Kind: captions
Language: en
Trump wants to liberate Americans by
sending US citizens to jail in El
Salvador. He also declares victory in
the Kilmar Garcia deportation case.
While the Supreme Court is like, "Hey,
that's not what we meant." Ray Dallio is
worried about something worse than a
recession. RFK says the HHS will
identify the cause of autism by the
fall. Harvard University sparks debate
with a clapback against Trump defunding
them. And Drew and I debate the ethics
of AI sex bots. Drew, WWE plus politics.
This is real life, man. This is bananas.
At this point, every time somebody comes
to the White House, it's just an
interesting story. Like, nobody just
comes, shakes his hand, and leaves. It's
always headline, headline, spicy tape. I
love that they're doing all of this in
public. I love it so much. This is
amazing. I have a feeling that when this
changes and we don't have Trump as a
president that uh it's not going to be
like this anymore. So, I am savoring
getting to see how his mind works. For
better or worse, I want to see this man.
Like, we are really seeing the
personality of the people running this
country. Sometimes I'm excited and other
times I'm mortified. Uh, but being able
to see it is, I think, a huge win for
the public. We'll see how it all pans
out. Before we jump into the his meeting
with Puklli in the White House, Ray Dio
kind of set a stark turn about what's
happening in the economy right now.
Everybody's talking about tariffs.
People are talking about rising costs,
but he warns about something far more
greater than just like a regular
recession when he was with Meet the
Press over the weekend. I think that um
right now we are at a decision making
point and very close to a recession and
I'm worried about something worse than a
recession if this isn't handled well. A
recession is two negative quarters of
GDP and whether it goes slightly there,
we always have those things. We have
something that's much more profound. We
have a breaking down of the monetary
order. We are going to change the
monetary order because we cannot spend
the amounts of money. So we have that
problem. And when we talk about the
dollar and we talk about tariffs, we
have that. We are having a profound
changes in our domestic order, how
ruling is existing and we're having
profound changes in the world order.
Such times are very much like the 1930s.
I've studied history and this repeats
over and over again. Here's how you have
to understand Ray Dalio. Ray Dalio right
now is banging on the desk. He's
screaming at the top of his lungs. His
vocal cords are tearing. He just always
displays it like this, but he is really
trying to get people to hear what he's
saying. Now, the part that he's not
saying is when he's talking about the
1930s, he's talking very specifically
about Europe. He's talking very
specifically about the rise of Hitler.
Rey is really trying to get people to
understand that there's a big debt cycle
and when that big debt cycle loops
around people you get populism because
there ends up being this massive spread
between the wealthy and the poor and it
creates all this unrest and the people
who feel that they're being um treated
poorly in that moment. They long for a
strong man that will come kick the [ __ ]
out of people uh and make life better
for them. And historically when people
make that promise they're not the best
of people. It can break bad. I will just
say that. And so I don't think that Rey
is saying, "Hey, this is inevitable."
He's certainly not saying that Trump is
Hitler. He's just saying these things
come together into a situation where
debt creates a completely unsustainable
reality. You have to do something. The
something that you do, and by the way,
because I have been checked by people
because I don't always take time to
explain why debt creates this situation.
I'll give a very small nutshell. if you
think more is needed, I'll go deeper. Uh
when you get debt like that, the only
way to sustain those debts is to deficit
spend. And so you end up inflating the
money supply. It's actually the
inflation of the money supply that
drives asset prices way up, which is
exactly how you get that um growth of
inequality between the rich and the
poor. And we're seeing that play out
right now, but it is tied to debt, which
is something that Rey is very careful to
explain. every uh empire in history that
has ever made its way to being the
world's reserve currency falls prey to
printing money and all of them have
devalued their currency like to 99%. So
even the UK which hey is still great
country love them to death but they used
to be like number one and now they are
way lower on the totem pole and
literally the sterling lost over I think
99% of its value in the last 120 years
or whatever. So this is not a like, oh,
no big deal. Like this is exactly how,
as he says in his new book, countries go
broke. So he again, he has a demeanor
that's very subdued, but this is him
banging on the table, slapping it,
trying to get people to pay attention to
say the cycle is knowable. And if we are
not very careful, this doesn't end in a
recession. This ends in either a global
depression or outright kinetic war. We
joked around about it on the live that,
you know, sometimes when you're hung
over, you take that last shot and it
kind of puts you over the edge or is
this like is there any way to kind of
get off of this trail or is it just kind
of uh inevitability that it's going to
end in one of those two things? It's so
close to an inevitability that it is far
there's far more predictive validity to
go ooh we're in a tractor beam and it is
pulling us towards overinflating our
currency finally hitting the breaking
point the rest of the world moving away
from our currency and so I think and now
I am prognosticating a little bit but I
think that Rey would say okay you the
world order is going to be disrupted and
if this isn't handled well this
continues to escalate and become a
bigger problem. Or if it's handled well,
and he's very ky about what handling it
well looks like. He'll say things like,
"You have to delever." He calls it the
3% promise. You've got to get your debt
to GDP ratio where your uh debt or the
servicing of your debt is only 3% of
GDP.
And he's right. But the way that you do
that he doesn't often comment on which
is exactly what we need is okay Rey and
other people like him who are um they
are economists in practice meaning that
Rey has made more money than anybody
else by looking at the world and saying
this is how things are going to change
this is how uh global economies are
interwoven and given the way that the
debt cycle works and a whole bunch of
other factors this is what I think is
going to happen and he's bet on it for
the last 50 years and been more right
than anybody else. Uh people will be
quick to point out that in the last 10
years his um returns have been soft, but
I think it's because he knows
something's coming and he's just trying
to hedge his bets and not hit a terminal
event where he's so like out over his
skis that when something bad happens
that he gets caught off guard because
figuring out the timing precisely is
next to impossible. Um so that's that
situation. You know, going back to your
analogy, uh, it really is like that, but
it's the idea that it's not the one shot
that causes the problem. It's all of the
partying and all of the psychological
things that made you want to go to the
club, to impress the ladies, to try to
get laid, to flex and make it look like
you have access to resources.
um that whole thing, the algorithms
running in the human mind that pulls us
all together around alcohol and dancing
and flirtation and all of that. There's
a similar thing going on from an
economic standpoint, which is a country
becomes the dominant country for
whatever reason after World War II. We
were the dominant country because uh
there was very little kinetic warfare in
our country. We did in Pearl Harbor, but
beyond that, nothing else. Um, so we
were able to spin up our manufacturing,
which hopefully has echoes now as to why
people are certainly why I'm banging the
drum about the need to have
manufacturing capabilities, certainly as
it applies to energy technology warfare.
Uh, just absolute musthaves. Um, and
because we were able to spin up our
manufacturing, basically the whole world
owed us a whole bunch of money. And so
at the end of World War II, we hadn't
taken the damage that everybody else
had. We came into the war really late so
we hadn't even lost as many people as
some of the other major players have per
capita and um we were in a tremendous
financial situation. So we could
establish the Pax Americana world order
where it was like the US dollar is going
to be the world reserve currency that's
going to give us um a ton of leverage
financially to be able to go into debt.
And in the beginning you think hey just
going to have one cocktail it's going to
be fine maybe two Drew maybe two. And
then you start having such a good time.
Literally, you're you're having a great
time and you realize, hey, when we print
a little bit of money, have another
shot, there's no problem. And you have
another shot, there's no problem. And
what you unfortunately don't find out
until it's much too late, even if you
manage your buzz such that you're still
able to walk around, you're still able
to engage, you're not blackout drunk,
but your body just can't process that
much debt, that much alcohol. And so
eventually you vomit. And that's when
you've you've just pushed things too
far. And there is a consequence to be
paid. And so we're in that moment now
where we know we've had a lot to drink
and now the question becomes, is there
something? Can we drink a lot of water?
Like what do we do to try Exactly. to
try to undo this stuff? And the undoing
it when you've accumulated this much
debt is extremely difficult. And I think
all of us have had those experiences
where it's like, "Oh, I actually got off
easy and for some reason I feel fine the
next day. I played things just right. I
slowed down early enough. I waited to go
to bed. Like, we're trying to find the
economic equivalence of those and now I
will not make any attempt to speak for
Ry. And I will just say I look over at
Trump and I just see more shots going
down and I'm like, oof, this is where um
we're now not talking about money
printing. So, object out of the uh out
of the analogy and into the reality. And
it's just there's so much uncertainty
being created right now. It may work
out, but it might not. and it just may
end up in disaster. So I have and can
articulate
what if he's doing it in XYZ way, it
could play out this way and it could end
up being fine. But it's such a high-risk
game that's being played right now that
people really do need to wake up to the
amplitude of the potential consequences
here so that we are now doing everything
we can. reduce our debt, slow down, like
get some um get as much certainty in the
economy as you can while understanding
you absolutely must alter the world
order because the way that it's going
now is because of the debt is driving
you directly into Thusidity's trap where
the US and China are going to collide
first economically. We're literally
already in it. Remember Ry has these six
stages of this And he's been saying now
for like two years that we're midway
through part five. And it's like just
each part of that cycle keeps revealing
itself that first the warfare will be um
political, then the warfare will become
economic and then if you can't solve it
at that point, the warfare becomes
kinetic. And so we need to snap out of
it. Be very cleareyed about where we're
at in the cycle and what we need to do
to deescalate this. And the easiest one
is you've got to stop deficit spending.
You've got to stop printing money. And
right now, given the way that things are
ratcheting up, that's the only solution
I see on the horizon. And you'll hear
Bessant talk about, hey, we've got
options, which is basically that if we
see liquidity drying up in the bond
market, treasuries will go in uh and
we'll start um manufacturing liquidity.
And so the Fed's saying we don't need to
do it yet. We're nowhere near there. Um,
Besson is saying, "Don't need to do it
yet. We're nowhere near there."
Uh, how much of that's PR and how much
of that's real, it it's on the table as
an item to discuss, which should scare
the life out of everybody. On the other
side though, to be fair, the Republicans
new budget bill that includes tax cuts
and increase in military spending that
doesn't help the deficit and our debt
problem the wrong way. if if they are
not able to make good on tariffs
generating revenue, uh the gold card
generating revenue, um and then Doge
being able to deliver enough savings
that like the military increase is
accounted for and the decrease in some
of the other stuff. Um because I think
the military budget's only going up like
15%. I that that number is approximate,
but I think 150 billion roughly correct
to 850. Now it's going to hit a
trillion. Yeah. So, um it's not
inconceivable that we could find savings
that would match that, but you'd
certainly rather see them both going in
the same direction. But the reality is
with the absolute need
to onshore some critical manufacturing
and be prepared from a military
standpoint because right now you're
getting China's outproducing you on on
ships is always one I go to because it's
one that I um have looked at. But
they're they're outproducing. It's it's
something like 20 to one. It's not a
little thing. It's a very massive
difference. And given the historical
importance of um controlling the seas,
that's not a small thing for China to be
ramping up like that.
Yeah, we'll see how the things play out.
I think that there's a lot of turmoil
happening in the world. And we're back
into the White House where yesterday uh
President Buell of El Salvador came to
visit Donald Trump. They talked about
the pending case with Kilmar Garcia as
well as Trump might use El Salvador to
host more American prisoners. Is that
like a weird thing for you before I play
that clip? Like American prisoners
getting kind of exported for their
punishment? It is. It It definitely This
I'm now in emotion. It does not hit me.
Well, this sounds like Australia prison
colonies. Nothing about that just at an
emotional level feels right. The idea
though that you have to get the
criminals off your streets that I like
that a lot. I think that that is
absolutely true. I think that um what B
Kelly has done in El Salvador proves if
there's a known um contingent of people
creating the problem. It's usually young
uh aggressive disaffected young men. Um,
and if you round up the
most aggressive
um,
people as evidenced by criminality,
association with gangs, um,
you're going to be headed in the right
direction, right? And B Kelly has done
some pretty amazing things. Uh, in fact,
we have somebody here that, um, I want
to give his two cents in a second. But
um nonetheless, this is a dangerous game
that has to be done well. And the more I
read about the founders of America, it
they really understood like this is a
system that's like this constant give
and take push and pull. You've got three
branches of government. They're not all
equal though, which is interesting. I
thought they were always meant to be
equal. They are not meant to be equal.
judiciary, at least according to
Alexander Hamilton, was always meant to
be the weakest of the three branches,
which we're gonna talk about because
Trump is certainly treating them like
the weakest, maybe a bit too much. Um,
and so understanding that all of this
stuff is a delicate dance, there's no
solutions, there's only trade-offs, all
that stuff comes into play and this
stuff gets very, very messy very
quickly. But I think that Trump
constitutionally just does not have any
of those breaks. like there's no
um there's no sense of the nuance.
There's blunt force trauma.
Okay. I I kind of want to go through
like a breakdown of the timeline for
this Kilmar Garcia before we play the
reactions and what the explosion in the
White House. As we were kind of doing
our research leading up to the show, we
were reading two different articles, got
two different responses. So, we wanted
to kind of level set and kind of lay out
a timeline. So, as it's stated right
now, Kilmar Garcia came into the US
illegally when he was a teenager. He's
been here over a decade longer than
that. He stays with his wife who is a US
citizen in Maryland. In 2019, he was
arrested and he was then brought into an
immigration court. That immigration
court suh deemed him a member, one that
he's illegal, he has no right to be
here, and that he was a member of MS-13.
After that, they sent it to another
court um another immigration court who
put a hold on the deportation because
they were worried that if they did
export him to El Salvador, he will be
killed because of his criminal his gang
affiliations and that there was a rival
gang called the 18th Street Gang that is
precisely who was going to go after him.
Yeah. Since then, the 18th Street Gang
has been disbanded. Um, so now with
Trump and their mass deportations that
happened a few weeks ago, he was one of
the people brought up into that and
they're anchoring on the 2019 case to
say that they deemed him illegal in
MS-13. Now that MS-13 is an official
terrorist organization, there's no more
protections for him. He can now get
expelled um from the company from the
country. So, with that as a timeline,
you're going to hear a bunch of back and
forth between both what happened in the
White House and then we have a CNN
lawyer commentator who gave us what the
Supreme Court interpretation actually
meant. And then we can kind of have our
reactions after those. This this is um
one thing, one more thing just to put in
people's minds. What you're going to see
is um two different sides claiming
victory. So, people that want and this
was a 90 Supreme Court decision. So,
they unanimously said something and the
Trump administration is saying they
unanimously said we were right and that
the federal district court judge had no
ability to tell us how to run foreign um
policy. And then the other side is
saying, "What are you talking about?
this was 900 that you absolutely need to
bring this person back into the country
and you've got to now run the process um
the way that you would run the process
on anybody that wasn't erroneously
deported, which is how they're saying
that the Supreme Court decision played
out. Okay, with that all in mind, now
we're going to do our best to give you
guys both sides of this.
Wait a minute. Can you just also respond
to that question because you know it's
asked by CNN and they always ask it with
a slant uh because they're totally
slanted because they don't know what's
happening. That's why nobody's watching
them. But would you answer that question
also? Yes, gladly. So, as Pam mentioned,
there's an illegal alien from El
Salvador. So, with respect to you, he's
a citizen of El Salvador. So, it's very
arrogant even for American media to
suggest that we would even tell El
Salvador how to handle their own
citizens as a starting point as two
immigration courts found that he was a
member of MS-13. When President Trump
declared MS-13 to be a foreign terrorist
organization, that meant that he was no
longer eligible under federal law, which
I'm sure you know, you're very familiar
with the INA, that he was no longer
eligible for any form of immigration
relief in the United States. So, he had
a deportation order that was valid,
which meant that under our law, he's not
even allowed to be present in the United
States and had to be returned because of
the foreign terrorist designation. This
issue was then by a district court judge
completely inverted and a district court
judge tried to tell the administration
that they had to kidnap a citizen of El
Salvador and fly him back here. That
issue was raised to the Supreme Court
and the Supreme Court said the district
court order was unlawful and its main
components were reversed 90 unanimously
stating clearly that neither secretary
of state nor the president could be
compelled by anybody to forcibly
retrieve a citizen of El Salvador from
El Salvador who again is a member of
MS-13 which is I'm sure you understand
rapes little girls, murders women,
murders children, is engaged in the most
barbaric activities in the world. And I
can promise you if he was your neighbor,
you would move right away. Uh, one thing
that I'm always trying to remind myself
is I'm being spun at all times. And that
even whether I want to or not, I'm
spinning people because I have a
worldview and I have a frame of
reference and everything I say is going
to adhere to the frame of reference that
I have. And we're all doing it all the
time. Now, I think some people,
certainly in the political arena, are
doing it in a more aggressive, possibly,
this won't always be true, but possibly
nefarious way. They want you to see
something in a certain way that allows
them to either get power or maintain
power. And so, people are always going
to position you, spin you, try to get
you to see things through their lens.
And by controlling the frame, you can
control the debate. And so, what we're
witnessing in this specific case is the
clash of two frames. So, the first thing
I did was go look up how what is the
Supreme Court saying about this because
they were the ones that ruled 900 on
something. And so, what are they saying?
We'll get to that in a second. But, um,
here is Is there more that you want to
play here or do you want to go to the
legal analysis? I thought you were
setting that up, but we could play more
here. Yeah. No, no, no. If there's more
here, hit this. Supreme Court Steve, was
it nine to nothing? Yes, it was a 90 in
our favor. in our favor against the
district court ruling, saying that no
district court has the power to compel
the foreign policy function of the
United States. As Pam said, the ruling
solely stated that if this individual at
El Salvador's sole discretion was sent
back to our country that we could deport
him a second time. Well, no version of
this legally ends up with him ever
living here because he is a citizen of
El Salvador. That is the president of El
Salvador. Your questions about it per
the court can only be directed to him.
It is my understanding that that's not
quite what it said. Again, what it said
was um that the Trump administration
must facilitate the return of this
person. Now, the implication is that if
El Salvador and they're they're actually
quite careful. I don't know if it's in
the clip that we have here, but um I
think it was Trump that ends up saying
like, "Yeah, we would supply an airplane
or whatever to bring him back." And I
remember when I first heard that and
hadn't heard the distinction around the
word facilitate yet, I was like, why
would he supply the plane if El Salvador
was sending him back? He clearly doesn't
want because he has to to adhere to what
the Supreme Court ruling says. So, the
question ends up
becoming why did the Supreme Court give
him the wiggle room that they gave him?
Uh, and when the Supreme Court speaks
out, it's not all nine judges. Now, do I
read anything into that? Was it just the
other ones were too busy? I I don't know
what to make of that. Um, but it
is you are being spun. We'll get back to
the show in just a moment, but first,
here is a tax strategy most people miss
while rushing to file by April 15th.
Most people only focus on filing,
missing the chance to contribute
thousands of dollars to their IRA. This
is where iTrust Capital can really
change the game. While traditional IAS
limit you to stocks and bonds, iTrust
Capital lets you invest in
cryptocurrency, physical gold, and
silver, all with the same powerful tax
advantages. Their platform gives you 247
access to buy and sell alternative
assets with no monthly fees and minimal
transaction costs. They handle
everything. Setting up your new IRA,
facilitating transfers or rollovers, all
necessary IRS reporting, and unlimited
secure storage with institutional
partners. Just visit itrustc
capital.com/impact and use code impact
when you sign up to fund your account to
get a $100 bonus. Again, that's
capital.com/impact and use code impact.
This is a paid advertisement. And now,
let's get back to the show. So then with
that, let's go to the other side and
kind of see um chief and the legal
analyst Paula Reed, how she broke down
exactly what the ruling actually said.
Uh CNN brought her on. She's
independent.
Um yeah, chief legal correspondent,
President Trump and President Ble made
it clear that Abrago Garcia will not be
returned to the United States despite
this US Supreme Court ruling saying that
Trump had to facilitate his return. So,
are they just ignoring a US Supreme
Court ruling or is the fact that the
ruling was so mushy in your words? Yes.
Giving him an an opening. It's a
technical term I learned in law school,
Jake. U mushy. Look, they're working
within the ambiguity that the Supreme
Court justices gave them. They did not
order the administration to return him
to the United States. They said that
they need to facilitate this return.
They could have said, "We order him
returned." But they didn't do that. So,
you heard the attorney general. She was
being very careful in the Oval Office
when she was asked, you know, would you
help? She says, of course, we'd provide
a plane, right? Thereby facilitating
whatever El Salvador is doing. The
Supreme Court appeared to defer to the
executive branch given that this is an
international matter. And you see, yes,
it does look a little bit like a
semantic game, but they are playing
within the bounds of what the Supreme
Court ruled. So, no, they are not
defying this order. And take a listen to
how White House Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven Miller views it.
and a district court judge tried to tell
the administration that they had to
kidnap a citizen of El Salvador and fly
him back here. That issue was raised
with the Supreme Court. And the Supreme
Court said the district court order was
unlawful and its main components were
reversed 90 unanimously, stating clearly
that neither secretary of state nor the
president could be compelled by anybody
to forcibly retrieve a citizen of El
Salvador.
Stephen, you got the win. I don't know.
I don't know why he had to go so far
because what he's saying is not
completely accurate. Talk to the All
right. So, the district court said that
the administration needed to facilitate
and effectuate the return of this man to
the United States and gave a date. The
Supreme Court says yes, you need to
facilitate this. But when it comes to
effectuating making it happen, they said
this needs to go back down to the lower
court. They need to clarify what that
meant. and they warned the lower court,
you need to be differential to the
executive branch because we're talking
about foreign affairs. And they gave no
deadline. So again, they're not running
a foul, but Steven's uh summary of the
case there, the the holding, it's not
exactly accurate. Okay. Um so after
hearing all that, I was like, "All
right, I want to know what the Supreme
Court is saying on this." The Supreme
Court has addressed a matter concerning
Kilmar Abbrego Garcia on April 10th,
2025. The court unanimously ruled that
the Trump administration must facilitate
in quotes his release from custody in El
Salvador and ensure that his case is
handled as it would have been handled
had he not been improperly deported. The
court acknowledged that Abrego Garcia's
removal was illegal and emphasized the
government's obligation to rectify the
situation. Uh, and then it goes on, uh,
Justice Sonia, Justice Sonia Sadame,
joined by Justices Elellanena Kagan and
Kenti Brown Jackson, expressed concern
over the administration's position,
warning that it could set a dangerous
precedent allowing the government to
deport individuals without legal
consequences, so long as it does so
before a court can intervene. So, it is
um it's very interesting to me that they
allowed for this squishy interpretation
that they are sending it back down uh to
the um district court judge to clarify
what they mean by facilitate.
Um, this is one
[Music]
where I really want to better understand
if the Supreme Court is doing leaving
the room for interpretation because they
don't want to step on um the executive
branch's ability to run foreign policy.
Is this
um is this something else? I I am very
surprised given that what the Supreme
Court is supposed to do is say this is
either constitutional or
unconstitutional that they didn't give
like a very clear line in the sand that
not only would their ruling be clear,
but that if there justices are going to
come out and talk about this that they
would just reiterate exactly this is a
line in the sand. This is exactly what
has to be done according to the
constitution. Uh, and so I'm going to
guess over time I will learn that this
is the way that this game is played.
that they
are allowing for the executive branch to
remain in control and that when they are
unclear, their job is to not be quote
unquote activists and to just say,
"Look, this is the Constitution doesn't
have anything very clear." And so, we're
going back on the um foreign policy is
meant to be handled by the executive
branch and therefore we see that out.
We're going to let it remain in his
court and not be constantly trying to
override him. That's my gut instinct,
but we'll see how this plays out over
time. Because the legal system is a
precedence game, it definitely raises a
red flag for me because what happened
and we can interchange labels, but what
happened was a population of people that
were in the United States were rounded
up and sent away. And in yes, when when
you add the moniker of illegal and a
couple people lean back in their chair,
say, "Okay, that makes sense to me." But
I'm I'm nervous. I my 1984 book uh
report is starting to jump up where I'm
starting to realize if you change that
moniker from illegal alien to domestic
terrorist to dissident to insurgent and
if those words keep changing it could
then start to hit actual US citizens and
that's I think is a is a bigger red
line. Well, here's the bad news. He
literally talks about US citizens in the
meeting with Bkelli when asked like
would you send an American citizen to
jail in El Salvador? His answer is yes.
Now he's saying if they are ultraviolent
one of like the examples he gives if you
rape a 78-year-old woman or you beat an
old woman in the back of the head with a
baseball bat. Um those are the kind of
people that I would send. So, he's not
saying like shoplifterss and stuff, but
it is
um it is all too easy for it to keep
moving in that direction. For sure.
Definitely. Now, I know that we're
talking about this at the policy level.
We wanted to kind of take another look
at it from like a more empathetic on the
ground level. So, we have our boy G in
the building today. Um and G, I know
your family is from El Salvador, right?
Correct. So, from your perspective, has
how has this been? Um, I know during the
election cycle when my family's Haitian,
so when we were eating dogs and cats, it
was hilarious and funny, but also
traumatizing and like weird. So, I feel
like El Salvador citizens are having
that moment right now. So, just from
your perspective, what has this like
last couple weeks looked like for you?
For sure. Uh, I mean, this is a very
interesting time for the country in
general. Um, obviously we went from
being one of the most dangerous
countries on the Western Hemisphere to
now being the safest, deemed the safest.
Uh, and that's something we take pride
in. I get to go visit my family
specifically because of what B Kelly
did. Because of what Boulli has done in
terms of rounding out all the criminals,
uh, making just the streets safe again
from an education standpoint, from a
health standpoint, bringing back social
security programs, things like this that
ultimately help the working class. All
these things have been great. um this
particular situation with uh this case
in Maryland is a bit sad uh from my
perspective only because I know that
that specific generation is part of the
generation that necessarily didn't have
a chance to you know have a future in El
Salvador. were part of the class that
was always trying to escape the gang
life itself, right? And in many ways, a
lot of not a lot, but a small percentage
of the people that are in jail right now
had to essentially affiliate to the
gangs in order to save themselves or
their families, right? Mhm. And so these
are parts of these different cases that
are now surging that we're kind of
forgetting that they at some point were
also just they were in the victim the
the victim chair, you know, and to this
day what he's been working he's been in
the this particular guy he's been in the
states for what 17 18 years 20 years and
assuming he's made a pretty good life of
himself. Um that it's something to think
about that it's not always as black and
white as you seems. You know he's not
completely a terrorist, right? maybe he
had to do these things to again to
protect his family, but that also
involved him having to leave the country
to fight for his better, you know, a
better life for himself and his family.
So, these are just things to be that
need to be taken into account when
evaluating the cases that I don't think
necessarily are right now. Um, so you
know, while I am happy that I can go
back and visit my that my parents cannot
retire there and that, you know, that
kids can go on the street, be out in the
street through midnight, that moms and
dads can go and work wherever they want,
different parts of the country knowing
that they're going to make it back.
There there is that small fraction of
people that are suffering the
consequences of something that they
didn't really have control over. So, you
know, it's it's it's uh it's a tough
situation to be in for sure. Yeah. And I
thank you, by the way. really appreciate
you talking about that. So, obviously
here at a company like this where we do
media and we're talking about all these
things. Um, we certainly encourage
everybody here in the company to if
you've got something to say, say it
because I want to know, is there a
better way for me to think? And so as we
were talking about this before we
started rolling, G uh had said, you
know, that um it is priceless seeing the
change happen in El Salvador and uh at
the same time it is scary to start
hearing your country's name thrown
around like this. Uh people getting
snatched off the streets, maybe they're
the right person to grab, maybe they're
not. Uh and then for me it triggers that
there's no solutions, there's only
trade-offs. And so it's interesting the
way B Kelly talks about this that uh
this is him saying it. I don't think of
myself as having imprisoned thousands of
people. I see myself as having liberated
millions of people. And so Trump was
then you know grabbing onto that line
and oh I love that I'm going to use
that. And he isn't wrong, but it's like,
man, do
you you you want to create a
lifeline so that there is a way to
figure out did we get somebody wrong.
Um, I'm not saying stop the momentum.
I'm not saying don't do it. But I am
saying again, not to overquote Alexander
Hamilton, but Alexander Hamilton, the
most quoted person by the Supreme Court,
by the way, has been quoted over 300
times. uh sorry, 291 times as of 2000.
So I imagine it's over 300 by now. And
um he was the one that pushed for
pardons for the president to be able to
give pardons because he said in a moment
where um the necessary this is a
paraphrase but the necessary force with
which the um legal system must act if it
doesn't have that kind of relief valve
then it just becomes too draconian.
And that's the thing that I want to see
showing up here in a way that it's not
is right now this feels like team ball
and the other side wants to dunk on
Trump and say see like this is all wrong
like you're getting the wrong people and
Trump wants to be like well we're
perfect we haven't gotten anybody and so
I want that energy of we'll make
mistakes but we'll correct them quickly
and look maybe legitimately this guy
isn't a mistake and maybe people that
look closely at this are like he really
is MS-13
Um, nonetheless, the energy that I would
love to hear coming off of We the People
is there needs to be some path to review
that if we catch the wrong person, um,
that we look at it and we say, "Cool."
Now, if they're saying, "We've looked at
this guy. We love that there is a review
path. He's been reviewed and and we
stand by it." Okay. But the energy is
more just like, "You're [ __ ] dumb.
You don't understand uh how this
procedure works. And if you don't
believe me that that's the energy, watch
uh Steven Miller talking to the press.
Uh now admittedly called them out. They
didn't they don't understand the law. U
but the thing that if I'm going to be
charitable from their perspective is
yeah, but you're acting like a dick. And
it's like right now in this moment, we
need to know that um if we've got people
here in the country that are getting
caught up in this, again, maybe this
isn't the guy, but if we've got somebody
that's erroneously gotten caught up in
this that you guys are going to pump the
brakes, look at that, and come up with
some sort of resolution. Yeah, we we'll
see. This is still actively happening.
We'll see if they book a deal or
something, but as of right now, Kumar
Garcia will be remaining in the El
Salvadorian prison. Uh, thank you G.
Appreciate you, man. Yeah, no doubt. For
sure. No, no doubt. Thank you. In other
news, RFK has made an announcement that
he'll figure out what caused the rise in
autism by September. Um, let's go to the
clip that he had with Fox News. The
studies that they did were very, very
narrow and there were about 17 studies.
The Institute of Medicine, which is part
of the National Academy of Sciences,
says that 14 of those studies are
invalid.
And the the biggest weakness in those
studies is they never studied vaccinated
versus unvaccinated group, which is the
only way that you can really make this
determination. And more importantly,
none of the vaccines that are given to
children during the first six months of
life were ever studied. We're going to
look at vaccine, but we're going to look
at everything. Everything is on the
table. our food system, our water, our
air, uh different ways of parenting, all
the kind of changes that may have may
have triggered this epidemic. It is an
epidemic. Epidemics are not caused by
genes. Genes can provide a
vulnerability, but you need an
environmental toxin. So, we know that it
is an environmental toxin that is
causing this cataclysm. And we are going
to identify it. We are narrowly focused
on identifying it and using as many
scientists as we can from universities
and research centers all over the world
to focus them through NIH through Jay
Pachara to focus them on answering this
question.
Man, I am shocked that he's calling his
shot that fast that we're going to have
an answer whatever five months from now.
Um it would be incredible. So, not to
get lost in the timeline because I'll be
a little surprised if they actually have
a definitive answer that quickly. To say
that means you already think you know.
Um, but that he is pursuing this stuff
should be in my opinion the least
controversial thing in the world of all
the people um to be in a twist about. I
just I cannot track how any sensible
clearthinking person is bothered by what
he's a try what he's trying to do. So if
he were to come back and say uh without
evidence it's vaccines, then I would
understand if people said, "Hey, the
methodology that you use doesn't make
any sense. There's no way that you can
call this. We got to have a debate. This
is crazy." I'd be all for that. But when
somebody's like, "We're going to look at
everything. Everything's on the table.
We've got to figure something out." I
the numbers I'm going to give are
directionally correct, if not literally
correct, that uh back in whatever the
1970s, it was like one in 10,000 people
had autism. And now it's like one in 37.
It's insanity.
So that kind of freakish rise to his
point, that's an epidemic. There is a
cause. That cause is knowable, but
you've got to do the work to figure out
what it is. And so, do you have a sense
of like, give me the flip. Why is this
controversial? What do people latch on
to? Everybody, I think when they hear
this, they automatically go to vaccines.
He's having a war against vaccines.
Somebody in Texas just died because of
measles. So, so you're going to kill
people. Yeah. That you're you're messing
with official established science to
uncover some conspiracy theory. Can I
throw something in and you tell me where
I'm going wrong? Uh, when I hear that
argument, I'm like, uh, you can still
get your kid vac vaccinated. Unless he
says we're not going to allow
vaccines, what's the problem? It's
irresponsible that your kid doesn't get
vaccinated because they can injure my
kid.
Voter problem. The other people are so
stupid. They'll never be able to think
through this. We just have to have one
blanket party message. Vaccine good.
That is that. But to RFK's credit, he
talked about removing fluoride and
water. He talked about removing dyes and
food. So for him to be the vaccine guy
when he has talked about other issues
that have to his point have been
environmental factors that can impact
this. Um I'm at least giving him credit
for being blanket like we're going to
look at everything. Everything is on the
table. Um and he's already done
legislation in those other areas. I
think vaccine is the one thing that he
hasn't quite been able to break yet but
it seems like he's trying to start with
the science first before any sweeping
mandates or anything. Man, I'm really
going to be curious to see how many what
they call natural experiments have been
run because there will inevitably be
groups of people like for instance, oh
during co um parents were terrified to
leave their house so they didn't get
their kids vaccinated until they were
three, whatever. There will be things
like that or areas in the world where
people don't get vaccines for religious
reasons because they're um an untouched
population in the Amazon rainforest,
whatever. And you'll be able to see
like, oh wait, this group of people,
like they do this with the Japanese. Uh
you look at the Japanese, no obesity.
Maybe it's in the genes. They move to
America, they get obese just like
everybody else. Nope. Guess it's not the
genes. So then it becomes, okay, well,
there's something else going on. Maybe
it's not the food supply, though. That
seems obvious. Uh but we know that it's
not the genes. Um and
given the timelines that they're talking
about, he's got to be doing something
like that. They're looking at data that
already exists and finding patterns in
those um that they're expecting to yield
a very conclusive result. And now with
AI, I mean, it'll be able to parse
through a lot of data. In five months,
AI will have like 17 more models and
they'll be able to read brains by that
point. So, who knows? We'll get back to
the show in a moment, but first, tech's
biggest secrets are now being shared.
And here is how to listen in. Whether
you're tracking AI's exponential growth,
trying to navigate the crypto landscape,
or just trying to understand how
technology is reshaping global power,
you need an insider perspective. That's
exactly what Tech Unheard delivers. This
is not your typical corporate podcast.
It's ARM CEO Renee Hos getting tech's
most influential leaders to drop their
guard and speak candidly about what's
really happening. But one of the things
that I realized was that as technology
got more complex, it just became
impossible for one company to
specialize. You had to have the value
chain split out into different companies
so that you could have the
specialization that made technological
progress possible. Tune in to Tech
Unheard from ARM and NPM right now on
your favorite podcast platform. Your
competition is already listening. And
now let's get back to the show. The
president of Harvard, Alan Garber, came
out with a statement that has went viral
on X. Yeah, like this is crazy. I
thought I was misreading the number of
views that this has 48 million, right?
Uh yeah, 45.5 now. Jesus. No government,
regardless of which parties in power,
should dictate what private universities
can teach, whom they can admire and
admit and hire, and which areas of study
and inquiry they can pursue. Um, a lot
of talk has been around secondary
education, especially with the protest
that happened for Palestine and um,
Israel, that a lot of people are now
thinking that because uh, universities
will allow that type of demonstration
that indirectly supports a terrorist
organization that they should then one
remove funding, they should be
restricted, their curriculum should be
re-evaluated and all these things. Um, I
know you're Mr. Top Down bad. Well, but
here we're we're hiding the ball on this
one. So the the quote, let's read it
again. No government, regardless of
which party is in power, should dictate
what private universities can teach,
whom they can admit and hire, and which
areas of study and inquiry they can
pursue. I agree. He is right. But then
you can't be funded by the federal
government if you're not going to adhere
to their mandates. So uh Harvard has
like $50 billion
um stored in their endowment. So the
real debate and the I mean the only
reason I can think that this has gone
viral is that that this is a debate
about should we be giving money to these
institutions yes or no and if people
want the dollars from the government
then now you're going to be beholden to
what the taxpayers want. It's that
simple. And if the taxpayers are saying
because it was my understanding that the
issue that really tipped this over was
um transgender women in female sports
and if that's true and my understanding
is correct, it's like well then if you
really feel that strongly about it, fair
enough. Like do your thing. You you're
right. As a private institution, you
should be able to do whatever you want.
And if that's what you want to do, don't
take the federal dollars. Use the money
from your endowment, which is plenty. I
mean, you could run that school, I mean,
theoretically forever. Um, so go for it.
So, I This is another one of those
where, um, I get that they want as much
money as they can get, and if they can
get money from the government, they're
going to spin and try to get people on
their side. Totally understand. But this
one seems pretty simple. If you want
federal dollars, you're going to have to
adhere to what taxpayers are willing to
pay for. And I believe Donald Trump felt
something similar because on Truth
Social, he tweeted, "Perhaps Harvard
should lose its tax exempt status and be
taxed as a political entity if it keeps
pushing political, ideological, and
terrorist inspired supporting
sickness." Remember, tax exempt status
is totally contingent on acting in the
public interest. It's so interesting.
This is um this is very much a Trump way
to respond. This is escalatory tariffs.
At first it was like, "Well, we're just
going to withhold your funding." And you
then clap back. And so now it's okay.
Well, let's talk about your tax status.
So, um, I get what he's trying to do,
but I also go back to that impulse, I
think, can turn pretty dark pretty fast.
So, um, I agree with him that just be
cut and dry. This is what you have to do
to qualify for the federal dollars. I
was quote unquote given the mandate.
this is one of the things that the
public really cares about. Um, and so if
you don't adhere to these things, we're
going to pull your funding. But just
because they don't like it, there's no
need to start escalating. Either
universities get tax exempt status or
they don't. And if they don't, it needs
to be a universal policy. um and not a
one-off because you think that Harvard's
got a big mouth because now you get into
um free speech issues and Trump plays
pretty fast and loose with that. Happy
see how it plays out. Um in other news,
this was an interesting story that hit
my feed over the weekend, but I kind of
with the rise of AI, Black Mirror,
Robotics, I thought that this would be a
much bigger conversation. So, did you
start watching Black Mirror? I'm like
two episodes in. So far, I got the first
one in. It's good. Yeah, we really
probably should be talking about it.
Yeah, we should do a Black Mirror
breakdown maybe on the live next time.
Uh, join us for our lives every Tuesday,
Thursday, Friday, 6 a.m. Um, okay. So,
what is No Mercy? That is It was a PC
simulation game that had a protagonist
rape, torture, and kill women. Um, there
was some incest in there. I heard that
there was a scene where like you can do
it, you can like rape your mom. Like,
it's it's it's really crazy. It's a
really crazy game. Um, this game at
first didn't carry a rating. didn't take
carry a content warning, a content
warning. It got downloaded so many times
in early April that it then went to the
homepage because it was being featured
so much. So, it it picked up
steam pow. Um but uh advocates of course
um different civil rights organizations,
they stepped in kind of flagging like,
"Hey, this game is a little bit weird.
It went viral on Twitter over the
weekend and then the game has now been
pulled and like removed." Now, I
understand the freedom of platform, the
freedom of expression, things like that,
but again, because we're in a black
mirror, we're on the precipice of AI,
we're on the precipice of like these
LLMs pretty much running the world. How
do you feel about like the ethics
conversation and the IP laws in a weird
spot, like there's this kind of murky,
we can't see what i