Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of the show.
This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.
So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com.
Good morning, everybody, Welcome to Breaking Points.
Ryan Grim, great to see you, my friends, great.
To see you. I again will be channeling the Esteem Saga excellent, so I will be making sure that the populist right gets it's you know, it's full throated voice.
Maybe not full throated, you could lay off the full throat it.
I'll give it straw man version of Sager's art fair and then you can dismantle them.
Actually, I think we are going to have the one and only Esteem Saga back next week.
Indeed we will.
Yeah, so you want to have to wait much longer for that.
When I say today it's a Jim Pack show, there are probably ten more things that we could have put into this show that.
Got left on the what is it the cutting room floors?
That the expression and let's talk about one of those real quick.
Yeah.
So Trump and Putin spoke yesterday about Ukraine's attack on Russia the drone. Trump then posted on truth Social and then deleted immediately, and then reposted again on truth Social basically his own readout of the conversation with Putin, and he said, Putin very angry. He's going to respond very strongly. And Trump was just saying it matter of factly, like this, like this is going to happen. And he also said that he enlisted Putin's help to get closer to an
Iran deal. Now, the German Chancellor is coming here today and he's having a Trump's having a call with she tomorrow. And the Wall Street Journal this week said that people need to start referring to this period no longer as
the post war period, but as now the pre war period. True, which is an awfully scary thing to hear from the Wall Street Journal, and they say it aspirationally, like they want this to be the the pre war period, not understanding that the greatest destructions of wealth in like human history were World War One and World War two. Like what Wall Street Journal readers like, you're not going to like a few of you will do well, most of you will lose your shirts, some of you will lose
your lives. Yeah, So anyway, we're getting very close to a very dark time.
Yeah, I mean I think many people feel that and didn't. I also see Trump said something like the drones swarm attack. He thought it was badass, something like.
That, Yes, which is kind of anyway Trump, Yes, it's like and maybe he hopes.
Ad nuclear war. Yeah, that's badass.
It feels great. Yeah, it's going to be a badass world War three.
So anyway, that didn't make it into the show. But we've got a new travel band from Trump as well. Some other immigration news in terms of court decisions, we've got new jobs numbers that came in quite We've got new Elon Musk foulout. Bebe's coalition appears to be collapsing. Democrats are studying men. My friend Torri is going to join both to talk about Yeah, that's right, I'll just sit back and let you gentlemen tell me what I need to know. But we are going to let Joy
beharway on that. On that one is she has some great ideas, she has thoughts. Tory is also going to give us a diddy trial round up because he's been following closely and posting a bunch of tiktoks about it.
He blew up on TikTok.
He's doing so well there and also actually has a new show as well that he is involved with.
And then we had big news last night.
First of all, there's a debate in the New York City Mayor's race, which has many very interesting moments that I think you guys will be interested in. But then when I woke up this morning, we got the news that AOC did decide to jump in and endorse Zoron Mundani, who is, as you guys probably know, the Democratic Socialist challenger to front runner Andrew Cuomo. There's a bunch of other people in this race too, but really it comes down to is it going to be Cuomo or is it going to be Mom.
Donnie At the end of the day two dog haunt at this point.
Yeah, there's some yeah, well, we'll get to it, but let's go ahead and start. We don't even have this on the board yet because we've b added this in yesterday evening as well, but wanted to make sure to make mention of the fact Trump did announce a new travel ban. He put out a video explaining his thinking here and why he's imposing this. Now, let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their
visas we don't want them. In the twenty first century, we've seen one terror attack after another carried out by foreign visa overstairs from dangerous places all over the world, and thanks to Biden's open door policies, today there are millions and millions of these illegals who should not be in our country. In my first term, my powerful travel restrictions were one of our most successful policies, and they were a key part of preventing major foreign terror attacks
on American soil. We will not let what happened in Europe happen to America. That's why on my first day back in office, I directed the Secretary of State to perform a security review of high risk regions and make
recommendations for where restrictions should be imposed. Among the national security threats their analysis considered are the large scale presence of terrorists, failure to cooperate on visa security, inability to verify travelers' identities, inadequate record keeping of criminal histories, and persistently high rates of illegal visa overstays, and other things.
Very simply, we cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screened those who seek to enter the United States.
And this is an example of Trump two being prepared in a way that Trump one wasn't. Because Trump one, they do the Muslim ban right out of the gate. It's ridiculous, it gets thrown out in court. Can't do you can't do a Muslim.
Ban, right.
So then they look through over the next eight years, looked and they sort of tried a version of it in Trump won. But they looked through the bregs and the laws and they're like, oh wait, so a president can say that restriction from a particular country is restricted if we say it's not because we're bigoted against Muslims,
but because of reasons. Right, So on day one he said, State Department go find reasons for a variety of countries, and noticeably they throw in a few non Muslim majority countries so that you can't say that it's a Muslim ban.
Yeah, put them two up on the screen. This has the list of a dozen I think countries that they have picked.
Here, Afghanistan, Burmachad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Era A Haiti, Iron, Libyas, and Maya su Dan Yemen. None of this is funny, but I did see one good joke. It's man Equatorial Guinea must have crossed the line. Okay, that's kind of bad, but also.
Kind of good ultimate dad joke there again.
Yeah, again not funny. And then there's another seven similar ish countries that are you know, getting restrictions but not a total ban. So yeah, this is uh just slapdash across the board, but designed to stand up in court.
Yeah.
And this was the thing is, it's not like they needed much justification last time around. You just can't, you know, like outright be like we are racist and discriminating against Muslims, right, you had to give some fig leaf, and then yes, the executive does have a you know a significant amount
of discretion. So I still expect this will face court challenges, and you know, I don't want to like predict ultimately where that goes, but it has a much more higher likelihood of standing up in court than it did the first time around. And the other thing people are raising Ryan is like, we have a World Cup coming here, and like there's exemptions in here for players from these countries, but not from fans for fans from these countries. So
this has really obviously significant impact. Not to mention being sort of overtly discriminatory and throw back to Trump one point zero. The other thing that's worth mentioning is he name checks there the Egyptian national who committed that terror attack in Boulder, Colorado as justification.
I mean, Egypt isn't on this listy, but.
You know he's using this as is too important of an ally to do this.
Exactly, Yeah, but he's using this as a pretext to say, oh see, you know this is the justification creating.
A wrack because al Qaeda in Afghanistan attacked this exactly.
Yes, similar to that exactly. So in any case, I don't think that that was the reason that he did this. I think it, you know, was something that he used to make the rhetorical case. But to your point, Ryan, it looks like they've been working on this effectively from day one to try to do this in a way that may actually stand up in court. There was one other piece of immigration news here that is quite significant we wanted to get in the show.
Can put M four up on the screen that.
Federal Court Judge Boseburg here in DC issued ruling saying, Hey, those people that you just swept up and sent to El Salvador to Seacott, to brought in a concentration camp for life with zero due process, you got to figure out some way for them to be able to challenge their removals. So, you know, obviously the Trump administration has done everything they can to defy the courts, especially when it comes to the migrants who were sent to Seacott.
So I don't expect anything imminent in terms of a process that will enable these men who were you know, sentenced to life and a gulog with no due process to be able.
To challenge their detention there.
But this will you begin a process that will play out through the courts and we'll see where it goes from here.
Ryan, Yes, indeed, we have a programming note. We mentioned this yesterday and the day before. For this month, we are we're bringing back the monthly, so ten dollars a month premium subscriptions to Brkingpoints that we used to have those, then it switched to just annual. But you know, sometimes it's tough to plunk down a whole hundred dollars, So this is if you want to be a premium subscriber, but you don't want to lay all that out all
at once, you can just do the monthly. And also, in order to coax you in there, here's a free month. So you go to Brekingpoints dot com and put the promo code BP free. That is just for people watching this. Do not share this with anybody. This is just this is just between us, and you tell your friends and family, Yeah, tell anybody, Don't tell anybody else other than that.
Yes, only the best people are allowed to avail themselves of this offer. And you made a great point yesterday Ryan, when we were talking about this have you noticed that we don't subject to you to obnoxious ad reads where we try to you know, hawk like a case only disturbing products to you exactly. The reason is because of you guys supporting us. And by the way, there's been a big response to this promotion, so thank you guys so much to those of you who have signed up.
And if we don't have a huge response, then we will start reading ads. That is a that is not a threat, that is a promise, and I will be on air reading hymns ads and it won't be the hair loss ones. So if you don't want to subject yourself to that, Breakingpoints dot com the promo code is beef.
Some people might be into that, Ryan, I don't know. I don't know.
Some people might be canceling right now. I don't want to do I actually wouldn't do.
That, So don't there's some hardcore grim heads on there. You never know, you never know what they might be into. All right, let's move on from this some big news with regard to the economy. An interesting exchange between a Republican senator and Howard Lutnik asking about Hey, okay, so what does Vietnam? As one example, actually need to do to be able to come to some sort of a beneficial trade deal with this administration. Let's go ahead and take a listen to this exchange.
If Vietnam, for example, came to you tomorrow and said, okay, mister Secretary, you win. We're going to remove all tariffs and all trade barriers. Would the United States please do the same? Would you accept that deal? Absolutely not? Absolutely not. That would be the silliest thing we could do. Why is that Vietnam has a one hundred.
And twenty five billion dollars exports to US and imports from US twelve and a half million dollars. And you're thinking Vietnam exports one hundred and twenty five billion.
I'm aware of the figures, but tell me where do they get it from?
The buy ninety billion from China? Then they mark it up and send it to us, So it was just a patent way of.
China to us.
You wouldn't accept that deal.
No, it's terrible.
We're the one with money, We're the one with the store.
What's the purpose of reciprocity then? Is reciprocity not one of your goals? Are you telling the President that we shouldn't seek reciprocity. If that's what you're telling them, why are you trying to do these trade deals? So you are you are you not seeking reciprocity in these trade deals?
We are thinking, we are absolutely seeking reciprocity with respective things that can be recipable for China and sending.
I said that if a country came to you and offered you the ultimate reciprocity, no tariffs, no trade barriers in return for us doing the same, you would reject.
That, of course, because they buy from China and send it to us.
Don't you agree with those They said, we won't buy from China.
Now we're talking, and there's actually a lot to say about this with regard to Vietnam specifically, what he's referring to there is the issue of what they call it transhipping, where it's like, okay, well we've got terrors on China, but maybe some companies will just ship their goods from China. This is illegal, by the way, but it still happens. We'll ship their goods from China to Vietnam to avoid
the tariff. There has been also an effort in subsequent US administrations to actually try to relocate manufacturing from China to Vietnam, you know, to sort of since we have a close relationship with them, friendly relationship with them at this point. But it's this is exactly the problem and why they have zero trade deals effectively at this point is because if you say to a country, like even if you lower your tariff barrier to zero, that is still a terrible deal that we won't take, like what.
Can you do? Right? And to Channel Sager and also like Matt Stoller here, they would point out that the Commerce Department, even under Biden, did an investigation into this was in particular with the renewable energy clean energy industry that China was basically shipping a whole bunch of stuff, producing the things in China, moving them to Vietnam and then getting around kind of bans on yeah, monopoly.
Because there's also another thing you can do to try to skirt the rules is you you know, have it all but assembled and then ship it to Vietnam and then there's just you know, building where they just sort of put the pieces together and then claim, okay, this is made in Vietnam instead of China.
Right, And so he says, hey, look if and what if they say they won't take the stuff from China anymore. He says, now now we're talking. But again, the problem here is that they're talking as if this trade war is still going on as a strategic thing that may result in some useful outcome for the United States, when it seems like the world has decided that we don't have cards, that Trump just kind of popped off with these tariffs and is going to have to climb down,
and so they're just kind of waiting them out. And then after that maybe they're making the time to be able to sit down and create some you know, new global trade regime that we're all satisfied with. But this, this is not getting us there.
Yeah, and of course significant that it's a Republican senator who was going that aggressive at a Trump administration official is rather noteworthy. Had some really bad jobs numbers yesterday that came out in the ADP Private Payrolls report.
This isn't the big one that gets the most attention, but also, you know.
Significant, it was Friday, The big boy is Friday, and oftentimes you know, this one sort of front runs. Now sometimes they're totally disconnected and they show different numbers, but sometimes this is also indicative of what we could expect on Friday, So put this up on the screen. Wanted to make sure to highlight this. Private sector hiring rose by just thirty seven thousand in May, so I mean nearly flat. The expectation was that it would be one
hundred and ten thousand. That was the forecast, and it is below the previous jobs report number in April, which was revised down to sixty thousand. And in particular noteworthy here Ryan that one of the industries that actually lost jobs was manufacturing.
Yeah, I have that here. Goods per ducing industries down two thousand jobs, manufacturing down three thousand, natural resources and mining down five thousand. If the tariffs were creating investment here in the United States to produce goods here, to min our own natural resources, and to manufacture, you would not see the numbers going down. We were not prepared to go into this trade war, which is incredible because it's not as if anybody sprung this on us like
this was. We chose the time and the place right trade war, but had nothing.
To cut ourselves unawares.
We caught ourselves unawares. We had nothing ready for this. Yeah, and China's like, hey, all those things you need for your manufacturing industry, we're also going to restrict those. And We're like, that's deeply unfair. How could you do that to us? How rude?
Incredible?
This is utterly outrageous, incredible.
And actually, let's go ahead and put the next piece up on the screen because this is in This is a CBO estimate which I don't even know how you estimate the impact of these tariffs, and too the held.
Right, this assumes that they're going to what they're going to be right.
But anyway, the Congressional Budget Office, which we're going to talk more about in the big beautiful bill block, they did an analysis and they got, Okay, if we left this in place, because of the tariff revenue, you would see a reduction in the federal deficit by two point
eight trillion dollars over ten years. But the double edged sword of that is, on the other hand, they say, real economic output will fall on net, meaning that you're going to have a smaller economy, And if you are collecting a high level of tariff revenue, that means ryan you have not actually been successful at reshoring those industries.
So this is why we talk about when you know, when Trump talks about two goals, one is restoring manufacturer reindustrializing the country, the other being getting a whole bunch of tariff revenue in those two things are.
Actually at odds. The more that you reshore production, the lower the tariff.
Revenue is ultimately going to because obviously you'd be buying those goods domestically rather than importing them from abroad.
And the zero point four percentage point inflation over each of the next two years that the CBO includes in that analysis is quite significant. Like if your target for inflation annually is two percent, you know that's that's twenty percent higher than your target, just just for that. And again, this assumes that they stay flat or that the policy doesn't change, which the policy has changed. I can't even count the number of times just since Liberation Day.
So there's already been policy of vacillation before Liberation Day.
So it doesn't make any sense to think that they would they'll stay this way for ten years.
Yeah, especially when you consider another administration. I mean, all of it is incredibly uncertain. It's almost worthless to do an analysis. But anyway, that's what they're saying. If you left the tariffs in place. A couple of things we want to highlight here in terms of fallout already, you know, early indications of where things could be heading. This interesting put a four up on the screen. So the Trump officials delayed this report on farm trade.
Because they didn't like what it said.
Effectively, the report indicated that the trade deficit in farm goods had actually increased, and Republicans had made a bunch of hay over a increase in the farm trade deficit during the Biden administration. So rather than just you know, going ahead of schedule, putting out the report on time, or revealing these numbers that are uncomfortable and inconvenient for the Trump administration policy, they just pushed the report off.
And then some of the numbers they're just like, yeah, we're just not going to put that part out.
And the written analysis they haven't put out yet and they're not even sure if they're going to. Now the analysts are saying that the redacted version does match the original version, so like they didn't actually and in the end monkey with the numbers. But this goes to what Trump keeps doing, which is cutting off at the knees.
The real US advantages that we have globally, and I I agree with Trump that we need to you know, rearrange our economic relationships and that and that the way the global trade is set up is damaging to everybody and should be rethought. But if you're going to rethink it, you have to you have to build on what you have and then you go from there to transform into
something better. What he's doing without building something better, he's wiping out what we do have and that and one of the things, you know, going after all the universities is one. Making it impossible to build a manufacturing base is another. But what this does is it goes right to the heart of our hub as the financial services sector for the global economy. Like people and this is crazy to think people trust American banks, right and people
trust American financial analysts. We don't. We have all sorts of you know, macro corruption, but on a micro level, people trust that if you give your money to JP Morgan Chase, you know, you give you give your money to Bank of America, you get a loan from them, Your your your pension is whatever it is, like, it's going to stay there. It's going to be there, and it's going to be and the terms are going the the activity is going to match the terms that you're offered,
and so on. Part that that that trust is very hard to win back, and part of the trust comes from the government data being considered reliable by everybody across the board. And you're already seeing I think we're talking about this in a second. People questioning the BLS data because the Bureau of Labor Statistics has said that there's this hiring freeze. They had to do a bunch of layoffs and so they couldn't do the same analysis that they could do before. They're like, we're not We're not
sure about these numbers. And what's so scary now? The commodities traders have waiting for this report. This is like every quarter this report comes out, people trade. It's a big event. For it not to be there, and then for people to be whispering, are they are they mess with the numbers?
Right?
Then you might as well be investing in China. That's China's big problem is people don't trust the stock market. People don't trust the numbers coming out of the companies or the government. They think they're fudging the GDP raid all this stuff sometimes they are sometimes y'or not, but that just the trust isn't there. We have the trust and we're just gonna, uh just let it drain right out.
There was discussion early on in this administration too. I can't remember if it was Lutnik or bussn't, but I covered it at the time of changing the way GDP is calculated, because they you know, this was at the height of DOGE and the chainsaw and all this stuff, and they're like, government activities shouldn't count in GDP, right, which is like so silly if you actually think it through.
Not to mention there actually already is a metric that I.
Can't remember it's called, but it is a measure GDP without the you know, government and public sector spending. So if you want that metric, it already exists. They just didn't like the potential consequences of what they were doing with DOGE on what it could mean with GDP, and so they're you know, at that point, there were a bunch of you know, a bunch of experts and analysts who raise red flags about them potentially monking with that data behind the scenes or you know, trying to fudge
the number. So that they are beneficial, and I mean, could you put that passes I measure?
Of course you couldn't, Right, of course you couldn't. Like they will lie to you straight to your face. Every day.
You will be confronted with directly contradictory, like definitive proof that what they're saying is blatant, complete lies, and it does not move them at all.
The Carolin Levitt saying that the bill actually decreases the.
Depth exactly, and yeah, yeah, and you're supposed to trust that they're not going to like monkey with the GDP or the jobs or the farm trade numbers.
Like of course people are going to be like, I.
Don't know, if something that looked kind of bad was set to come out, I could definitely see them just kind of let's round it this way, let's round it that way, let's push it off, let's just not let these numbers get down to the public.
And the other the advantage China does have is that when their government wants to do things, you know, they are broadly in strategic control of their of the direction that they're going to take, and the companies have to then feed off of that and follow along. Here not the case, so you can put up this next element axios reporting same thing we saw in the Biden administration during COVID, but now and supply chains. But now this time companies maybe using the new tariffs as an excuse
to raise prices across the board. Uh again, So we saw this during COVID. You started seeing inflation kick in, and all of these companies who had who have market power in other words, you can't go somewhere else to get the thing, started raising their prices and blaming COVID or blaming supply chains. And then when you looked into it, oh wow, their profits are way up, and their profits are you know, significantly up over you know what the
input costs are. And so what they what they did here with this report is they looked at companies that do not have tariff related implications right, and saw significant increases there as well.
Well some of them admitt So you have a heavy construction equipment supplier told the New York Fed they were raising prices on goods unaffected by tariffs, quote to enjoy the extra margin before teriffs did increase their costs.
I thought it.
Extra margins are very enjoyable.
Of course, I'd like to enjoy those extra margins. What company wouldn't want to enjoy those extra margins. Some of what is being done is somewhat justifiable because rather than putting the entire cost of one tariff on one good, they're like spreading it across. But there's a a I didn't really I just learned this recently. There's an industry term called taking price, which effectively is when.
Your competitor or when you have the opportunity.
To raise prices and you have some sort of an excuse you're going to do it. You're going to take price. And we also know from the COVID shocks that once those prices go up, guess what they're not rushing to even after if they had real cost increases.
Once those costs go back down, your prices do not go back down.
You're going to give up price.
Now, once you've taken that price, you're not going to give up that price.
So yeah, yeah, And so meanwhile Trump is finding that, yeah, things with Negotia with China not as easy as he thought it was going to be. He's talking to she tomorrow. He's been pining for this, and put this next element from The New York Times up on the screen. He's been pining for this call for a very long time. Crazy headline the Times, Trump bemoans how quote hard it is to strike a China deal with with hard and
yes it does. It's like New York Times. He's on YouTube now, all caps H g R D there and so it looks at this true social where Trump said, I like President She of China, always have and always will. But he is and this is all caps very tough and extremely hard to make a deal with three exclamation points with the time staying. Politico had reported that Trump has grown quote obsessed with holding a call with She, but as they report, she is showing no interest in
making a deal because he doesn't have to. He yes, China like needs the United States as a market, but we need China more. That is that is very clearly the sense, and they note that, you know, Bloomberg reported that China is now talking to Airbus about buying a whole bunch of planes from there. Like, China's doing everything it can to to try to reduce its dependency on either American exports. Like the last time he tried this,
China was like, let's stop buying so many soybeans. From the US and went to Brazil, and now they have this locked in relationship with Brazil, which is leading to enormous amounts of rainforest getting getting whacked and and it has also like very much hurt Iowa and other soybean producing parts of the country because it just it just
never came back. So they're they're figuring out, how can we find how can we find other markets for our goods, and also how can we find other places where we can buy what we need.
Yeah, and this way we're adjustments that they made prior to this trade war. So unlike US, they've.
Been thinking, they've been thinking about it. We haven't.
And their largest trading partner is no longer the US if you count the Ossion countries as a block, that actually is their largest trading partner now. And our share and we're still a gigantic customer, is still very important to them. I don't want to diminish it, but our share of their exports has you know, significantly declined over the years, so it's not the same dynamic that it was even five years ago.
And we talked about this briefly yesterday, but the hardline kind of anti China president in Korea, you know, try to do a self coup to like get more power.
Right.
Lost. Six months later, the election comes around and the more pro China center left candidate wins, the more pro US anti China conservative candidate loses, and so that area of the world, their area of the world, you know, gets more friendly to them. Yeah. Again, everything Trump is doing a systematically turning the world against us.
Well, and check this next one out in terms of unintended consequences and the policy having exactly the opposite impact of what this administration has claimed to be their goals.
Put this up on the screen.
A number of US automakers now are considering moving some of their auto parks manufacturing to China.
Why because China's put into.
Place very predictably, these rare earth magnet export controls. They are absolutely necessary for the completion of you know, of automobiles. And so you have several both evy and traditional automakers who are like, maybe we got to do part of this in China. And maybe, by the way, long term, maybe if the teriff regime stays in place, yes we manufacture you know cars here for the domestic US market, but for the rest of the world, maybe we relocate some of this into China. So and again, this is
incredibly predictable. I think anyone with a baseline knowledge of the way China has been operating around the world to try to shore up these supply lines and how far behind we are in terms of that race to secure those those minerals, those materials, could have predicted that this would be one of the ways that they would retaliate
against US. And the automakers purportedly we're going to Trump and saying, hey, we're going to be in trouble, like really soon if we don't get this thing figured out right.
It feels like we have a few years. And this is setting aside whether or not some massive war breaks out. It feels like we have a couple of years where we can reach some kind of daytunt with China and do a China. Everybody thinks China's like trying it here in the US thinks they want to rule the world or something. I don't think that's quite accurate. If we proposed a G two, basically, all right, it's a huge world. You're all the way over there, we're all the way
over here. We're going to do a G two we're gonna we're going to share the world. We're going to cooperate where we can. We're not going to be in a direct conflict. We'll compete, but we'll compete like you know, Uh, we'll compete fairly and uh, A rising tide lifts all boats. Otherwise, a US that doesn't have it, doesn't have some sort of you know, soft power projection is basically Brazil. Like
that's what we'll that's that's will be long term. Very a lot of similarities geovographically and resource and demographically and historically between US and Brazil. But we became much more of a global power. They didn't. So they've got they have the same amount of kind of runaway inequality, but they don't have as much wealth. So they've got favelas whereas we have. You know, you'd much rather live in
our favelas than theirs. Yeah, but that's where we're headed if we don't reach some kind of daytime, is my take.
Yeah, there's a world in which that each administration is rushing towards which is just zero sum and based on hard military conflict. I mean, they're you know, getting rid of all the soft power and obviously the bill and this is a good transition to the beautiful bill increases are hard military power like that seems to be the only type of power that they're interested in. There's a world that's zero sum, where we are directly at odds in a way that is both dangerous and also you know,
economically terrible for us. And there's a world in which we you know, care about mutual cooperation, coexistence. And I would say that world has never been more more important, given the fact that many of the challenges that face the globe are truly, truly are global existential challenges and which you will need to work with China and other countries around the world. And you know, instead they have this sort of like bunker prepper mentality something Naomi Klin's
been talking about. Just take the proper mentality and extrapolate it out to a national basis. That's effectively the mentality they right and on.
The on the hard war side, and which we should do a segment on this, get somebody on maybe in mas My colleague Mas Hussein has been studying this a lot. It's not obvious that we would win, Like we have a corrupt, backwards Western kind of military industrial complex.
And when is the last time one of our military adventures went well?
And here's some bad news in India Pakistan. The US asked Pakistan not to use airplanes that we had provided to them because you know, for geopolitical reasons, you don't want they don't you don't want a US made bomb and a US made jet like killing Indians. So there's like, so stand down on that. So Pakistan said, Okay, We're going to use a bunch of these next gen Chinese weapons that we have missed, both anti aircraft both you know, air to air surfced air and and warplanes as well.
The and India is much much richer and bigger now than Pakistan economically, right, and Pakistan outperformed the Chinese weapons that people in the military industrial complex world called it kind of China's deep seek military moment. These Chinese airplanes knocked a bunch of Western airplanes out of the sky
and you know, cheaper and more effective. So it's like hm and so Pakistans, which you know, was in that case a proxy against India for China, showed that this is not already this would not necessarily go well for US.
Of all, drones are produced in China, right, and when you think about the future of warfare, which is already arriving, if you look at Ukraine versus Russia and what they were just able to pull off, even though they're you know, much smaller country, much smaller population, much smaller industrial base, what they were able to pull off inside of Russia. And I mean a lot of that war is like drone versus drone at this point. And yeah, we are
dramatically behind, ramatically behind. Let's go ahead and transition to the latest with regard to the beautiful bill. A lot going on here. So Steve Bannon making some interesting comments about the nature of what you would actually need to do if you cared about deficit reduction, and he has been saying for a while now, you really need to lift taxes on the rich.
Let's take a listen to that.
I want to stop the dead bomb elon and the guys on Capitol here, You're going to have to raise taxes. The wealthy can't get an extension of the tax cut. That's got to go the middle class and the working class that has to be extended and has to be made permanent. At forty percent, the top racket of forty percent. You pick them, that's got to go to thirty nine and go back to thirty snap back to thirty nine and a half percent, and go to forty percent. The
math simply doesn't work. There are no Doge cuts. Let me repeat this, and this is not usaid. Those are programmatic things. Sometimes it waste for it. Where's the fraud medicaid?
Which is?
Where?
Where is it?
Haven't showed up with any has anybody been turned.
Over to DOJ for fraud?
The problem with Musk and I said this from the beginning, he gave fall else hope to this political class who doesn't want to cut anything. The reason if the big beautiful bill's got all these problems and it had some issues, he drove it because he promised a trillion dollars ladies and gentlemen, one trillion dollars. That got him off the hook. It's time for everybody to grow up, run around. Oh so show me where it is. The recision next week is nine billion dollars and two billion folks is PBS
and NPR. Give me a break. Didn't he doze for that? Been fighting for that one forever. There's seven billion dollars in there, Supposedly of I don't know, fraud on a seven trillion dollar he committed to committed to the President United States one trillion dollars.
So Ryan his position is basically like, oh, well, the reason the big beautiful bill blows up the deficit is because of Elon, because they actually took seriously Trump included apparently this idea he was going to cut a two trillion or a trillion dollars, which I just I just can't believe that they or I just can't accept that they are really that dumb, Like do you accept that, Like I if you just look at the governments and where it is and what you would need to do,
were they really they really thought he was going to cut a trillion dollars?
I have, as you know, covered Congress for a very long time.
Yeah, tell me, I believe you think they're really really that dumb.
We are not sending our best, I mean, and he's.
Trying to put so part of it obviously, Like you know, I agree that they should lift the taxes on the ridge. And also, by the way, when they say lift taxes, they just mean like, don't cut taxes as much as is planned to in this bill.
But in any case, it is.
I'll say this, Yeah, every time I speak with a member of Congress whose lights are on, it is a revelation to me. It's like, it's like, oh, awesome, I found you have a working bread Republican Democrat, Like this is somebody who has an idea of what they're talking about. Yeah, and that is very unusual. That is not the normal member of Congress.
And so he's saying effectively like that Trump too bought this idea that there would be a trillion dollars in cuts made by Doge and then they could just like go wild in this bill and spend whatever they want, most of which is you know, gigantic tax cut for people who really don't need that tax cut, and that it would be a okay, and that they were cut increase caught unawares. Again that you know this wasn't going
to happen. But I mean, also this this also doesn't really hold up to any level of screwy either, because by the time this bill is being crafted, it is already abundantly clear that Doge is an utter and complete failure. And he points the thing that you've been pointing to, basically like, okay, if there was fraud. Where are the indictments like the name, Give me one instance of one,
a single one. Not things you didn't like, not things that were DEI, not departments like USAI D that you just don't you know, think should exist, actual fraud of which I am quite sure exist within the federal government.
Not a single instance, not one.
Right, right, they would be frog marched in front of them.
We would all know every detail.
We know their name, we know their middle name. It'd be one of those people, yes, like like a presidential assassin. And so Elon Musk going all in. It reminded me in the book there where there's an anecdote the Elon biography. I'm sure you remember this where he plays poker and he has no idea how to play poker, but he wins, like his first night, he wins a decent amount of money, and somebody's like, you know, how did you do that?
You know, not to play poker. He's like, I just kept going all in constantly, and then when I would lose, I would just buy back in and go all in again. And if you do that, and you have unlimited funds and you outlast everyone at the table, you will eventually take all their money. He's right about that, and I feel like he's that's his been his approach to politics. He clearly doesn't know how politics works, but he just
keeps going all in. And you know he went he went all in taking on Boeing and you know the rest of the kind of rocket companies.
Yeah, and it worked.
Huge credit to him, like taking on those incumbent industries and staking a position and then becoming kind of a dominant player. Incredible and huge risk. Went all in. Then he went all in with Trump, putting so much on the line because if he lost, Democrats were like coming for him on a lot of different levels. Yeah, went all in. But then he loses because he went all in on Doge. So he's like, oh and he had no cards, so he loses the whole pile. Now put
up this next element. He's going all in against Trump in November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people. And he's talking about voting for this bill. It was a party line vote in that.
I was going to say all about what five Republicans be my guest brother.
Yeah, So now he's saying he's going after all politicians. Now will he do it, I don't know, but saying it is pushing all your chips in.
Yeah, And I mean from my reading of him and his history of biographies whatever, this is just how he operates. He's one of these I'm sure you guys probably know people like this who don't feel like they're living unless it's all on the line. Yes, and he's one of these people, Like, if he's not risking everything complete collapse, humiliation, bankruptcy, then he doesn't feel like he doesn't feel like he's
really alive. And so I've been saying for a few weeks now, I could totally see him doing another phase turn because remember was Elon and Obama had a great relationship. Obama basically saved both SpaceX and Tesla during his administration. You know, Elon was, you know, much more on the sort of like democratic liberal side of the equation, which just shows you these guys like even in his complaints about this bill, it's all about his own interests. He
doesn't like that the TV credits were stripped on. I don't like the V credits were stripped down either, but that's he's mad about that. He's mad about the fact that Trump pulled his NASA pick, which obviously very important to him with regard to SpaceX. But I could totally see him trying to do a face turn and you know, go back to the other side of the political party, and there would be plenty of people in the Democratic side who would be happy to welcome him back in,
at least at the elite level. I think at the grassroots level, once you've done your you know, your Roman salute, and all the things that he's done and all the things that he's said, and the way that he has just completely made himself the most toxic figure on the planet to your average normally Democratic voter, I think that is going to be very hard to forgive and forget among the base.
And I think he's also genuinely very concerned about the deficit impact of the bill, the debt impact, because if the United States enters a period where of high interest rate, you know, yes, on our debt, that means that both private companies and the federal government are going to have less money to spend on his Marx mission. Yeah, so this is in direct competition with his y, with his life's.
Mission, And I do think my reading of Elon is that that is the life mission, the making humans intra planetarritary and like going to Mars as like ridiculous and absurd as it seems. I do think that that is his life mission, and that's why he jumped into government, because he realized it's not something you can do as a private company on your own. You basically need that mission to be backstopped by the treasury.
Of the United States of America.
But we have to be like a you know, functioning wealthy nation with the ability to borrow and spend on something like a you know, fantasy mission to Mars. And so I think you're right about that aspect.
I think if he's spent curious for your take on this, imagine this. Let's say he spends four million dollars against Mike Lawler, Republican in Upstate New York. Yeah, who you know is one of the key targets, and he spends four million on handful folklaw is going to lose. I don't know, they it's going to be very close. He could he could hold on, okay, and we'll see, We'll
see what the world looks like in a year. Yeah, but let's say he spends four million dollars on twenty different races, eighty million bucks and helps Democrats win back the House. I think most activist Democrats are instrumental enough they'd be like welcome back. But I mean the level of destruction he did in gleeful destruction with the chainsaw on the stage, you know, just you know, demonstrating such cruelty. Yeah, the Roman salute, elevating all of these freaks on Twitter. Yeah,
I don't know, it's in those are in competition. What do you what do you think they where do you think they land?
I think it depends very much on the kind of of intra party fight in twenty twenty eight, you know whether you have because right now there is so much energy among the base and among the American people more broadly, for like fighting oligarchy, and he is the symbol of that. And so you know, I mean, he made himself the symbol. He's the richest man on the planet, and he has spent his time in government destroying social security, you know,
killing kids in Africa. I mean, it really is grotesque not to mention the like carnival level imagery of him on the stage with the chainsaw and the glee that he took in destroying people's lives so well, I think the you know, elite leaders of the Democratic Party would be happy to welcome him back in and happy to
take his money. I think that the Democratic Party base is headed in a more radical, anti billionaire direction, and that is not going to be something that he would be able to coexist with.
Let's hope it would be very funny to go, and it's already funny that he's going from we must elect all these guys to save with Western civilization. Two years later we must throw them all out of Hamet right to say Western civilization was overrated anyway. So Trump is unsurprisingly a little bit annoyed by this. Let's roll B three because it's kind of funny.
I think the Elon must thing really caught the President by surprise, and I hear he is furious.
But I think he's so smart to keep his.
Powder dry because he just plays into what where critics.
Would have to say the right can't get out of their own way.
Instead, just you have a goal.
Pass it. Elon Musk is not in the Senate or the House.
Don't worry a man.
I offer a different perspective Ansley as someone who is supportive of the President's agenda. I am upset with Congress right now. I don't blame the President for the Big Beautiful Bill. I blame Congress because they go to their constituents every single election and they say they're going to cut spinning, cut, cook cut, and it doesn't seem like there's a willingness to do that. But I don't think Elon is anti Maga now or anti the President now.
He works so hard, put a lot of stuff on the line to get a lot of wateful stuff cut, and it doesn't seem like Congress is showing that's saying.
I thought Elon was very respectful in some of the original interviews, just saying, look, we have differences.
I don't agree with him on everything.
But this latest comment about calling the Big Beautiful Bill a disgusting abomination. I was shocked to hear him say that. I can understand why the President would not be happy about that. This is someone who worked on his team.
You know, I want to die and come back as he has Donald Trump, this guy he if he comes out hard against Elon Musk, the base loves that he did that. If he's mad at Elon Musk, but he's too afraid to say a word. He's savvy and sophisticated.
That's right the deal.
If he writes a good, big, beautiful bill, then he's a genius for writing a great piece of legislation. If he writes a bad, big beautiful bill, then it's not his fault. It's actually the people in the house betrayed. Betrayed, Like there is nothing that he could do that would warrant even a second of criticism on that network. It's truly just absolutely phenomenal.
I mean that was Steve Bannon too, of like, well, it's not Trump's fault that.
He Bannon still has not come out and said vote this bill down, which he despite the fact that it is important to know, enormously critical of it, and I love hearing him rip it apart, But he has so far stopped short of the logical conclusion, which is then don't do it.
Bannon is a politician.
He realizes that he needs his you know, best chance of getting whatever things he wants and having access to power is by being on Trump's good side.
He knows what that means.
That's why he's so good. It never criticized.
It's always somebody else's fault. It's never it's Elon promised these things and didn't deliver.
And it's his fault.
And you relied on his, you know, ability to find these cuts and he didn't do it. So it's ultimately his fault. And you see the same kind of game going on there with the with the Fox and Friends people who are trying to make sense of this new world where Elon and Trump are at odds with one another.
He did criticize Trump on the Bannon did criticize Trump on the H one B front and every time directly and every time he would say, we love you, You're the greatest. We've disagreed with you on this for a long time. And I remember there was this Bannon interview that Bannon did when he was just a radio host in twenty fifteen with Trump and they were arguing about H one BS.
Well, it looks like Bannon ultimately won that fight because at the time Trump rhetorically back to the you know, yes, we support H one B side of things, but in practice, in terms of the policy, it's been Steven Miller's policy agenda, and obviously they're going aggressively after foreign students and visa holders, so you know, Ultimately, he.
Was sad enough to know he could criticize Trump, not personally, just like go on the policy. Yeah, and that he would probably win because he had Stephen Miller, who Trump told I think it was MBZ and you a, he told some emirate, some leader, and he's like, this is the guy who runs my administration. That's how he introduced Steven Miller.
That's right. I think there's a lot to that.
Yeah, yeah, you see who was calling the shots in terms of speaking for the boss. There's some weirdness around the deficit conversation that's going on on the Republican side because you have people like Rand Paul Ron Johnson who are upset about the amount that the bill blows up the deficit. But the reason the bill blows up the deficit is because of these gigantic tax cuts for the rich that they ideologically support. And so there's we can
put the numbers up on the screen. Here, there's a chart that they assembled, Steve Rattner actually assembled, but I think it's useful to look at that shows how much this does blow up the deficit compared to other large packages in recent years. I mean the Biperson Infrastructure Bill,
is nowhere close. But even if you look at the American Rescue Plan, which is the first COVID package that cares or sorry, which was the second one, the CARES Act, which was the first one, the original Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was the original giant giveaway to the rich. You know this this blows these out of the water.
But they can't really say that because they're supposed to be really ideologically committed to the tax cuts, and also because they're supposed to be really ideologically opposed to the CBO and scoring the tax cuts in like anything approaching a reasonable way and not just pretending like tax cuts are fairy dust and they make you know, they make deficits magically go away. So instead they've been honing in on, well, it increases the debt ceiling, and that's what we really
are opposed to. So what do you make of some of those dynamics there.
Yeah, it's it's cowardly because the debt, the debt ceiling is not a real thing. It's it's a it's a manufactured yeah, product of an old, very old way of thinking about financing the government. And it's ridiculous. And I've said over you know, I got to be consistent here. It's it's a it's a ridiculous thing.
Yes, it should go away.
The Congress appropriates money and authorizes the FED or the government to borrow certain amounts of money produced, you know, to pay for particular programs and to do particular spending, like they do that. And then we throw in this extra step where you have to then also authorize the
limit on which the debt can be generated. It's like, one does this right, you already did all those things, like you pass all those things, like get get rid of this thing, and so, but it lands for voters because it's one thing, and it's one number, like you want to borrow five trillion dollars, that's crazy, that's an insane number. And so for a politician, it's easier for them, I think, Yeah, just to just latch onto that. Did we just have the RUSS vote?
Yeah?
Put B six up on the screen. No, we haven't talked about this yet. We've got a RUSS vote. Tweet here his spin.
O and B director. This is the brains of this operation, Like this is the real revolutionary this is.
The Project twenty twenty five.
Guy.
You know, he's the one.
What did he say, thinks federal government workers need to be put through trauma or something like that.
Yes, like he is, this guy is hardcore. He and Stephen Miller together being basically the two most powerful people in this government is just a startling turn of events over the last one hundred years. Like these are absolutely revolutionary, gentleman. So he writes here, omb just reviewed the new CBO score of the One Big Beautiful Bill. It confirms what
we knew about the bill at House passes. The bill reduces deficits by one point four trillion over ten years when you adjust the CBO's one big gimmick not using a realistic current policy baseline. It includes one point seven trillion dollars in mandatory savings, the most in history. If you care about deficits and debt, this bill dramatically improves the fiscal picture. And so he does two things here. One is he says it's not fair to use the
CBO's approach. These tax cuts were never going to expire, so we should not assume they were going to expire and then count that against us. Except the problem is Wall Street and the bond markets. That's they think about it much more closely to the CBO like that. The CBO and the bond markets agree. Therefore the bond market has to say in this, and that's where the movements
and interest rates are going to come from. The second thing he does is he bullies OMB into giving him the numbers that he wants, like he runs the OMB, and he's not. He's going to start with a conclusion
and demand that they generated. And this I know from sources inside OMB, and there's been plenty of reporting about this, and so what he told them basically is you need to conclude that cutting all of these taxes is going to produce x amount of economic growth, which will then lead to more tax revenue, which will then cut the deficit. Maybe it will, there's but there's no reason to think over all of the years that this has been tried that that is what will actually happen in practice.
No, of course not, because they'll just like you know, richbe Wiles will not. You said this, well, it certainly will not increase the real economy. They'll be more share buybacks and things of that nature, more financial engineering, you know, more in wealth inequality.
There'll be all of that for sure.
But but yeah, I mean, it's it and The other thing is here in terms of the gimmick he what he's saying with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and what he's talking about with the policy baseline is when they passed that bill, part of what they did to monkey around with the numbers and make sure that it didn't say an even more gigantic number that was being added to the debt and the deficit was that they had a technical sun setting of these rates.
And now you say, oh, we never.
Intended those rates to go away, so you shouldn't Now you shouldn't count it in. So they didn't want to count it in the first time, and now they don't want to count it.
In now either. Is that that's the you know, the fuzzy math that they're.
Engaged in here, Ryan, Right, And so russ vote testified yesterday in Congress about the dire consequences of not passing the big beautiful bill. Let's roll this. If HR one fails, if whatever comes back from the Senate fails to get to the desk of the President and signed in the wall, what happens at the end of this year.
I think we'll have a recession. I think we will be economic storm clouds will be very dark. I think we'll have a sixty percent tax increase in the American people. And just to if I could answer Cronsman Hoyer's question or statement, the notion that this bill, I mean, we've been actually criticized unfairly on the Reconciliation Bill for the fact that it is all mandatory savers. I mean, you said, look, we need to address the mandatory side of the House.
There's one point seven trillion dollars in mandatory savers on the Reconciliation bill. Do we need to do things on the appropriation side the discretionary side. Yes, that's what we're here to talk about with recisions and the bill that we've the budget that we've sent up to you. But we have to get back to what we did in nineteen ninety seven, where we had for the first time substantial mandatory reforms around not just cutting people and just
getting people off programs, but reforms a work requirement. We're using the same model that Bill Clinton signed into law, and we think it will have incredible impact on not just these programs, but giving people dignity of work.
And we're not going to be ashamed by that mandatory means, you know, Medicare and Medicaid, solid security, those types of products. When Bill Clinton and the Republican House and Senate did this last time, the way that they saved money was by kicking people off programs like any So he's saying right there, we should do it like Bill Clinton did. And Bill Clinton also did work requirements in order to kick people off the programs.
CBO says that if this bill goes into law, ten million fewer Americans will have health cut insurance coverage, mostly from getting kicked off of Medicaid, but there are also some changes to Affordable Care Act and Medicare that will lead to losses and coverage. So you're talking about ten million more Americans losing their health insurance coverage in order to fund giant tax skift for the rich, not to mention cuts the snap and food you know, food stances.
Right, and unfortunately for all of us, those people don't stop getting sick, having heart attacks, having diabetes, having health complications that need to be treated. So you don't actually save money out of the entire economy, right, You're just moving it around. And it's cheaper to give people medicaid as a society, yes, than it is to treat them.
Yeah, that's in the emergence why we have the most expensive healthcare you know regime in the you know, in the developing world, in the world, because we have these little piece meal and you got to pay, and you know, millions of people don't get coverage at all, and it ends up being incredibly penny wise and pound foolish because at the end of the day, what you end up paying for is the most expensive type of care where people don't go to the doctor, they don't take preventative
measures because they can't afford to, and then you're at the emergency room, you know, in crisis, which is obviously terrible for human beings and also you know, terrible for the budget.
And also because the Supreme Court struck down the medicaid expansion in Obamacare, that left it up to each individual state for whether or not they would expand medicaid. Most of those red states had to be pushed by the people in the states. So a bunch of red states only expanded medicaid via constitutional amendment. They would put it on the ballot, the people went out and voted for it.
We thought, okay, this is over, Like like everybody's fought for this, and now they Medicaid expansion is in there, but you get a revolutionary like vote in there, and he's going to then cut the Medicaid federal match that goes to these Red states. But look what happened. They put it in their constitutions. So the Red States don't actually have the option of dialing it back like they have to spend this because they agree to do it
in their constitution. So now the Red state has to either raise taxes or they have to cut spending somewhere else to meet their constitutional obligations. So who's he screwing here, right, A lot.
Of Red states, of a lot of maga. Yes, Steve Bannon would say, yes, all right, let's go and turn to Israel.
So NBC's Andrea Mitchell has been attending the State Department press briefings frequently since the Trump administration began, and has been pressing Tammy Bruce, particularly on Israel's genocidal campaign in Gaza, as well as its starvation campaign and the collapse of its aid distribution project. Here's an example just from yesterday of the way that she's been going back and forth with Tammy Bruce Andrew.
On that because.
No one should jumped inclusions.
We all have reporters on the ground.
Israel has not that US based reporters in, but we have partners there and staff members there who have been courageously there since October seventh doing this job. And if unlike other war zones, even plane in Kiraki elsewhere where US reporters have always been in Viannam, this is the first conflict whom we have not been able to go in accept with IDFX.
You know escorts work.
What he said was not just misleading reports in the fog of war.
We all know what happens in some instances, and I'm.
Not sure if it's these cases, but to suggest that the press reports fostered anti svagism, which led to the death of the two embassy.
People here in Washington and to other antisemitic attacks in this country is hyperbole beyond what is normal diplomatic practice. And as a journalist and as a member of this press court, I think it's deeply offensive for someone who has well, I don't speak for Ambassador Huckaby.
I understand Andrea, I know, I understand, and I understand the depth of your work and the work Andrea, I understand your work, the depth of your work, the work of people who cover war, and the dangers that exist.
I don't speak for Ambassador Huckabee. I'm not going to parse what he has said, but what I can tell you is that inevitably, as we have all watched, the kind of Jew hatred and anti Semitism that has been promulgated through media has been NonStop even after October seventh, and that if you weren't involved in that, and others who are not involved in that, that's not who he's
speaking about. I would argue that it would be naive to suggest that the the Jew hatred that whether it's through social media, through through fake news, through the rhetoric regarding Israel through the years, has not developed or perpetuated anti Semitism.
Distribution and foods though certainly.
I'm just saying that there is widespread criticism.
And a service criticism.
Yes, the consulting group that was supporting the.
Foundation, which is back of it, that the distribution system was not as professional as audit excuse me, the World Food Program and other people who.
Are used to working in this area, and that there should have been more distribution points where people would not have been told to line up.
And Andrew again. I know, you know what, but these questions, now, these are these are critiques of an environment that we've talked about.
Regularly every day, every time I'm up here.
It is it is this critique of I say, seven million meals have been distributed, but you know it would have been but not for you.
It should have been.
Those guys over there or these people over here over the last three years, with the with the U n or the World Food Program, and no one has distributed seven million meals to Gaza.
Many many, hundreds of thousands of people in Israel as well as the families the people being held by Almas are protesting is food decision.
The former Defense minister criticized these decisions.
There's well, I'm sorry, andre Andrea, I understand, I understand.
So two different avenues there to unpack. The first one, she's standing up for journalists, saying it's unfair to say that the media is responsible for the embassy staffers getting killed. You what you make of that back and forth.
I mean, first of all, it's just extraordinary that it's Andrew Mitchell in there, and you know, even this administration had like is much more deferential to me than they would be like maybe.
Two for example, we appreciate the depth of your work.
Yeah, we appreciate it. And I mean, like, God bless her for being in there.
It up.
She doesn't have to be doing any of this, So it's kind of wild to see that.
And I think it's emblematic of you see her, you see Piers Morgan, you see you know German and French and other leaders who have gotten to a point where the okay, this is ridiculous, and you know, the media point Andrew Mitchell obviously.
Is like a mainstream media institution.
The idea that they have not been sufficiently pro Israel is so utterly preposterous as to not even be worth like dignifying arguing again, like, it's just so absurd even to this day, the type of headlines you cover, the Washington Post thing where they put out this obsequious apology because they only had three witnesses to this massacre. Oh, how dare we not give enough credence to Israel's complaint?
CNN came out last night with seventeen witnesses. Wow, seventeen eyewitnesses. Wow, that's saying that it was Israel. That and the washing post stills. You know, we're so sorry we didn't give proper weight to this Israeli denial of the thing that everybody saw happen.
Yeah.
So, I mean so, I think the fact that you have even and Andrea Mitchell, who's in there like this is ridiculous bullshit and going back and forth. I think that is very indicative of the moment that we're in right now.
And the second set of questions goes to the first point. It's not the media that has created the Gods of Humanitarian Foundation crisis. It's Israel that produced this. It's not the messenger that you need to shoot. It's the IDF that is defending God's Humanitarian Foundation that is shooting all the people who are coming to get aid. And you keep seeing the administration and Israeli supporters saying that they delivered seven million meals. She says, what do you want
from us? Nobody had figured out how to get aid in and now all of us sudden, we've gotten seven million meals in this week. And it's like, well, first of all, that's not true that nobody had figured out how to get aid in.
Yeah, they had quite an effective distribution system.
Yeah, the eight agencies were getting aid in it.
It was hard for them to get shot.
It was hard for them to get through the crossings because Israelis would sometimes allow no trucks, sometimes ten, sometimes one hundred. But once they got in, you know, the aid was getting distributed and you weren't seeing you weren't seeing chaotic scenes. So but but now you are. And so she keeps highlighting this seven million figure. But if you do the math on that, there's two million people
plus in Gaza. That means that's and they're talking about over a week, you know, seven million for a week. That's three and a half meals per week per person, and there is no aid coming from anywhere else. So it's not as if this is just supplementing what you're what people are already getting. Yeah, like that's what they're that's what people are getting, and that's on.
Average if you take their numbers at face value.
If you take your.
Numbers of face value, the mostable to them as you possibly could.
Be agentsI say you shouldn't, and because of the way they're chaotically delivering it, the stronger getting most of it. So maybe some people are getting twenty meals a week and most everybody else is getting zero and they're not the kind of nutritious meals. Jeremy Lefredo, for a drop site News just went to an unawarehouse in Jordan. We should maybe we can play that clip next week and
he tours it and there's all this food expiring. But it's very precisely regimented for people who are facing malnutrition and four people who are only getting this in their diet, and so it's very precisely formulated to have need to get all of the calories you need, all of the
balanced diet you need. If you look at what God's Humanitarian Foundation is bringing in, it's like pasta right, It's like it's not what aid organization sans who've been doing this for a very long time would put together if it was up to them. So meanwhile, the isolation and the and the political problems facing the net Yahoo government, both internationally and domestically continue. We can put this next element up on the screen. French dock workers are refusing
to load machine gun AMMO, destined for Israel's army. This comes as you know, Spain is cutting military contracts as there's a lot of pressure on the government of Ireland to abide by its own laws which say that weapons are not supposed to be shipped through their airspace. And so at every you know kink in the system, there's increasingly there's going to be pressure.
I mean, here's what I would say. I think Chris Hedges was saying this to Hassan this week. The leaders are not going to do like were this far along. The leader are not going to end the stranger side. So it is up to actions like this to cut off the supply. And so to see these French dock workers standing in solidarity, it's you know, it's it's quite significant and we need.
We need much more action like that around the world.
Meanwhile, a very interesting coalition of bedfellows is coming together to put pressure on Yahoo. So the Haredi Party is threatening to kind of dissolve the Yahoo coalition. This is the ultra author this is you know, the leading party
for the ultra Orthodox section of Israeli public. And it's all over whether or not kind of Heredi men and women, ultra Orthodox men and women would have to serve just like everybody else, every other Jewish citizen of Israel, you know, has to serve in the IDF and what's what's fascinating about this? And Amir Tabone and also in Hirez has a very useful kind of analysis that can explain and how the politics of this are all shaking up. But
basically there's a fundamental contradiction that can't be resolved. One is that Netnahu Smoe Church Benngavir want a never ending war to realize what they see as a once in several generations opportunity to fully expel the Palestinians from Gaza, like that's that's that's on the one hand. On the other hand is the material problem of not enough soldiers to carry out this genocidal task. Reconciling those two requires
the ultra Orthodox. There's no other way to get there. Yeah, requires the ultra Orthodox to participate in the military, and they don't want to do that. So what what what they are now? They're not saying out loud that this is what they're doing, but there is a belief among some in the ultra Orthodox community that if the war ends, the pressure on them to participate in the military goes away, because the pressure is being driven by the war, right, and so a lot of people in Israel saying this
is an act. This is Ntya who's not falling because of the gods of war. He's falling because of this internal dispute within Israeli society, of internal religious dispute. And that's true on a surface level, but it's only true because the war is making it something that can't be avoided.
That's right, and we can put Shiles tweet hair up on the screen.
He's talking about NETANYAHUO was apparently recorded saying that the reason he fired Defense Ministry you have goan in chief of staff Hertzi Hilevy, were because they were obstacles to allowing Haredi men that exemption from the army. This was a recording uppeared on Channel thirteen. Netnyahu's saying, we need to save not only the state of Israel, but also the Torah world. That is what I believe in God willing,
that is what we've done to do this. We need time to pass the law properly so it cannot be challenge the law allowing this exemption.
We had huge obstacles that we removed.
You know, when the Defense minister is against you, the chief of staff is against you, you can't move forward.
Now we can, so you know, exposing sort of how critical this fault line within Israeli society is and the particular issue right now, obviously it's military service, but there is a broader like demographic, significant longer term demographic issue which the ultra Orthodox have, you know, the largest families, so much of the demographics of the state are shifting towards being ultra Orthodox.
But don't participate in the military, you know it don't work. Don't work.
Yeah, And so the state really supports them. You know, in the US lingo, they're the ultimate welfare queens. And you know, if you have a shrinking population that is of the more liberal liberal in Israeli context, secular variety to support this growing ultra Orthodox population, you're going to have long term, very signific demographic issues. So long as you continue to deny basic rights to Palestinians who also have large families, you know, and you know, perfectly willing to work.
But that's that's off the table as a solution apparently, right and.
Right which before October seventh, you know, Palestinians made up a huge portion of the labor force in Israel, you know, crossing you know, mostly Westbac but also Gaza as well, and there have been efforts to bring in Indian workers and so on that you know haven't worked, you know, remotely, haven't worked remotely as well. The end of the Lebanon conflict, in the sense of having manpower in Lebanon bought Nannyahu
some time. It is classic Nyah who that he doesn't have a solution to this irreconcilable problem, and so he's just trying to punt it forward, just trying to push it off. This one more week, one more day, where we I mean, that's.
Worked for him so far, are last thing.
Let's go ahead and show this extraordinary footage Ryan, and maybe you can explain what we're seeing, as supposed to by drop site news of these two men who recorded themselves trying to obtain food and coming under fire from the IDF machine guns firing over their heads.
Here.
Yeah, as you can hear in the in the background, this is the is These are gun shots. Let's be very careful here in our wording because we don't want to say anything that gets the IDF upset. These are gunshots coming from the Israeli positions. Bullets, bullets are emerging from Israeli weapons. Let's but you know, we can't know.
Let's loan investigation a play out before you figure out.
What really happens.
We need an investigation to figure out how it is that the bullet exited the Israeli weapons.
And how Mastrich them into it and forwarded.
Itself towards the Palestinians who were seeking this this AID. Yeah, this is just another massacre, another debacle at an AID distribution site where they tell everybody calm at this time. And you know, basically first come, first serve. So of course when you have millions of people starving, you get chaos and then they and then they shoot at people.
And I believe they have what four distribution sites set up previously, you know, during times when there was a more fully operational AID distribution network, you're talking about hundreds
of sites scattered throughout the Gaza Strip. Now you have four sites in particular locations to your It's a literal hunger game situation where if you were strong enough to trek the miles and miles, you need to make it to one of those distribution sites and then to basically like fight your fellow Palestinian fellow Palestinians in order to grab a box of this not at all nutritious stuff and brave being fired upon those you know, those bullets exiting is really weapons however that occurred.
That's that's what they've set up here.
And it is such a brutal and horrific and unconscionable system that even the Boston consulting group has decided this is too much for them.
And we, of course.
Originally had the you know, American mercenary who was at the head of this thing. He dropped out before it even was put into place because he was like, Jesus, this is this is beyond this is bad, this is beyond what I am even willing to do. And now you have this, like, you know, completely soulless group of consultants who have also said, okay, we can't be involved with the quote unquote Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
Yeah, and they claim that they were doing it pro bono. Then there's it's like, actually there's a reporting that no, they're they're getting million dollars a month or a week or whatever it was. Well, we'll see, but yeah. So it's yeah, it's an absolute hell on earth. It's like squid Games.
It's like, yeah, I.
Mean you go back and listen to what these guys are put up with to try to get you know, a little bit of pasta in a box.
The video of the American mercenaries who were there, who were like, oh, here they come, and it's just it's so disturbing. I was saying to this to you before the show, like, there is no way that this policy unfolds, of complete genocide and humiliation and dehumanization can unfold without all of the players involved just fundamentally not really believing Palestin it's your human beings, which is why they get so mad at Miss Rachel, and then for the for humanizing.
Them, and then for the people who win the squid game and get one box, they smile, They take a picture of them and post it on Twitter, and all these pro Israel accounts share it, be like, look look at what other adversary is feeding their.
End And Tammi Bruce goes up and brags the familiar meals. How can you complain about this?
Yeah, you complain we're not giving them food. Now you complain that we're giving them food. We can't do anything right,