and ICE agents, police officers, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, everyone's like, okay, so the ICE traffic stops are off. Oh, no. The ICE traffic stops are on. This is more than economic. This is an issue of how policing is going to take place. And nobody seems to have a clue what it is that they're supposed to be doing, because Trump is just reversing and reversing and reversing. And in the middle of this, the Epstein stuff is not going away, even if the administration is desperate to make it go away. And I want to talk about that next. Epstein. Never heard of him.

[Interviewer]

Who?

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

A client list? No, I don't know anything about that at all. This was supposed to be a friendly interview between the acting interim Attorney General, Todd Blanch, who is now in the middle of confirmation hearings to become permanent Attorney General. And Katie Miller, the wife of Stephen Miller. She has a podcast. As nauseating and vomitus as that is. She has a podcast was supposed to be a very, very friendly conversation, and it ended up being a complete disaster for Todd Blanche, if you care about truth. Todd Blanche. Blanche says, of course there was never an Epstein cover up. And all of the millions of pages we aren't releasing, they have nothing to do with Epstein. They don't. That's really weird.

[Katie Miller]

Do you think the investigators covered it up? Given how many victims there are, surely. I mean, there should be more prosecutions and more charges than there are.

[Todd Blanche]

Well, look, the Epstein files are available for everybody to see, so it's not. So do I think there was a cover up? No, I don't. But it's not just up to me. Everybody that's watching this, everybody, that the Epstein. The Epstein Transparency act has now allowed us to release the entire Epstein files.

[Katie Miller]

There's still 3 million held back, though not all of them are public.

[Todd Blanche]

No, they're all public.

[Donald Trump]

No.

[Todd Blanche]

So look, that's. That's not true. So there's a narrative that there's 3 million pages that are being held back. They have nothing to do with Epstein's.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

So why are they being held back? What do they have to do with. That's a really weird thing to say. 3 million files associated with the Epstein files have nothing to do with Epstein. That's really weird. And this interview only gets weirder. And you know, this guy is just lying through his teeth. This is Trump's former personal lawyer. He is one of the biggest loyalists that there is. He's only 51. He knows he has potentially a long career ahead of him with a lot of opportunities to make money from being close to power and defending power. Katie Miller goes, what about the Epstein client list? Do you guys have it? And Blanche goes, no, I don't even know what that is. I haven't seen such a list, which I think is very carefully worded language. I'll explain why in a moment.

[Katie Miller]

Does a client list exist?

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Is the government list.

[Katie Miller]

Does an Epstein client list exist and is the government in possession of it?

[Todd Blanche]

No. I mean, listen, everything. I can ask you the same question, right? Because everything's been released. So there is, there, there's.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

Remember that everything has not been released.

[Todd Blanche]

What's commonly referred to as the client list, if I were speculating, is the black book that has been released for years and years and years. That was basically Epstein's address book. There was a list of masseuses. It's not a client list. Obviously a lot of those women were actually victims. That exists. But I don't even, to be honest with you, I don't know what a client list is. And I'm not trying to be naive, but what would a client list consist of?

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

It would consist of the people involved in taking advantage of young women along with Epstein. Come on, guys.

[Todd Blanche]

In a list of Mr. Epstein's, the people he was supposedly blackmailing, Is it people that were his business clients, his personal clients? But no, I have not.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

This is, this, this is really pathetic stuff. Now there is some narrow interpretation of what Blanche is saying that might be true, but very deceptive. He says, I don't know what a client list is. Well, maybe he doesn't know definitively, but there's a bunch of things it could be.

[David Pakman (Host)]

But.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

So that's kind of like a cop out language. And he says, I have not seen such a list. Now Pam Bondi said she had a list and it was on her desk. So is it possible that Blanche is sort of technically right by saying he hasn't seen it and doesn't know what it is because he hasn't seen it? I guess. But this whole playing stupid as to what it would even be. It's a list of the co conspirators, the perpetrators. And we know that some kind of list must exist because they had the wherewithal to redact a bunch of the names of the alleged perpetrators. They know that they're not blacking out the names of the of alleged victims when they are alleged perpetrators. And they still chose to do it. So they must know that they could certainly assassinate assemble such a list. Blanche insists completely beyond belief. There has been no effort to protect anybody when it comes to their role. Obviously untrue. When they redact the names of alleged perpetrators, you're protecting them quite simply. Now you could say they deserve to be protected because these are only allegations, whatever, but they have not. They have protected those alleged perpetrators.

[Katie Miller]

One of my concerns is that when you have this many high profile people and that no one understands how Jeffrey Epstein truly made his money, you're gonna sit here and come to conclusions of logical blackmail and documented blackmail in this case, especially as it relates to potential videos of underage women that you guys haven't found, is the government covering up or have people at times covered up parts of the investigation and possibly lost key details because of who these people are?

[Todd Blanche]

Not me and not the Attorney General of our United States, there's no scenario, which we are not. Not Director Patel, you're asking me to kind of speculate or guess about whether that happened in the past. I can't do that. I can only tell you what we know now. There has been no effort to protect a soul when it comes to their role, Their relationship with Epstein.

[Katie Miller]

One of my.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

Very much a lie. I mean, he's just lying. And there's not really any repercussions for this stuff. Now. We'll see how his confirmation hearing goes to go to today, but it doesn't seem as though there are going to be any repercussions for this. He also says if we are. If anybody claims we're ignoring the victims of Epstein, that is also not true.

[Todd Blanche]

There's not. I mean, listen, I am not trying to defend Epstein. I'm not. And I do defend the work that this department is doing today right now, which is going after every single perpetrator anywhere. And if there's a narrative that exists that we're ignoring Epstein victims that is false, they know that every victim. And I'll say it again right now, if you are a victim, if you're a victim's lawyer, you can contact the FBI, you can contact the Department of Justice, and we will do everything we can to investigate anything that you have to say.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

They quite literally have had. The victims have had no role in anything the government has done. Only thanks to independent journalists have the victims been given voices to a degree and somewhat in corporate media as well. Finally, Todd Blanch goes. Listen, at the end of the day, Epstein's dead. We're not investigating him.

[Donald Trump]

Huh?

[Todd Blanche]

We have agents all over the country dedicated to helping victims. And that's different, though, than whether we are not investigating Epstein. He's dead. Okay, so what we have is a bunch of files.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

And this is, of course, so misleading. You may not be investigating Epstein in the sense of looking to prosecute Epstein. Yes, Epstein is dead. But the Epstein matter, as we might call it, is riddled with potential perpetrators who should be investigated. But Blanche seems to basically be saying Epstein died and the possibility of anyone being held accountable died with him. And sadly, he might be right now. Fortunately, there are still independent journalists and others that are continuing to push this story. And I still have the vague idea. I don't know how naive it is. Maybe it's naive, maybe it's not. That as we approach the November election, this story will actually come back and it will be front and center. Although Donald Trump's Iran war is certainly sucking up a lot of the oxygen, but we've got to stay on this story. If you're trying to get away from cigarettes or vaping, one of the first practical questions is what you replace them with. Especially if you're not ready to eliminate nicotine immediately, check out our sponsor, Zipix Nicotine Toothpicks. Zipix uses quality plant derived nicotine with a very short list of ingredients. It gives you another option for managing nicotine with no smoke or vapor. Zipix comes in six flavors. There's two or three milligram options lets you control the nicotine as compared to a cigarette or vape. They're also easy to use throughout the day and in places where smoking or vaping isn't allowed or it would require you to step out conspicuously for a cigarette, which can cause other problems. Zipix also offers caffeine and B12 toothpicks if you're reducing nicotine altogether or don't even use it at all. If you're tired of cigarettes or vaping, try Zipix Nicotine TOOTHPICKS and get 10% off your first order with code PACMAN@ ZIPIXTOOTHPICKS.COM the link is in the description. You must be 21 or older to order. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. The brutally hot weather we have has a way of exposing malfunctioning underwear. You take one long walk or commute in the humidity or you're in a studio like this one that's overheated one day and suddenly it's the sweat and the friction and the readjusting. And this is where sheath underwear is a game changer. We have a sponsor sheath. They just make great underwear built around a pouch design that will separate and support. It'll reduce skin on skin contact. It'll eliminate the chafing when things get a little sticky. Their lineup includes five or eight inch boxer briefs. They've got trunks, base layers, socks and more. You can get bamboo. You can get Modal cotton airflow fabrics. The airflow fabrics are designed to be cooling and breathable whether you're moving around or just lounging around. And sheaths, Bamboo and modal options are built for soft, comfortable daily wear. You might be doing morning errands. Maybe it's a late night show you're going to. So during these blisteringly hot months, don't just crank up the fan and hope for the best. Upgrade your first layer. Go to sheathunderwear.com/pacman Use code PACMAN for 20% off your entire order. The link is in the description.

[David Pakman (Host)]

Welcome everybody Today we are going to be speaking with Dr. Jessica Nurick, who is a nutrition scientist and science communicator specializing in chronic disease prevention. So great to talk to you today. I really appreciate your time.

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

I'm happy to be here. Thanks for having me.

[David Pakman (Host)]

David, you do really great content debunking a lot of science and medical misinformation, which I love. It's just, it's. It's a content niche that I both love and, and respect. Why do you think that the misinformation is sort of having a moment right now and it's spreading particularly well?

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Yeah, I mean, I think it's a lot of things. I think social media doesn't do us any favors in the misinformation space because, you know, the way that, that it kind of rewards people is through fear and sensationalism and conspiratorial kind of thinking. And so I think a lot of it comes from just the platforms that we go to now for our information, because for better or worse, that's where people are going for their information. And then, you know, I think also we are at a time where we all feel like there's something that's wrong with things that are impacting our health, you know, our food environment, our healthcare system. And I think that we are kind of ripe for trying to understand it. And a lot of people are coming in with narratives that may or may not be the actual reasons for the problem.

[David Pakman (Host)]

Yeah, the, the social media dynamics are really important. I mean, I've talked to people before and given the example of forget about what's accurate, but just compare the following two messages. The COVID vaccine is pretty good at preventing death and hospitalization. It's not really very good at preventing you from catching COVID but depending on your health sit. It still would make sense to get. Okay, that's one message. The other message is millions of people are being killed by the vaccine. Even ignoring which is true, we intuitively know which of those is most likely to be liked, shared and, and commented on based on the algorithms. And that seems to be a challenge that we're up against.

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Yeah, I mean, 100% even I want to listen to the second one more than the first one. Right. So it's, that's the, that's the primary issue with science communication right now is figuring out how break through from the noise because. And stay giving accurate and nuanced information or being able to give accurate, nuanced information in an engaging way. And so I think that's what a lot of us are wrestling right now, right now with in science communication is how can we best do that to actually make people want to watch the information but give appropriate nuance and not be sensational as well?

[David Pakman (Host)]

I'm wondering if you would agree with this is a general statement. It doesn't apply to all of the claims. And we'll look at some of these claims. But oftentimes these kind of deceptive or misleading medical and nutritional claims, there's some kernel of reality around which they're based. Like for example, the whole food dye thing with RFK Jr is it probably better to avoid food dyes in the sense that the foods that have them tend to be ultra processed foods? Like that's. I think that that's probably true, that that's based in evidence. Even if you buy the counter is. Even if you eat 10 bags of Skittles, the amount of actual dye you're consuming seems so low that the bigger issue is just sort of like what's the big picture of the foods that we're consuming? I don't know if I'm asking the question clearly, but like, do you agree that there's often a kernel of truth from which the misinformation kind of grows?

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Yeah, I think it's a great example that you just gave. But absolutely, I think almost always there's the most effective misleading or misinformation has a kernel of truth. That's why it's so effective. Because you know, intuitively, okay, that is true, something in there is true. And then they weave kind of a conspiratorial narrative about why that's true. And we see that in almost everything. So. So, you know, it's a lot more difficult to kind of explain the nuance there that with food dyes, for example, where food dyes, whether they're, I mean, honestly whether they're synthetic or the natural based derived food dyes where they show up in our food system are in foods that we would otherwise recommend that we consume less of. Not necessarily not consume them, but consume less of. Right. They're going to be in your candies and your sodas and your really like sugary kind of high, high fat sugar salt foods that are devoid of kind of other nutrition like fiber and other nutrients. And so we would, as nutrition professionals, we would recommend we consume less of those. Are we recommending that because it contains a food dye? No, we're recommending it because of the overall kind of nutrient package of that food, which is not health promoting. And so that's the, that's kind of the reality of the situation. But it's a lot more nuanced and a lot more difficult to kind of get across than, than the alternative.

[David Pakman (Host)]

I see an analogy between financial services marketing and a lot of the sort of food and nutrition misinformation. And I'll see if I can explain it. One of the things I, I used to work in financial services and you know, financial advising, insurance, all this sort of stuff. One of the things about that space is that if everybody was honest about how relatively simple the most important principles are, that'll get you like 90% of the way there. A lot of people would never hire a financial advisor or buy complicated products. It's like, listen, you want to be saving at least X percent. You don't need to be picking stocks. Invest in simple index funds. Pick your risk tolerance that tells you how much cash stock bonds do you need. It's like, it's really very simple. And if everybody was upfront about that, a lot of the people selling products

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

wouldn't make any money.

[David Pakman (Host)]

Similarly, it seems to me that by overcomplicating and finding, you know, when you heat the seed oils, it releases and then we don't know how it interacts with, when you complicate it seems that it creates an opportunity for people to sell stuff. Do you think there's something to my analogy here?

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

I mean, I have made that exact analogy before. I completely agree.

[David Pakman (Host)]

Oh, you have?

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Okay. I think it's not just selling stuff. I think that's a big part of it. But it's also when you're creating content, you have to consistently create content. Right. And there's only so many times you can tell somebody in the nutrition space, for example, eat as many nutrient dense foods as possible, eat more fruits and vegetables, eat more fiber, drink more water, you know, and limit these like low nutrients ultra processed foods as much as possible. I mean walk, you know those. Because that's going to be like 90%. I mean the basics of health, which I could rattle off in like less than 10 items are going to be like 90 plus percent of what's determining our health. But what happens is we have creators are consistently creating content and they want eyeballs oftentimes to sell things. And so what they'll do is they'll focus on that kind of 1%. Right. Or the extreme things that are in the margins in terms of what's impacting health or even not impacting health. And then that's what they'll focus most of the content on. So what we see on social Media is really this very small, kind of on the margins amount of information that would actually impact health. But we're seeing it. That's most of the information we're seeing. And then we kind of forget the basics and we forget the fundamentals or we don't focus on the fundamentals. And we see it, you know, with the supplement industry all the time like these supplements are going to do this for you, but then, you know, somebody's purchasing it who's not doing kind of those really basic things that we would recommend for health.

[David Pakman (Host)]

What do you think are the one or two most dangerous things that have been either explicitly or sort of implicitly promoted by the RFK Maha agenda?

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

I think certainly this idea, because what I always say, often say this, but the Maha movement kind of came about because of this idea and this understanding that something's not right. I kind of mentioned this and in a very bipartisan way across the board, we all can kind of understand that our food environment right now is not a health promoting food environment. We have a healthcare system that's failing people. We have environmental pollution that many of us would like to see lessened environmental pollution. So most of us can agree on kind of the problem. The issue is where did that problem come from? And then what are the solutions? So you have to understand the causes to then understand the solutions to the problem. And I think with the maha movement and RFK Jr. Like specifically, you know, RFK Jr. Has been an anti vaxxer for many decades. That's where he made his name. That's where many of us in science have been watching him kind of come up. That's really his goal. Like I don't even think he ever really spoke about nutrition. Maybe I'm wrong, but I never heard it like pre Maha movement, right? I think that that's what he used kind of to usher in his anti tax agenda into hhs. And so I think one of the biggest things, to answer your question directly that is so concerning about the movement is this idea that we're putting kind of the blame on scientists and public health institutions instead of kind of where it belongs, which would be this idea of corporate greed, right? Where corporations really, they don't really care about your health. Like it's not that they're out to get you, it's just that their primary goal is profit and growth in our society, right? And so that's what they're doing. And so if that means that creating a food environment that is not health promoting, that's what they're going to do because their goal is to their shareholders, their responsibilities to their shareholders to maximize profit and growth. And so that's going to mean cutting costs in ingredients, that's going to mean marketing to children and to low income populations where they can sell more of these products. And again, it's not that they're out to make us unhealthy, it's just they don't care if we are healthy or not. And so that's how we get these kind of systems that are really good for corporate profit at the expense of our health. Meanwhile, we have scientists, we have public health institutions that are trying to fight against this and have been for a long time that are kind of chronically underfunded. And then you have a movement kind of come in placing blame there and now making tons of cuts to science and public health while having a partnering with an administration that is decisively pro pro business and pro industry and making policy decisions benefiting them.

[David Pakman (Host)]

One of the things that they often will talk about are toxic additives into our food. And I would love for you to talk about that a little bit because I think it's very evocative language that promotes this idea of here is an unadulterated food and it's being loaded with this extra stuff that you both don't need and is acutely unhealthy for you. What do you think of this whole narrative around so called toxic additives? What's the truth of it?

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Yeah, well, this is an interesting thing too because if you believe that there's toxic additives, you would be, you should be fully supportive of fully funding the fda. Right. And having a very strong fda. And this is the thing with Maha, a lot of them I think just don't understand. They want more regulation. Like if we want, if we want to make sure that there's not toxic additives in our food supply, we need to be having people working in our regulatory agencies and scientists being in there testing the safety of these food additives. What I will say is we have an otherwise there's a difference between a safe food supply and a health promoting food supply. And so in terms of a safe food supply, our food supply has always been relatively safe. And you see this on kind of global standards, the global Food Security Index. When they look at quality and safety of our food supply, we're ranked third in the entire world for quality and safety of our food supply. When there are additives that have been shown to cause harm, we saw this with trans fat, for example. We work, the FDA works to remove those from the food supply. And so I think that it's a bit of a misdirection to suggest that that's the problem. You know, I talk about this all the time. If you look at the American diet, We are over 90% of us are not consuming the recommended intake of vegetables. Over 90, around 95% of us are not meeting fiber intake guidelines. So that means 95% of us are not meeting the minimum that we would recommend for fiber. Over half of us are eating too much added sugar. Like these are really the major issues with our food supply and with our diets, but that we're kind of getting distracted because it's more sensational and it's more scary sounding and it's more fear based, as if it's an additive problem when it's really just a dietary composition problem. What we are overly consuming. Again, I mentioned this. 70% of our food supply are these ultra processed foods. And many of those are these low nutrient ultra processed foods. Because within that definition there's a lot of variability. But that's really the problem. And my issue is when we focus all of our attention on something that we don't have strong evidence that actually impacts our health too much, we're distracted from the things we know impacts our health.

[David Pakman (Host)]

Let me ask you a little bit specifically about added sugar, because something interesting is going on right now with labeling at my gym. I won't say the brand, but there's a cereal that all of these people who clearly spend a lot of the time at the gym are walking around with. And it's a cereal that is marketed as high protein, high fiber and no added sugar. And when I looked at this cereal in the grocery store, you look at the line that says added sugar and it does say zero. It's very sweet though. And when you look at the ingredients, you. I don't remember if it's monk fruit extract or beet sugar or whatever, but labeling has determined that certain types of sweeteners, sugar and corn syrups do count as added sugar. And it seems to me that these are sweetened cereals sweetened with items that right now don't have to be labeled as added sugar. Is that nutritionally relevant or are you just having something that's sweetened with a different type of sweetener? And in the body it's really the same thing. Like, I guess what I'm asking is, have a lot of food manufacturers figured out how to game the labeling requirements?

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Yeah, it's a good question. The sweeteners, if they are not if they're not required to be included in the added sugar label. That's because they're not calorie containing sugars. So we have these non nutritive sweeteners they're called and that means that they don't contain calories and so we wouldn't add them into added sugar because added sugars are calorie containing macronutrients. Right. So they're carbohydrates, they contain 4 calories per gram and so that's why they're on a food label like that. So they're required to be included in the ingredient list but we wouldn't include them in that actual nutrition panel because those are what's listed there within the carbohydrate label. And sugars are calorie containing sugars. So that's not calories in other words. Correct, Correct. So yeah, food, food corporations will use those because they're non nutritive so they don't have calories, so they don't have to be added into the sugar because they don't impact you the same as sugar does. A lot of people don't like the flavor of those non nutritive sweeteners. So it certainly changes the flavor. Like if you're somebody like me who can taste tell like kind of these non nutritive sweeteners, you'll try it and you'll be like oh that is way too sweet and also doesn't taste like sugar. But yeah, that's, that's the reason it's. And, and food corporations again, they're trying to market to what people are going to buy. So if they're, if their target audience is like gym, like high end gym. Right. They're going to use what we call health washing on their packaged foods and they're going to say oh they're going to add a few, there's like a whey protein shortage right now because all of these food manufacturers are trying to add protein into their prepackaged ultra processed foods to make it seem healthier. And so you know, these like protein companies can't get access to the protein they otherwise were. And because, because of the food corporations kind of buying it up and adding it into things like chips or crackers to kind of add a couple grams of protein so they can put high protein on the label.

[David Pakman (Host)]

If this is a difficult question to answer that that's totally cool. But can we say that it is healthier when there is one of these non nutritive sweeteners that doesn't add calories like are you, are you making a healthier. When you choose that?

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

I mean, you're making. Yes, you're. So you're making a choice that you're eating less sugar and that is something that we would recommend. So for example, like if you're drinking a diet soda over a regular soda, you're consuming less sugar, which for the average American that's a good thing. So, so on the, on like overall, yes, that would be what we would say.

[David Pakman (Host)]

I'd love to ask you a little bit about seed oils. I now see both products and even restaurants that market never any seed oils. And when I've as a layperson looked at the peer reviewed science, I don't see the claims that seed oils are inflammatory. In the studies I've looked at, I don't see the big warning signs around seed oils. What's the truth about them? And how did this become such a big marketing tool?

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Yeah, it's really interesting, David, because like with the food dye thing, there's some nuance there that we could talk about. With the seed oil thing, it just defies nutrition science. Like what we know in the, in the actual evidence when we look at these studies, global nutrition science studies, not just the US we look globally over long periods of time, epidemiological studies, randomized controlled trials. What we know to be true is that seed oils are not detrimental to health. Like we just, there's just not evidence to suggest that. If there were, I'd be the first person talking about it when, when there was a good amount of evidence to suggest trans fats were harmful. Like we as public health experts, nutrition scientists, we were the ones pushing to get that out of the food supply. Like that's the reason that a lot of us get into this field is to make sure that we're helping people eat as healthful as optimally, as optimally as possible. With seed oils, you know, they're consumed globally, we have lots of data on them. The overall consensus is that they are not harmful for health. And in fact, if you swap out saturated fats for most people and swap in polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are these seed oils, polyunsaturated fatty acids, by the way, have our essential fatty acids, which are things like omega 3s and omega 6s, which means we have to get those from the diet in order to survive. Our body doesn't make them. Our body can make, they can synthesize endogenously, which is like inside the body a lot of fatty acids and a lot of nutrients. But those Two, you can't. And so you get them from polyunsaturated fats and seed oils are a good, good source of those. So, you know, we see, we see studies where if you swap out saturated fat and you swap and you exchange it for these polyunsaturated fats that can come from seed oils, you see better health outcomes, you see better cardiovascular markers. And so, yeah, it's just, it's, I think that it comes from this idea that natural is better and seed oils go through this extraction method, you know, to get the oil out of the seed. But you know, that's just the naturalistic fallacy which, you know, I believed for a long time until I went through a lot of, a lot of science education, which I completely understand the idea that, that someone might think that, but it's just, it's just not true.

[David Pakman (Host)]

To kind of wrap up if, if there are three to five very basic ideas that everybody can think about applying to really simplify all of the different evidence based suggestions that you give. What is sort of the lowest hanging fruit in the nutrition space?

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Meet your dietary fiber needs. 95% of us don't. This is what you're looking for, right? Like recommendations? Yeah, yeah. Meet your dietary fiber needs. Reduce the amount of added sugar that you're consuming. Eat more fruits or fruits, fruits and vegetables, especially vegetables. Like just try to make half your plate. You know, we used to have my plate before we got this inverted food pyramid and my plate was half fruits and vegetables. Right. So try to do that. Like make your plate about half vegetables. Like make sure you're having a vegetable at every meal and that's going to help you. Something that I talk to people about sometimes to like help increase them. The vegetables that they're consuming is like every time you go to the grocery store or like every other time, pick a new vegetable. Like try, try a variety of things. So eat a variety of different foods. You know, sometimes we get stuck on eating the same foods over and over. But if you can eat a variety of foods, you're benefiting from the nutrition from a lot of different types of foods, which is helpful. And then I'd say probably, you know, depending that you're able to. Because this is a problem in our country with our food supply. We have a lot of areas that are, we term food deserts, which they don't have ready access to fresh fruits and vegetables and produce and they have an abundance of access to these prepackaged, ultra processed foods. But you know, as much as you're able to Try to eat these, like whole nutrient dense foods as much as possible. You don't have to completely get rid of these prepackaged foods because, you know, it's life and we. And it's just not necessary from a nutrition perspective. Like, start thinking. I think the biggest thing that I could say is like, start thinking of your diet as a dietary pattern. Like, what are you eating consistently over time? Not what does one food say, not what is one ingredient that I'm consuming, but what are you eating over time? And making sure that, you know, you've heard of this 80, 20 rule. It really is true. Like making sure that about 80% of what you're eating. It's a made up statistic, but it gives you kind of an idea, idea of what you're eating are more nutrient dense foods and then, and then don't worry about the rest as much.

[David Pakman (Host)]

Final question. Do we have a verdict on eggs at this point? Which at one point was the worst thing you could possibly eat, then it became the best thing. It's not the cholesterol, it's the saturated fat.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

But when I look, each egg only

[David Pakman (Host)]

has like a gram and a half of saturated fat. Like, what's the bottom line on eggs, would you say?

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Yeah, eggs. Eggs are like the primary example of nutrition science kind of changing or recommendations changing, I think changes a lot. Like, it doesn't. I mean, the, the basics that we've been recommending have been pretty consistent over decades. But certainly eggs is a, is a good example. There used to be, you know, right now the recommendation is for most people, unless, unless there's an issue because there's individual like variability here. But for most people, eggs are fine to consume. They're good, nutrient dense source of food, protein, healthful fat. And so they're, they're a pretty good choice. Um, so I, I consume eggs.

[David Pakman (Host)]

And is there some number of eggs or is it just a matter of the total picture of your saturated fat intake?

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Yeah, it's a, it's a total picture of saturated fat. It's a total picture of what your whole diet looks like. You know, like if you have a two egg omelet, usually that's fine for most people, but the recommendation which remains in these dietary guidelines is to keep your total saturated fat to less than 10% of total calories. And which is tough because, like, who knows what that number is, but, but, you know, it just kind of gives you an idea that you kind of want to limit it as much as possible.

[David Pakman (Host)]

All right, we've been speaking with Dr. Jessica Nurik, really appreciate your time and your insights and we'll link out to your various platforms that you're publishing on. Thank you so much.

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Thanks for having me, David.

[David Pakman (Host)]

We'll talk to you soon. Bye.

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Okay, bye.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

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 A visibly swollen Donald Trump stunned an Oval Office full of reporters as well as the Iraqi prime minister, by the way, struggled to speak and really left the press corps baffled based on the things that he said. Donald Trump did welcome the prime minister of Iraq to the White House yesterday. And he started with his whole he's young and he's handsome thing, which is one of these jokes Trump likes to tell when he has athletes at the White House or whoever else. But again, with Trump, there's always some reality to everything he says. Nothing is just a joke. And it goes to one of Donald Trump's greatest insecurities, of course, worse, which is that he is not the best looking, fittest guy that is out there.

[Donald Trump]

The new prime minister, he's a great leader. I think he's going to be there for a long period of time. And it's great to have you at the White House. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

He's a young man. He's young and he's handsome, which I don't like. I'm not happy about it.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

I would be so curious as to whether Trump, whether Trump even knows this guy's name, name, quite frankly. Asked a question about Iran, a visibly confused Trump starts talking about relations between Iraq and American oil companies. And at this point, people in the room started to realize, oh, no, is he sundowning early today? This doesn't seem like a good day for Trump. Sir, is the military attack on Iran. It's a strategy to bring them back

[Donald Trump]

to the table with it, to degrade

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

them so the regime will eventually fall.

[Donald Trump]

Well, we don't think we need the military there anymore.

It's a very big operation. And what we do have is the oil companies are all going in now and they're doing partnerships with Iraq and they're getting along very well. The relationship is all big relationship where we don't need the military there. We're there to help them, we're there to protect them if need be. But we don't think that's going to be necessary. And their, their primary, I consider an opponent. They might have considered a friend, but I consider that an opponent was Iran was a big burden on.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

Rumor has it Donald Trump is still answering this question today and still has not actually addressed the substance. Consider how often Donald Trump is misunderstanding questions and statements. And there's two concurrent issues here. It's been reported on extensively now that Trump is really struggling to hear. Not something we make fun of. Right. It's just sometimes hearing can decline with age. Trump is 80. And sometimes Trump just can't hear the questions. And then sometimes Trump doesn't understand the questions. That's another thing that's going on. But here's a question about Iran talks about Iraq and oil companies. It's all very strange. Then the topic of inflation came up and Donald Trump said, inflation's over. We've solved it. And he even looks into the camera and says, remember that for these midterms, inflation is done.

[Donald Trump]

Inflation slowed to 3.5%. Yeah. Thank you.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

Will this trend hold now that strikes on Iran?

[Donald Trump]

I think so. I think it's going to. Inflation's down. We influence inherited the worst inflation in the history of our country. They say 48 years. It was the worst in the history of our country. From Biden. Sleepy Joe. He might have been sleepy, but, boy, he could create inflation like nobody. And I inherited that. And I got blamed for it. And it's not my fault. We are, we are putting it to sleep. And we've done a great job. Scott and Howard and Marco and even Pete because he's watching his dollars.

Right?

But they've done a fantastic job. We've all done a fantastic job. So we had the worst inflation in history and the history of our country. I mean, we had months where it was 9 and 10%. And now we have a report just came out. It was just released. Thank you for bringing it up. But the report was incredible. Inflation is way down. That means prices are coming way down. And we're doing a job. Great job. Remember that. Remember that for the midterms, I say to that camera, remember that, because nobody else could do it.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

Nobody could do it. By the way, inflation is up from when Trump was sworn back in. And you don't have to take my word for it, as I always encourage people to do, just go and check the data. We have inflation data. And when Donald Trump took over In January of 2025, inflation was, was 3%, 2.8%. So sort of in there because Trump took over at the End of January, it went all the way up to 4.2% in May, and then is now down at 3.5%, all higher than the desired target and all higher than the inflation rate when Joe Biden left office. Just the facts, don't take my word for it. Donald Trump asked about his taco, his chickening out on the Strait of Hormuz, and the 20% fee. He goes, listen, people called me, kings called me, emirs called me, and they said, we don't want this. Let's do it a different way. They called me and they said, sir, grown men, tough men, with tears in their eyes. And they saluted. And I said, well, we'll do it a little different.

[Donald Trump]

Thank you.

[Interviewer]

Thank you. President Trump, I have two questions. I was wondering if you could. Could explain your changing thinking on the Strait of Hormuz, applying a 20% fee,

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

thinking, how did you get to the decision?

[Donald Trump]

Yeah, so when I put that out yesterday, because we've been doing that for many, many years, it was never fair to me that we would be guarding the strait when we basically don't take any, we don't need the oil at all. And it wasn't important for us, but it was important for allies. It was important for people that we get along with very, very well, including the major Gulf State countries. So I put it out yesterday. I thought it was good. I was called by different people, different countries, kings and amirs, and translation.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

I'm a pushover of the people that

[Donald Trump]

we all know and we all love, and they've been, frankly, they've been very strong partners. And they said, we'd love to do it a different way. We'd love to invest in the United States with billions and billions of dollars and continue our record setting, because we would. There's never been a time like this with the United States, with the factories, with the plants, with everything else. And we would like to invest tremendously in the United States as opposed to charging a fee. And I like that, actually, because I don't think anybody should be able to charge a fee for the, for the straight or for any other straight relationship in terms of other sections of the world. I don't think anybody should be really in that position.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

But we wants never to pay a fee for straight relationships. Sort of an interesting revelation there. Listen, the translation is Trump's a pushover. Combined with. He didn't even really understand what he was doing or why it was a bad idea. That's the bottom line. Trump asked about the FBI being involved in investigating Lindsey Graham's death. And he goes, there's conspiracy theories, but I don't think there's anything to them.

[Interviewer]

I could also ask, are you aware of why the FBI is looking into Senator Graham's death? Have you gotten any updates on why they were at his home?

[Donald Trump]

Well, I don't know why. Because I think, you know, he had a problem. His father had a very similar problem. As you know, it's very unique. At first I heard it was clogged arteries, because he did have clogged arteries. He, he had a problem with that. He was, I wish he took better care of himself. I say, you can, you know, you can solve that problem. But what happened is actually something that's very hard to detect. It was not related to the, any blockage. It was a totally different thing. And supposedly, and I've watched all the medical reports, I've had the doctors from the White House come in and explain what happened. And, and this is something that is very, almost undetectable. And if it happens, there's not much you can do about it sounds unfortunate, but there's not much you can do about it. If you look at, his father died of the same thing at about the same age. So there was not much. They say it's almost undetectable. You can detect it by if you have a very bad back, that's a sign. It's a bad sign. So if anybody has a bad back, it's a pretty rough thing to think about. But the fact that's one of the primary signs. And he would tell me he had a bad back, but little did anyone realize it was for that. So. And when that bursts, which it did, it bursts. There's not much. So I don't see a lot of evil there. I don't, I know there's all sorts of conspiracy theories going along, and I don't think, think the FBI. I think the FBI is wasting their time if they're doing.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

Trump is not buying the conspiracy theories around Lindsey Graham's death. Trump's understanding of aortic dissection, by the way, is not exactly in line with the medical science, but that's not a surprise to anybody. Trump is not buying it. And finally, reporters trying to get Trump to give us a little preview of tomorrow night's big national address. And Trump does indicate that it relates to election law. And this reinforces my belief that Donald Trump plans to announce some very serious voter suppression techniques around the nation.

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Are anticipating your big announcement on Thursday night regarding election machines and integrity. Can you give us sort of A sneak peek about what to expect and tell.

[Donald Trump]

Well, I'd rather save it. It will concern that subject. We'll have a couple of other things, but I'd rather save it. But it's really big news. Yep, it's really, really big news. And our country has to shape up. But that's what we're going to be talking about Thursday is it doesn't get bigger because without free and fair elections, you don't have a country. We'll be discussing other things, too. But, but.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

So we are eagerly anticipating and also terrified about the degree of voter suppression and election suppression that Donald Trump plans to announce tomorrow night. When he does it, you know that I will tell you what is announced. Every few months, someone on the right rediscovers one of the favorite talking points of maga, which is, look, Donald Trump donates his entire presidential salary. What a good guy. Nobody gives him the credit for donating his entire $400,000 presidential salary. And this time, it is Trump's former convicted felon. Interesting how that works with pardons. It is Dinesh d' Souza who posts that despite barely any media coverage, Trump needs more credit for this. He put out a tweet saying, quote, despite barely any media coverage, Trump has consistently donated his entire $400,000 annual presidential salary. Trump deserved, deserves credit for this. Posting it along with this video of Trump bragging about it.

[Donald Trump]

No other president, they say, with the possible exception of George Washington. And they have been able to find those records. And we've had wealthy presidents before, but no other president has contributed the salary. And they told me before this that you will probably be asking me whether or not I'm going to contribute my salary again. But you haven't asked that.

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

Are you going to.

[Donald Trump]

Yes.

[Dr. Jessica Nurick]

You are okay.

[Donald Trump]

Yes, I am.

[Botox Advertisement Voice]

Okay.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

All right. So the audio and video, a little bit out of sync there. I apologize for that. But there is Donald Trump also saying, I need more credit. Everybody should be talking to me about donating my salary. Let me just put the number into context for you. Donald Trump reportedly made $2.2 billion in 2025. 2.2 billion. The presidential salary is 400 grand. So what that means is that Donald Trump donated 0.018% of his annual income. Now, I want to analogize what that means. Scale it to the typical American. The median annual income in the United States last year was $65,000. Someone making $65,000 who donated the same percentage of their income as Trump is donating would be donating $11. If your friend who makes 65k? Told you I donated $11. Why don't more people talk about that? Why won't people acknowledge my extraordinary generosity? You would think, what the f is my friend talking about? You would go, that's nice, but I'm going to move on with my day. Let me know when you actually donate something significant. That is what Trump is effectively doing now. I think there's a bigger issue than that. This isn't just Trump making a charitable donation and expecting nothing back. The presidency isn't a side hobby. The presidency is what expanded Trump's visibility and influence and has given Trump the platform from which he made $2.2 billion in 2025 during Trump's presidency. After the first term. Now again during the second term, Trump's brand has become more valuable, even though there have been areas where it's become less valuable. A lot of buildings wanted to take the Trump name off of them when Trump became president. Donald Trump has been able to sort of push business ventures and licensing deals, merchandise and crypto projects that made him a ton of money. So imagine someone saying, I donated $11 on an average salary. You'd go, that's kind of not really a big deal. Now imagine that the $11 donation came with the opportunity to get the access from which you made $65,000. That's what Donald Trump has done. Would you describe that as generosity, or would you go, well, that's an investment. I'll donate my $400,000 salary in exchange for making 2 billion a year? So this talking point has always been very strange. Supporters want people to focus on Trump's generous donation. They don't want people looking at the billions. The salary is tiny compared to the financial ecosystem around Trump's political career. And so before you even get into the ethical questions about how Trump has monetized political influence, branded merchandise and crypto and all of this stuff, whether all those activities are even appropriate for a president to be engaged in. That's a. That's an important but separate debate. Pretending the meaningful financial story is a $400,000 salary donation Mrs. The point entirely. If you earn billions from being in public office, highlighting that you gave away 400 grand is very stupid. And it's like pointing to, you know, we gave you complimentary peanuts and pretzels after someone buys, you know, not a flight, but the entire airline. Now, you're free to believe, believe that Trump's donation of his salary is a nice gesture. Don't confuse it with evidence that this isn't an extraordinarily lucrative presidency for Donald Trump. He loves to say, I could just be golfing. I didn't have to do this. And it's a lot more difficult. Well, it also Trump's no martyr because he's the president. It gave him unfettered access to power and privilege, even compared to where he was before, and allowed him to make billions from being president of the United States. Don't forget about that. We will talk about possible charges against Elon Musk for breaking election law on the bonus show. The House has passed a bill that would make Daylight saving time permanent. And there is a misuse of driver assistance systems that are posing a major risk to road safety. I have some personal anecdotes I will share about this, all of that and more on today's bonus show. Sign up at joinpakman.

[David Pakman (Host)]

Com.

[David Pakman (Commentator)]

I'll see you then.